nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Environmentalism! Remember that carry on?

Sh1tbag OToole

This used to be the preserve of 'hippies' and new age oddballs and other groups of eh, smelly people you ignored but during the Celtic Tiger it was starting to grab hold in the mainstream before quickly dieing a death when the monster that is the economy needed to be fed again when the recession started.

For a while it used to be popular to begrudge people or otherwise have a go at them for owning a SUV because of the perceived fuel wastage of driving one of those. So environmentalism provided a convenient stick to bate people better off than yourself but also on the flip side it allowed people living very wasteful lifestyles to feel better about themselves too. They could do carbon offsetting which means you pay some clever entrepreneur's company a few bob and they use some of it to buy some lad in Thailand a shiny new Honda GX-35 engine for his tuk-tuk and replace the old, polluting 2-stroke. The company pockets the rest.

When the Green Party got into power they surely helped to bring environmentalism out of favour as they used just about every environmental problem as an excuse to extort money from ordinary people to put it into the hands of the Government or else shovel-ready pork-barrel projects. Car scrappage scheme, mandatory BER certs, new lower tax for post-08 cars, subsidies for solar panels, septic tank inspections. These were all nice little earners for whoever the Greens and FF were looking out for.

The subsidies were never worth it anyway as an ordinary individual, they were just an excuse for the government to give money to certain "registered installers" and the government would get the money back off you in the long run. If you had a company with a big wind farm you could probably milk them indefinitely but a normal individual always gets screwed in the end. In Belgium they are now looking at charging a €200 annual tax on people who have solar panels so I'm sure that will make its way over here. Things that start off in mainland Europe, good or bad are considered as progress over here.

I'm glad the Greens are gone because some of the stuff the more extreme environmental nuts have downright scary ideas like forcing people to live in cities because they think living in the countryside uses too much resources and putting ridiculous property tax on houses they deem too big or too hard to heat. At least these nuts will have nobody in Government who will listen to them. There were also alarmist mad scientists who insisted that if we didn't build a supermassive sprinkler system in the Atlantic to spray water into the air we'd all be DOOMED before long or that we are inches away from the global warming "point of no return" where the planet irreversibly heats up to boiling point and beyond.

So what started off as hippies wanting to save the whales eventually just became an excuse for taxing people or taking their money through a government supported private company and restricting their behaviour. It is a shame really because I would be interested in clean energy technology and what have you but not the gobshite political movement that follows it. As soon as you mention solar panels now to someone they think of some jumped up young lad landing up to the front door with shiny brochures and promises of subsidies, trying to get them to part with their money

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Spurtacus

Sergeant wrote: »

One of my great 'Celtic Tiger' era memories was driving a classic Mercedes petrol-guzzler with huge emissions and a noisy engine past former Green Party minister Eamon Ryan as he cycled along in the pouring rain.

Trevor, how could you . . .

hooradiation

Sergeant wrote: »

One of my great 'Celtic Tiger' era memories was driving a classic Mercedes petrol-guzzler with huge emissions and a noisy engine past former Green Party minister Eamon Ryan as he cycled along in the pouring rain.

Well, it's good to see that you've matured as a person and are no longer such a petty shi--- oh, wait.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Spurtacus wrote: »

I strolled into the green issue/environmental forum around here once.
The big debate centred around having more than one bin companies working your estate outweighs any benefit of recycling in the first place due to extra diesel usage involved.
I look forward to the day when something like that can be high up on my agenda.

Green issues found that god shaped hole left by secularisation, people crave guilt & need to be admonished by a higher power.

No, that was the tabloids.

asdfg!

'They haven't gone away you know' :P

I'm all for the environment, recycling, reducing pollution all that. I even felt a bit guilty when I first bought a motorcycle and was worried about it's emissions.:o

But if there's on thing that put me off it when the whole thing was hijacked by the eco warriors and their wacky ideas.

Then there's man mad climate change which has become such an article of faith among many people to the point where if any criticism of it is voiced that they practically foam at the mouth and form lynch mobs for the skeptics. To the point were Carbon Dioxide is actually classified as a pollutant. Tell that to the trees.

The latest scare story to keep us awake is the bee shortage. As usual we're being treated to the usual: 'If something isn't done etc....' and of course some big company is to blame for it all.

Well forgive me if I don't lie awake at night worrying about yet another scare story from the green brigade.

