"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Akrasia · 16-12-2018 2:29pm

dense wrote: »

If I adjust the data you'll all feel warmer, I promise.

Akrasia · 16-12-2018 2:43pm

dense wrote: »

Theres been a lot of stuff in thread, but trying to compare the UNIPCC report to the Iliad on the basis that both are epic really does take the biscuit.

It wasn't a direct comparison, it was an analogy. The information you are looking for is there, you're just too pigheaded to read it, and you're using your own lack of interest in reading the available information as some kind of evidence that that information does not exist.

It's spectacular in a way how you have managed to manufacture this alternative reality for you to dwell in.

Let's just accept that you can't link to what you say the report details about how society will have to deal not only with the impacts of climate change, but also the impacts upon society of the measures required of it to try to prevent climate change, and we can leave it at that.

But once again we are left to consider how Ireland or indeed France's society and economy will react and function if rapid energy rationing via effective and corrective carbon taxation instruments wrought by some global treaty is successful.

That's the part no one pushing that agenda here wants to talk about.

Nobody is talking about energy rationing. If we plan ahead, make the necessary investments now we can have a smooth relatively painless transition. The longer we wait, the less likely this is and we're left with higher costs of action, and lower benefits (give that we'll already be locked in to more damaging warming)

Global warming is happening, we're going to have to deal with it one way or another. It's going to be expensive whether we act or not. The choices we make now will dictate what kind of future we have and what kind of world our future generations will be left with.

dense · 16-12-2018 9:56pm

Akrasia wrote: »

It wasn't a direct comparison, it was an analogy. The information you are looking for is there, you're just too pigheaded to read it, and you're using your own lack of interest in reading the available information as some kind of evidence that that information does not exist.

There is no need to resort to calling anyone pigheaded because you can't link to anything to provide evidence of what you're claiming.

Akrasia wrote: »

It's spectacular in a way how you have managed to manufacture this alternative reality for you to dwell in.
Nobody is talking about energy rationing.

Carbon taxes are designed to do what, increase the consumption of energy derived from fossil fuel or decrease and penalise it?
Campaigns based on "leave it in the ground" are designed so that the remaining fuel will have to be rationed amongst nations that the environmentalists will deem to be the most deserving, so energy rationing in the face of there being no alternative substitute reliable renewable energy source is an inescapable and inevitable part of their solution.

There are concrete policy tools developed in the past 5-10 years,
which would underpin the realization of a resource-capped
economy.
These include a Europe-wide policy tool developed by
experts from NGOs and scientific think tanks in the past decade
aimed at sustainable scale and fair distribution of energy and
resources. The so-called Energy Budget Scheme12 is a means to
deliver absolute reduction of energy use at the EU level,
progressively reducing each year, guaranteeing every citizen access
to the same fair share and involving all business and public entities.
The scheme aims to cap the EU economy’s fuel and electricity
consumption in line with the EU carbon emissions targets, and
then essentially rationing out the energy available under the cap.

Rationing the energy from fossil fuels is one the mainstays of emissions policy.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/resource_use/2018/foee_sufficiency_booklet.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwijjMGam6XfAhVFURUIHVgXAJcQFjAGegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw104sKITsLIAG-ondguvlMq

I thought you'd have remembered that.

Or this

At the personal level, all motorised travel, whether by road, rail or particularly air, will have to be severely curtailed in order to live within a personal carbon ration phased down each year from its existing level to the safe level of emissions that the planet can support. At present, in the UK, the annual per capita average is about 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Consider how this level can be brought down to just over 1 tonne ‑ which is that safe level ‑ within no more than 20 years.

And that was written 13 years ago.
https://mayerhillman.com/2005/05/31/carbon-rationing-to-limit-climate-change-the-most-effective-way-of-promoting-cycling/

Akrasia wrote: »

Global warming is happening, we're going to have to deal with it one way or another.

Why do you say that when there is no scientific consensus about how warm the planet actually is, how warm it was before humans began their "activities" that have been linked to this alleged warming of the planet, or about how warm the planet now should be?

xckjoo · 17-12-2018 10:05am

On the plus side seeing as everyone is arguing about implementation details now, there's finally consensus in this thread about mans impact on the climate. Good to see.

17-12-2018 10:39am

xckjoo wrote: »

On the plus side seeing as everyone is arguing about implementation details now, there's finally consensus in this thread about man's impact on the climate. Good to see.

Yes you're correct there is consensus that man is ruining the environment, but all the vested interests are ignoring one the elephants in the room.

