Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE GOVERNMENT’S NEW climate change plan has been criticised by activists with one group describing it as “little more than lipstick on a pig”.
Environment Minister Phil Hogan today published the Heads of the Climate Action and Low-Carbon Development Bill which sets out the ambition for the transition to a low-carbon economy by 2050 but the lack of specific targets has been criticised.
“He has not articulated a clear definition of what low-carbon means by 2050. Why has he not included it in the Bill?,” asked Oisin Coughlan of Friends of the Earth.
Minister Hogan’s changes amount to little more than lipstick on a pig. His draft Bill was weak and his proposed changes are minor, mostly cosmetic, improvements. He has ignored the key recommendations of the all-party Oireachtas Committee report.
But the Government insists that a new roadmap and framework outlined as part of today’s legislation will allow successive Government’s to develop climate policy.
It is envisaged that a National Expert Advisory Body will be set up to provide guidance on a series of national plans over the period to 2050.
“The evolution of national climate policy will be an iterative process, based on adoption by Government of a series of national plans over the period to 2050,” Hogan said today.
A National Climate Change Adaptation Framework is already in place since 2012, and I expect to initiate and open consultation on Ireland’s first National Low-Carbon Roadmap, which will address the greenhouse gas mitigation side of the agenda, in the second half of this year.
But the manner in which this advice is to be formulated is not what was intended according to a number of climate groups.
Stop Climate Chaos say that the Environment Committee had told the Government that the advisory body should be completely independent, something which is not outlined in the draft.
“We are disappointed that the revised heads do not show significant improvements in the areas most needed,” says Ciara Kirrane.
“The body tasked with giving advice to government on climate change matters is not independent, despite the advice from the Environment Committee that all members should be independent of State or stakeholder interests. And while the revised Heads allows for the Expert Advisory Body to publish its own reports, this is merely good practice in a transparent and functioning system.”
Friends of the Earth made similar complaints, pointing out that it was recommended that the export group should be modelled on the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council but that this will not happen.
It is planned that the CEO of Sustainable Energy Ireland, the director of Teagasc and the director of the ESRI will be present on the the Expert Advisory Body which will made up of at least 10 members.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Classic claptrap. We’re to have a Roadmap, a Framework, an Expert Advisory Body and a series of National Plans up to 2050. But no commitment to any content or policy. Good man Phil, you’ll be great in Europe.
This will no doubt involve more taxes and the transfer of our money to just exactly who?
Well it seems to me that this Govt is basically adopting a wait and see approach on the whole nonsense that is man made climate change. Reality is the mainstream media have pedalled this headline grabbing garbage for decades now and therefore it’s difficult for any politician to openly question the thus far unfounded alarmism.
At least Phil hasn’t been baptised by the alarmists as yet and I think today’s publication has at least held the middle ground, which is much more than most media or politicians can say.
Tide has turned in this debate in my view and watch the scramble for the door when penny drops.
I guess neither of you two lads took science in school?
Do you also adopt a wait and see with whether medicine works or weather to use the internet?
When I don’t understand a vastly complicated system u trust the opinion of the thousands of experts in that field. Or else I’d be living in a tree.
What’s the weather got to do with it?
One off
I’ve a 1st class hons degree in it but that proves nothing really
Modern medicine and treatments undergo a rigourous and thorough trial period before one concludes on their suitability. The evidence for man made global warming is anything but, indeed the historical record would suggest man had little if anything to do with the climate changing for last 500 million years or so.
Seriously James, your approach is irresponsible, given the urgency for action on this issue and the robust scientific evidence and consensus of the world’s scientific community. I agree the tide has turned but in the opposite direction – even the oil interests have switched tack now because they realise it is not credible any more to deny the evidence!
Here are lists of the world’s scientific institutions that stand over the evidence and the scientific consensus – because of real evidence and proof, not models or predictions – I would encourage people to contact them to check it out and ask them what evidence they can produce for manmade climate change – deniers can never produce any credible evidence to rebut the evidence from 97% of climate change experts – that’s the problem:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
We know also that fossil fuel vested interests and conservative US business interests have spent billions specifically to try to cast doubt in the public’s mind on the very robust science of climate change – it seems with many they have succeeded and that is sad for our children’s future. We need to stand against big business interests and stand up for our children’s future.