If there's a shortage of bees well let's breed them. A shockingly novel concept don't you think. Maybe the people who look after them could be called...let's see beekeepers. That's an idea. Plus of course everyone will have to pay a bee tax. That's the usual green answer to everything.:mad:

[Deleted User]

asdfg! wrote: »

Then there's man mad climate change which has become such an article of faith among many people to the point where if any criticism of it is voiced that they practically foam at the mouth and form lynch mobs for the skeptics. To the point were Carbon Dioxide is actually classified as a pollutant. Tell that to the trees.

If there's a shortage of bees well let's breed them. A shockingly novel concept don't you think. Maybe the people who look after them could be called...let's see beekeepers. That's an idea. Plus of course everyone will have to pay a bee tax. That's the usual green answer to everything.:mad:

Are you saying you don't believe in pollution, climate change or global bee decline?

Wibbs

asdfg! wrote: »

The latest scare story to keep us awake is the bee shortage. As usual we're being treated to the usual: 'If something isn't done etc....' and of course some big company is to blame for it all.

Well forgive me if I don't lie awake at night worrying about yet another scare story from the green brigade.

Eh this ain't tie dyed baked hippies saying this, it's researchers on the ground. Bee species are in trouble and this is not good for the ecosystem and very bad for us and our food production. Plus this will cost us in real money terms. We're talking hundreds of billions per year. And it will hit closer to home too. Up in the North the colony collapse has been over 50% of all colonies. I doubt it's very different down south. A mates dad has a few hives and he's lost a third of them to this last year.

If there's a shortage of bees well let's breed them. A shockingly novel concept don't you think. Maybe the people who look after them could be called...let's see beekeepers. That's an idea. Plus of course everyone will have to pay a bee tax. That's the usual green answer to everything.:mad:

Great idea, only it's not working. Beekeepers, you know the "breeders" of bees, they are the ones that are having whole hive die offs and that's in controlled conditions compared to the wild populations. Fcuk knows how wild populations are doing as they're harder to track. As well as the insecticide link there also seems to be a virus and a blood sucking mite involved, a multifactoral attack on bees(though the last two seem to be finishing off already weakened colonies).

davet82

don't worry, sure it will be grand lads

Spurtacus

Nobody every thinks of blue issues, or red issues for that matter, yellow issues don't even get a look in, there is a huge inequity here.

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

Great idea, only it's not working. Beekeepers, you know the "breeders" of bees, they are the ones that are having whole hive die offs and that's in controlled conditions compared to the wild populations. Fcuk knows how wild populations are doing as they're harder to track. As well as the insecticide link there also seems to be a virus and a blood sucking mite involved, a multifactoral attack on bees(though the last two seem to be finishing off already weakened colonies).

What will probably happen in the short term (in the EU at least) is an EU-wide ban or at least restriction on the use of pesticides for a set period of years, to see if we can get a handle on the bee populations.

Naturally this will be seen by farmers and whingers as EU nanny-stating and interfering, and in order to prevent the price of food from exploding there'll need to be yet more farming subsidies to offset the lower crop yields.

Like most ecological issues, this is one where the producer and the end consumer have created a debt through many decades of better living, but now it's time to pay the piper.
The problem is that farmers only see crop yields and consumers only see prices, so even if we succeed in recovering the bee population, the morons of this world will only see an interfering EU that's robbing us of our rights, or somesuch nonsense. As people and societies we are generally incapable of making short-term sacrifices for long-term improvements. We always want immediate improvements regardless of the long-term implications.

tin79

NuckingFacker wrote: »

The name has it - Enviro Mental.

It has it even more if you spell it properly.

kneemos

Last time I saw a bee he was ready for a fight,angry feckers.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

. Beekeepers, you know the "breeders" of bees, they are the ones that are having whole hive die offs and that's in controlled conditions compared to the wild populations. Fcuk knows how wild populations are doing as they're harder to track.

Made some space for them in my garden. Not especially them, but suitable like.

Leave some ground alone through the summer months. Bumblebees will create nests in undisturbed compost heaps or underneath hedgerows

.

We could all make bee hotels. Gonna bee all the rage next year IMO. Good website called foxleas .com all about this kind of thing.

http://www.foxleas.com/bee_house.htm

--Kaiser--

kneemos wrote: »

Better recycled than dumped?