Rampant consumerism combines with planned obsolescence are generating more pollution that almost all of the other human activities.

CO2 and climate change are the false flags that are raised to divert attention away from these lucrative activities that produce the most CO2 in the first place, while at the same time generate huge amounts of wealth that trickles up!

We should be taxing the sale of products that pollute, not taxing the end users for using them.

By the way the other elephants are increasing human population and continued destruction of natural habitat, neither of which are being addressed by any of these "climate change" conventions.

d8491prj5boyvg · 17-12-2018 10:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

We should be taxing the sale of products that pollute, not taxing the end users for using them.

This is the same thing, essentially, and a common misconception when it comes to a carbon tax.

Let's think about it. I sell petrol. The government puts a tax on petrol stations, a tax on the sale of the product that pollutes. What do I do? I can absorb or pass on this cost. I'll probably pass at least some of it on. The cost to the end user goes up. Alternatively, the government puts a carbon tax on each unit of petrol sold. Again, I can absorb some of this cost if I like but will likely pass some of it on. The same outcome.

What we forget is that a tax like this is to change behaviour, not raise revenue. It needs to be passed on to the consumer. A lot of us need a car (myself included), but I don't always need to drive to Dublin, I can take the train. A lot of people could carshare. We need to change our habits and these are the things we all need to start doing. A carbon tax makes choices like that more appealing.

The big issue is the person who is stuck without an alternative and they need to be compensated through any revenue recycling measures. In fairness to Varadker he is copping on to that and any carbon tax announcement will be accompanied by a plan for the revenue. This could lower taxes, increased benefits for those harder hit, or €x in the paw for us all.

Akrasia · 17-12-2018 11:10am

dense wrote: »

There is no need to resort to calling anyone pigheaded because you can't link to anything to provide evidence of what you're claiming.

What am I claiming? That the WG3 report from the IPCC is the report that deals with the potential strategies for mitigating climate change.

The report provides the details on what our options are and how those options could be implemented and at what cost.

You made the claim that the IPCC are not giving detailed information, when they absolutely are, you just can't be bothered to read it.

Carbon taxes are designed to do what, increase the consumption of energy derived from fossil fuel or decrease and penalise it?

They're designed to address the market failure of Fossil fuel environmental costs not being included in their retail price. Carbon tax is not 'energy rationing'

Campaigns based on "leave it in the ground" are designed so that the remaining fuel will have to be rationed amongst nations that the environmentalists will deem to be the most deserving, so energy rationing in the face of there being no alternative substitute reliable renewable energy source is an inescapable and inevitable part of their solution.

No they're not, they're based on using alternative energy supplies that don't pollute the atmosphere.
There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fuels for energy. It just takes investment to build up the infrastructure. You're like donald trump trying to get coal power stations back when the reason they were shutting down was because they were no longer cost competitive with the alternatives.

Rationing the energy from fossil fuels is one the mainstays of emissions policy.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/resource_use/2018/foee_sufficiency_booklet.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwijjMGam6XfAhVFURUIHVgXAJcQFjAGegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw104sKITsLIAG-ondguvlMq

I thought you'd have remembered that.

Or this

And that was written 13 years ago.
https://mayerhillman.com/2005/05/31/carbon-rationing-to-limit-climate-change-the-most-effective-way-of-promoting-cycling/

Why do you say that when there is no scientific consensus about how warm the planet actually is, how warm it was before humans began their "activities" that have been linked to this alleged warming of the planet, or about how warm the planet now should be?

Carbon credits are not the same as energy rationing. There are more energy sources than just CO2 emitting technology and there are ways of generating energy from fossil fuels that are less polluting and there are ways of offsetting CO2 emissions via carbon capture and storage.

Carbon credits is an attempt to phase out pollution, not energy. Why do you love pollution so much dense?

17-12-2018 11:10am

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

This is the same thing, essentially, and a common misconception when it comes to a carbon tax.

Let's think about it. I sell petrol. The government puts a tax on petrol stations, a tax on the sale of the product that pollutes. What do I do? I can absorb or pass on this cost. I'll probably pass at least some of it on. The cost to the end user goes up. Alternatively, the government puts a carbon tax on each unit of petrol sold. Again, I can absorb some of this cost if I like but will likely pass some of it on. The same outcome.

What we forget is that a tax like this is to change behaviour, not raise revenue. It needs to be passed on to the consumer. A lot of us need a car (myself included), but I don't always need to drive to Dublin, I can take the train. A lot of people could carshare. We need to change our habits and these are the things we all need to start doing. A carbon tax makes choices like that more appealing.

The big issue is the person who is stuck without an alternative and they need to be compensated through any revenue recycling measures. In fairness to Varadker he is copping on to that and any carbon tax announcement will be accompanied by a plan for the revenue. This could lower taxes, increased benefits for those harder hit, or €x in the paw for us all.

You're missing the point I'm making.

There should be a bigger disincentive for car manufacturers to make large polluting vehicles, as once a vehicle is on the road it will pollute heavily for 12 to 18 years and the tax take is high.(you can see why the taxes are favoured by governments)

If on the other hand, you tax the sale of the vehicle high enough to discourage someone from buying it in the first place then it would not pollute at all, a cleaner car would be on the road instead. (not so good as a form of revenue raising, despite the fact that it would be more effective at reducing pollution (car exhausts contain many toxins in addition to CO2 which isn't)

dense · 17-12-2018 12:09pm

Akrasia wrote: »

What am I claiming? That the WG3 report from the IPCC is the report that deals with the potential strategies for mitigating climate change.

The report provides the details on what our options are and how those options could be implemented and at what cost.

You made the claim that the IPCC are not giving detailed information, when they absolutely are, you just can't be bothered to read it.

The report does not go into detail about the impacts and consequences that society will have to deal with as result of rapidly implementing policies that will require unprecedented changes to all aspects of society.

I'd like you read this again:

"At the personal level, all motorised travel, whether by road, rail or particularly air, will have to be severely curtailed in order to live within a personal carbon ration phased down each year from its existing level to the safe level of emissions that the planet can support. At present, in the UK, the annual per capita average is about 10 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Consider how this level can be brought down to just over 1 tonne ‑ which is that safe level ‑ within no more than 20 years."

https://mayerhillman.com/2005/05/31/carbon-rationing-to-limit-climate-change-the-most-effective-way-of-promoting-cycling/

This is a far cry from the mitigation theory that the UNIPCC report concentrates on; these are the impacts of implementing wacky policy pushed by environmentalists.

They may work to rapidly reduce emissions certainly but at a cost to society that is not being addressed.
Which is the way that rabid environmentalists who seem to believe that humans are imposters on the planet, want it.

You can talk all you like about carbon credits and sequestration. The former has done nothing to stem the rise of emissions but some have done very well out of it.

The latter doesn't exist on any scale nor is it likely to in the timescale allegedly required.

The only solution now apparently is to make "unprecedented changes" to how we live.

But the environmentalists won't go for that either saying that 8 billion individuals addressing their own carbon footprint is futile.

Instead they're holding out for a magic bullet solution in the form of a global "new world order for the better" treaty from the UN.

Which is all a bit too convenient to let them keep using their fossil fuels like everyone else but being dismayed at everyone else for doing what they're doing.

xckjoo · 17-12-2018 12:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes you're correct there is consensus that man is ruining the environment, but all the vested interests are ignoring one the elephants in the room.

Rampant consumerism combines with planned obsolescence are generating more pollution that almost all of the other human activities.

CO2 and climate change are the false flags that are raised to divert attention away from these lucrative activities that produce the most CO2 in the first place, while at the same time generate huge amounts of wealth that trickles up!

We should be taxing the sale of products that pollute, not taxing the end users for using them.

By the way the other elephants are increasing human population and continued destruction of natural habitat, neither of which are being addressed by any of these "climate change" conventions.

Ya I agree with your point about consumerism. Our economies are completely based on ever increasing levels of spending/buying. It's unsustainable. Not sure how to address it though other than to move more to the purchase of services instead of crap to throw away, and move back towards repairing things instead of making everything disposable.

17-12-2018 2:18pm

xckjoo wrote: »

Ya I agree with your point about consumerism. Our economies are completely based on ever increasing levels of spending/buying. It's unsustainable. Not sure how to address it though other than to move more to the purchase of services instead of crap to throw away, and move back towards repairing things instead of making everything disposable.

Compelling manufacturers to put a label on goods that contain serviceability & life expectancy information in a similar fashion to the energy ratings of today would go a long way to reducing the "built for landfill" crap that's currently on the market.

dense · 17-12-2018 5:18pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Compelling manufacturers to put a label on goods that contain serviceability & life expectancy information in a similar fashion to the energy ratings of today would go a long way to reducing the "built for landfill" crap that's currently on the market.