Not necessarily. It makes sense to recycle some things, metal and glass mostly. But if it costs more (in energy and money) to process this recycled stuff than make it in the first place, then it doesn't make much sense.

Good Penn and Teller episode on recycling actually

My uncle told me about a mine he used to work at in Oz. Once they mine was no longer financially viable, they sold the space in the mines as dumping grounds. It produces so much methane that they use this to generate electricity and pump it back into the grid. That's clever, but it probably wouldn't be classed as 'environmental'

Mr Whirly

Driving a jeep or a SUV when you live in the burbs makes you an automatic gee bag. No exceptions.

--Kaiser--

Mr Whirly wrote: »

Driving a jeep or a SUV when you live in the burbs makes you an automatic gee bag. No exceptions.

I agree but probably for different reasons than you.

Jeeps/4x4s (who the hell calls them SUVs in this country?) have an unnecessarily high centre of gravity, making them more likely to roll over, if you need to go off-road regularly then that's a different story.
Similarly they are unnecessarily heavy, making more dangerous in collisions.

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

Made some space for them in my garden. Not especially them, but suitable like.

I'd love to claim I've done the same S as my garden is an effin bee and wildlife sanctuary, but that's down to me being a lazy git and it's run amok with wildness.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I agree but probably for different reasons than you.

Jeeps/4x4s (who the hell calls them SUVs in this country?) have an unnecessarily high centre of gravity, making them more likely to roll over, if you need to go off-road regularly then that's a different story.
Similarly they are unnecessarily heavy, making more dangerous in collisions.

Never mind the tiny women(and men, but mostly the ladies( who insist on driving them when they can't see over the effin steering wheel. *breathe* :mad::D

ScumLord

seamus wrote: »

The reason environmentalism appears to have disappeared is because it's now mainstream. It's no longer cool, it just makes bloody sense.

Good old Seamus, only one line into your post and you've already earned your thanks.

The fact is we're living in a world that's been changed by environmentalism. Our cars are way more efficient than they were 10 years ago, the factories that make the cars are more efficient, our homes are full of products that are more efficient, we don't pollute as much on an individual basis, the small roads I used to drive down that would be lined with rubbish are gone (and the people that were responsible for that pollution were the traveling community, so even they have changed).

By all accounts environmentalism worked and we're suffering the consequences. Of course it's not really enough but how else do you force people to change other than to hit their pockets? You can't convince someone to do the right thing if it puts them out.

kneemos

ScumLord wrote: »

Good old Seamus, only one line into your post and you've already earned your thanks.

The fact is we're living in a world that's been changed by environmentalism. Our cars are way more efficient than they were 10 years ago, the factories that make the cars are more efficient, our homes are full of products that are more efficient, we don't pollute as much on an individual basis, the small roads I used to drive down that would be lined with rubbish are gone (and the people that were responsible for that pollution were the traveling community, so even they have changed).

By all accounts environmentalism worked and we're suffering the consequences. Of course it's not really enough but how else do you force people to change other than to hit their pockets? You can't convince someone to do the right thing if it puts them out.

All due to tax and costcutting and the rubbish is still there.

ScumLord

kneemos wrote: »

All due to tax and costcutting and the rubbish is still there.

Exactly, the governments imposed taxes on big engined cars and the manufacturers produced low emission cars. That's it working.

There's no where near the amount of illegally dumped rubbish there was 10 years ago, there just isn't.

squod

ScumLord wrote: »

The fact is we're living in a world that's been changed by environmentalism. Our cars are way more efficient than they were 10 years ago,

New cars = new pollution for other nations.

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no where near the amount of illegally dumped rubbish there was 10 years ago, there just isn't.

Fair enough. But we're again just exporting lots of our pollution.

http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/

Taxing your way to 'greenness' only works for people who can afford that tax. So essentially it's a way of penalising people for being poor. Cars/goods are cheaper if they're environmentally less friendly.
Under that system, the environment loses when the populations wealth decreases.

kneemos

ScumLord wrote: »

Exactly, the governments imposed taxes on big engined cars and the manufacturers produced low emission cars. That's it working.

There's no where near the amount of illegally dumped rubbish there was 10 years ago, there just isn't.

Don't know where you live but every rural road around here is lined with rubbish.Think it's arguable that low emission cars had anything to do with enviromentalists.