I don't agree. Notices about there being "No user serviceable parts" are on virtually every electronic item anyway.

And manufacturers of larger equipment want to recoup some of their investment by precluding unauthorised agents from attempting repairs.

Plus the quaity of many goods has improved dramatically over the last few decades.

Look at how reliable a modern car is.
It will last 20 years easily with a bit of attention to manufacturer's recommendations. One car could do for a lifetime with a bit of effort.
Contrast that with the cars of the 70s. Simple to maintain OK but generally rust buckets and unsafe.

Your point still stands in relation to unnecessary junk that people stupidly feel obliged to buy.

Also witness the idiotic trends for all things retro.
Everything that goes out of fashion and favour is dug up by hipsters looking to be cool rediscovering what's been discarded, be it old style retro phones to new record players to audio cassettes to add to their existing collection of CDS and iphones.

17-12-2018 6:05pm

dense wrote: »

I don't agree. Notices about there being "No user serviceable parts" are on virtually every electronic item anyway.

And manufacturers of larger equipment want to recoup some of their investment by precluding unauthorised agents from attempting repairs.

Plus the quaity of many goods has improved dramatically over the last few decades.

Look at how reliable a modern car is.
It will last 20 years easily with a bit of attention to manufacturer's recommendations. One car could do for a lifetime with a bit of effort.
Contrast that with the cars of the 70s. Simple to maintain OK but generally rust buckets and unsafe.

Your point still stands in relation to unnecessary junk that people stupidly feel obliged to buy.

Also witness the idiotic trends for all things retro.
Everything that goes out of fashion and favour is dug up by hipsters looking to be cool rediscovering what's been discarded, be it old style retro phones to new record players to audio cassettes to add to their existing collection of CDS and iphones.

No, my point is about products that are "expected" to have a reasonable working life, washing machines, dishwashers and similar products are not expected to be junk in less than five years.
In the former DDR they were mandated by law to have a working life of at least 30 years, here manufacturers are making them unserviceable in under five years.

As for cars, you may not remember the consumer backlash against manufacturers who tries to reduce the working life of cars down to about six years by building rust buckets. People stopped buying them and bought Japanese instead. Which put an end to several European car makes and put manners on car makers.

But the real issue is, of course planned & perceived obsolescence that manufacturers love the most and one of the major causes of pollution on the planet.

dense · 17-12-2018 7:29pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, my point is about products that are "expected" to have a reasonable working life, washing machines, dishwashers and similar products are not expected to be junk in less than five years.
In the former DDR they were mandated by law to have a working life of at least 30 years, here manufacturers are making them unserviceable in under five years.

It depends on the brand and how much the consumer can afford or is willing to pay.
Buy a Beko washing machine and you can be pretty sure it won't last as long as a Miele.

Similarly media players today for example with no moving parts should last substantially longer than their predecessors such as video recorders etc for a fraction of the price. I suspect that issues with built in rechargeable batteries cause most problems, lead to re purchases.

Certainly we could encourage manufacturers to build over engineered appliances to last 30 years but how can you force people to buy them?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As for cars, you may not remember the consumer backlash against manufacturers who tries to reduce the working life of cars down to about six years by building rust buckets. People stopped buying them and bought Japanese instead. Which put an end to several European car makes and put manners on car makers.

What makes were they? I was thinking more of UK rust buckets.

17-12-2018 9:44pm

The problem isn't that the cheaper ones break quicker than the more expensive models, it's the fact that they deliberately "down engineer" them to fail quicker.
For example, a bearing with 5000 hours costs €1.20 where as a bearing of the same dimensions with rollers instead of sleeve may cost €1.50 so a saving of 25 cents results in a vastly reduced operational life for the equipment.
So to double the life of many appliances would only increase the factory gate price by less than 5%.
In some cases, printers for example they cost more to make them fail quicker as they install a "countdown to death" chip into them.

As for the rust buckets, All American makes & most European makes, Lancia (Beta) for example were one of the worst and went bust as a result. Makes like Volvo, Saab & Mercedes were the exception.

dense · 18-12-2018 8:33am

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

What we forget is that a tax like this is to change behaviour, not raise revenue.

No.
We don't forget anything like that, no matter how many times the environmentalists repeat it.

We remember that revenue has to be raised to fund the uncosted renewable energy infrastructure they say is rapidly required.
We also need to raise revenue to fund the 0.6 billion euro annual fines for failing to commit to their stupidly agreed CO2 emissions reductions targets which have no scientifically demonstrable affect on "climate change".