ScumLord

squod wrote: »

New cars = new pollution for other nations.

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

Fair enough. But we're again just exporting lots of our pollution.

It may be that a small island like Ireland can't deal with it's own waste, we don't have the facilities needed. As long as we pay our way what difference does it make if we export it?

Taxing your way to 'greenness' only works for people who can afford that tax. So essentially it's a way of penalising people for being poor. Cars/goods are cheaper if they're environmentally less friendly.
Under that system, the environment loses when the populations wealth decreases.

We're not penalising people for being poor, these are just the costs now. It's unavoidable.

kneemos wrote: »

Don't know where you live but every rural road around here is lined with rubbish.

Well I guess your community should do something about that. The areas that were known for dumping in my area are now clear and I haven't seen it moved to a new area. I think one reason for that is that everyone around here has a grudge against someone else and is only looking for any excuse to report their enemies for anything they can.

Think it's arguable that low emission cars had anything to do with enviromentalists.

Maybe but there does seem to be a chain of events that started with environmentalists that got combined with peak oil which lead to low emission cars.

Mr Whirly

Poor people don't have cars.

hardCopy

kneemos wrote: »

.Think it's arguable that low emission cars had anything to do with enviromentalists.

Is it? I've genuinely never seen anyone question it.

SeanW

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Most of the "dire predictions" don't come from the environmentalists but rather the sensationalist media.

Are you kidding me? Have you looked at Greenpeace's website lately ever?

Sergeant wrote: »

One of my great 'Celtic Tiger' era memories was driving a classic Mercedes petrol-guzzler with huge emissions and a noisy engine past former Green Party minister Eamon Ryan as he cycled along in the pouring rain.

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, it's good to see that you've matured as a person and are no longer such a petty shi--- oh, wait.

It's not just motorists ... I'm starting to think the average cyclist is as obstinate and infantile as the attitude in the post you quoted and more likely worse. I know this because I've had the displeasure of discussing road policy with some of them and it's ... quite alarming. Oh and BTW the cyclists I was telling you about are actually serious.

squod

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by that?

New cars create more pollution. If we had longer lasting cars and appliances their footprint would be less. Changing a car/fridge/dishwasher/ whatever every five years is only adding to the footprint not reducing it.

ScumLord wrote: »

It may be that a small island like Ireland can't deal with it's own waste, we don't have the facilities needed. As long as we pay our way what difference does it make if we export it?

There's no guarantee where the waste ends up. The ''green'' vision of utopia stops as soon as some lad in a suit discovers cheap places to offload waste. India, Philippines & Africa like.

ScumLord wrote: »

We're not penalising people for being poor, these are just the costs now. It's unavoidable.

''We'' very definitely and extremely are penalising poor people. That's why the tax was invented and that's what it does.

Drive a cheap old diesel, pay a shit-load for road tax. Pay more for insurance due to large engine size etc. It's targeted penalisation on the basis of wealth. There's no option to retro fit smaller engines into older cars to obtain a lower yearly tax rate for example.

Greentopia

seamus wrote: »

What will probably happen in the short term (in the EU at least) is an EU-wide ban or at least restriction on the use of pesticides for a set period of years, to see if we can get a handle on the bee populations.

Funny you should say that

. Some good news on that front in the last few weeks: EU votes to suspend for two to three years three pesticides-neonicotinoids-that are alleged to cause serious harm to bees.

Predictably the manufacturers of these pesticides are Not Happy this has been passed despite heavy political lobbying by them.

Ireland voted for this ban I'm pleased to see.

kneemos

hardCopy wrote: »

Is it? I've genuinely never seen anyone question it.

Motoring lobbiests and the kickback from new car sales had no influence I'm sure.

_Kaiser_

Sergeant wrote:

One of my great 'Celtic Tiger' era memories was driving a classic Mercedes petrol-guzzler with huge emissions and a noisy engine past former Green Party minister Eamon Ryan as he cycled along in the pouring rain.

Ah Trevor that was just mean! :P

gets coat

hardCopy

kneemos wrote: »

Motoring lobbiests and the kickback from new car sales had no influence I'm sure.

I'm not so sure, the American manufacturers have resisted attempts to curb emissions, I'm not sure the Europeans would have been any quicker to cut emissions without being kicked.

That said, I don't think it was implemented very well as it made carbon the sole priority and increased diesel emissions.