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-faces-annual-eu-energy-fines-of-600m-36857141.html

We also cannot forget that we have to raise the revenue required to keep our annual one billion plus foreign aid contributions on track to keep growing.

Don't "forget", it all goes into the one pot, these taxes that are allegedly designed for us to "remember" to change our non climate changing behaviour, build a fairy dust renewable energy infrastructure and assist developing countries to become prosperous using renewable energy.

d8491prj5boyvg · 18-12-2018 10:30am

dense wrote: »

Don't "forget", it all goes into the one pot

This is the point. It doesn't have to and all new carbon taxes are taking this on board.

dense · 18-12-2018 12:14pm

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

This is the point. It doesn't have to and all new carbon taxes are taking this on board.

Sorry, the new taxes are taking what exactly on board?

If it doesn't have to go into the pot and is going to be ring fenced, let's look at what carbon taxes will be required to fund this nonsense. Someone, sometime might provide some figures for what they believe is required and then explain how this investment will affect climate change and prevent global warming.

What percentage of climate change will it rectify and what portion of a degree of global warming will it prevent, and by when.

This is a thing, right?

If it's real we need to have a real debate about not only what return we're expecting from this but why we're doing it.

The whole climate thing lost a lot of support here when no one on the bandwagon could attribute any climate change or global warming to Ireland's emissions so we need to be very cautious about attributing any potential for Ireland being able to solve something that it hasn't been shown to have caused.

We don't want to mislead well meaning people here who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint because apparently there's no need for them to be bothering about that because it won't make any difference according to the climate concerned people posting here.

d8491prj5boyvg · 18-12-2018 12:32pm

dense wrote: »

Sorry, the new taxes are taking what exactly on board?

If it doesn't have to go into the pot and is going to be ring fenced, let's look at what carbon taxes will be required to fund this nonsense. Someone, sometime might provide some figures for what they believe is requires and then explain.how this investment will affect climate change and prevent global warming.

What percentage of climate change will it rectify and what portion of a degree of global warming will it prevent, and by when.

This is a thing, right?

If it's real we need to have a real debate about not only what return we're expecting from this but why we're doing it.

The whole climate thing lost a lot of support here when no one on the bandwagon could attribute any climate change or global warming to Ireland's emissions so we need to be very cautious about attributing any potential for Ireland being able to solve something that it hasn't been shown to have caused.

We don't want to mislead well meaning people here who are trying to reduce their carbon footprint because apparently there's no need for them to be bothering about that because it won't make any difference according to the climate concerned people posting here.

Loads of research on the social cost of carbon.

Loads of research on how best to offset negative impacts of a carbon tax.

xckjoo · 18-12-2018 12:38pm

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Loads of research on the social cost of carbon.

Loads of research on how best to offset negative impacts of a carbon tax.

Don't you know research is just a socialist conspiracy to trick us all into some kind of New World Order? If it wasn't for the altruistic fossil fuel companies we'd all be doomed by now.

dense · 19-12-2018 1:18am

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Loads of research on the social cost of carbon.

Loads of research on how best to offset negative impacts of a carbon tax.

You old tease Morgan Limited Jackal, you really had me there, I thought we'd hit it off and you were the one that the activists had sent to get them to be taken as grown ups, but alas, my hopes have been dashed.

Maybe someone, sometime might provide some hard figures to demonstrate what is required of the locals in terms of generating funds to meet our annual fines, finance our urgently needed local alternative energy infrastructure, and explain how any of it will affect climate change and prevent global warming.

Twas not to be.

d8491prj5boyvg · 19-12-2018 3:18pm

dense wrote: »

Maybe someone, sometime might provide some hard figures to demonstrate what is required of the locals in terms of generating funds to meet our annual fines, finance our urgently needed local alternative energy infrastructure, and explain how any of it will affect climate change and prevent global warming.

Twas not to be.

Watch your double counting; the fines (for non-compliance) and the infrastructure costs (for compliance) are mutually exclusive. So its either one or the other.

at least 30-50/tCO2 is needed for compliance, rising annually.

d8491prj5boyvg · 19-12-2018 3:20pm

I think these are the 'hard figures' you are looking for.

https://www.esri.ie/news/an-increase-in-carbon-tax-would-have-small-impacts-on-households-and-producers/

dense · 19-12-2018 3:25pm

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Watch your double counting; the fines (for non-compliance) and the infrastructure costs (for compliance) are mutually exclusive. So its either one or the other.

at least 30-50/tCO2 is needed for compliance, rising annually.

So what is the total cost of the infrastructure estimated at, less the fines then?

Your second line? Means what?

d8491prj5boyvg · 19-12-2018 3:27pm

dense wrote: »

So what is the total cost of the infrastructure estimated at, less the fines then?

Your second line? Means what?

The cost is at least 30-50 euro per tonne of CO2 emitted. What is that per household in Ireland? Check out the ESRI report

dense · 19-12-2018 9:21pm

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

The cost is at least 30-50 euro per tonne of CO2 emitted.

The cost of what is 30 - 50 euro per ton? Please be specific?
The social cost of "carbon", the fines or the cost of building the renewable energy infrastructure. Or is it all of the above, rolled into one?

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

What is that per household in Ireland? Check out the ESRI report

Why do you want to divide it per household?

Households only emit around a quarter of our emissions according to the SEAI. https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/04/energy-in-the-residential-sector-2018-final.pdf

Do you have a link to the ESRI report?

d8491prj5boyvg · 19-12-2018 9:35pm

dense wrote: »

The cost of what is 30 - 50 euro per ton? Please be specific?
The social cost of "carbon", the fines or the cost of building the renewable energy infrastructure. Or is it all of the above, rolled into one?

The cost abatement in line with limiting warming to 2 degrees. The IPCC reports that you link in your sig should explain the social cost of carbon.

dense wrote: »

Why do you want to divide it per household?

I don't.

dense wrote: »

Households only emit around a quarter of our emissions according to the SEAI. https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/04/energy-in-the-residential-sector-2018-final.pdf

Do you have a link to the ESRI report?

Yep. It's in the post above.

BadTurtle · 19-12-2018 9:45pm

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#5eabc3f33f9f

Do you see who wrote that article, you numbskull? He works for this purely profit driven hellscape: http://industrialprogress.com
They promote tracking and nuclear power, they're clearly arseholes solely focused on the dollar.

dense · 19-12-2018 11:01pm

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

The cost abatement in line with limiting warming to 2 degrees. The IPCC reports that you link in your sig should explain the social cost of carbon.

I'm trying without much success to see if anyone has costed what Ireland is going to have to invest in order to limit global warming.
How much we need to invest here and how much warming our investment is expected to prevent occurring and what affect it is predicted such an investment will have on rectifying climate change.

Nobody seems to have this information. It is not in any IPCC report nor is it information that the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change has.

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

I don't.

You do. You said the cost abatement in line with limiting warming to 2 degrees should be divided by the number of households here:

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

The cost is at least 30-50 euro per tonne of CO2 emitted. What is that per household in Ireland?

dense · 20-12-2018 1:37am

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

I think these are the 'hard figures' you are looking for.

https://www.esri.ie/news/an-increase-in-carbon-tax-would-have-small-impacts-on-households-and-producers/

Morgan Limited Jackal wrote: »

Watch your double counting; the fines (for non-compliance) and the infrastructure costs (for compliance) are mutually exclusive. So its either one or the other.

at least 30-50/tCO2 is needed for compliance, rising annually.

No, we will have to pay both and we will not achieve compliance and avoid fines by having charges anywhere in the region of €30/50/tco2.
We will be funding fines on top of rising carbon taxes.

Amongst the ESRI's conclusions, it states that

...it is crystal clear that Ireland is far from meeting the non-ETS emission reduction targets by 2020 and 2030 even with significant increases in the carbon tax.

The ESRI says it will need to be increased over 10 years to €300 per tonne in order to avoid fines.

A new computational model developed by the institute that factors in economic data, environmental trends and energy consumption, has found carbon tax on fossil fuels will need to increase to €300 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted over the coming decade to avoid substantial fines in the form of compliance costs.

Non-ETS emissions in Ireland must be reduced by 20 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020, but the EPA estimates the overall reduction will be 1 per cent at best, due to economic growth and agricultural expansion. The 2030 target is 30 per cent.

Carbon tax will have to increase substantially – from €100 per person a year to €1,500 a year – if Ireland is to meet legally-binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, according to ESRI projections.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/massive-hike-in-carbon-tax-needed-if-ireland-to-meet-targets-esri-1.3704655?mode=amp

€1500 per person or €7bn per year.

So, it looks like we're expected to pay €7bn a year to avoid paying fines for something that we are not responsible for causing and are not in a position to rectify.

The climate industry is a good game to be in.
Are you in it by any chance Morgan Limited Jackal?

"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Comments