Him.
ok James – is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?
There is no evidence to support the scam of c!image change.
As Patrick Moore Ph.D put it
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgement, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgement”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgements are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.”
The last IPCC report was overseen by 440 activists from the WWF who were not sufficiently qualified to vet the work
Ah ipsum, you’re totally in cloud cuckoo land! I cannot keep up with your wild conspiracy theories! I’m going to call you on a few of the mad things you can get away with saying that people might believe if they are not familiar with the subject and do not probe further.
You likely are not aware, but phrases like “extremely likely”, “95% probability” are the way scientists express things – the same with the medical profession!” They are conservative to the point that they express the link between smoking and lung cancer also as a 95% probability. One thing you can never accuse them of is overstating the evidence, even when something seems a no-brainer to the lay person – that’s not how scientists work – in the case of the climate scientists overseeing the IPCC report, they have tended to understate things.
It is a serious charge to say that the 95% probability figure has been invented by climate scientists. This figure has been reached by a painstaking process or review and more review by thousands of scientists, scientific institutions and the governments of the world. It is only what they all agree on that is allowed to be included – hence the conservatism in the figures. However, 95% certainty with scientific proof to back it up is good enough for most people!!!
The judgements are not based on predictions – they are based on actual hard evidence and observations from a huge range of different scientists and professors across a range of different scientific disciplines.
To say the last IPCC report was overseen by 440 activists from the WWF is an absolute joke!!! It is also utterly untrue!!! Do you understand the IPCC process, which has been independently reviewed several times and is constantly being monitored, thanks to the aggressive actions of vested interests to attack it?
Here’s the list of the Co-ordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors and Editors from so many different countries of the world (governments nominate them) – start yourself with googling a few and see what you get! https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/AR5/wg1authors.pdf
Random googling: The first is Professor Ulrich Cubash, from Berlin University Institute for Meteorology. He would no doubt be surprised to hear himself described as a WWF activist, given his long and distinguished career in meteorology and his specialism of Interactions of Earth’s Climate Systems!!!
Next we have Professor Don Wuebbles, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Illinois. He is a professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences as well as an affiliate professor in the Departments of Civil and Environmental Engineering and in Electrical and Computer Engineering. He was the first Director of the School of Earth, Society, and Environment at Illinois, was the first Director of the Environmental Council at the University, and was Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences for many years. Dr. Wuebbles is an expert in numerical modeling of atmospheric physics and chemistry. He has authored over 400 scientific articles, relating mostly to atmospheric chemistry and climate issues. He has been a lead author on a number of national and international assessments related to concerns about climate change. He has also been a lead author on national and international assessments relating to atmospheric chemistry and the effects of human activities on stratospheric and tropospheric ozone. Dr. Wuebbles and colleagues received the 2005 Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He has been honored by being selected a Fellow of three major professional science societies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is the Chair of the Global Environmental Change Focus Group for the American Geophysical Union.
Another lead author: Professor Dennis Hartman – here’s a link to his credentials:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/
I could carry on all day. They are eminent experts, nominated by their countries, in an open and transparent process that assesses all the evidence and scientific papers written on climate change by thousands of qualified scientists.
Try this!
Climate Change: the physical evidence
http://www.climatechange2013.org/
Phil Hogan,
The talking septic tank.
How long is the queue to slap him I wonder
You’re being too kind.To infinity and beyond.
At the moment I’m sitting in my apartment in the Middle East with the Air conditioning on full blast, in the morning I will get into my 4.2L petrol jeep to drive the two miles to my office, where I will keep the AC on full blast all day. Point being until the Middle East stops subsidising fuel for their residents, who know nothing about conservation. We and everyone else are just peeing into the wind.
4.2 L. Wow.
Reminds me of my days in the US.
With no road tax, and petrol about 5c a litre why not!
We have among the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world and we should do our part. We all need to do our part because we are going down in the Titanic together.
If climate change plan imposes more taxes Hogan can stick it up his hole.
My pig is very upset at this comment.
He looks like a salesman selling a washing machine at Hardly Normal.
Hum, let’s see now … destroy the Irish economy for the mythical religion of global warming … Creating an insignificant reduction in greenhouse gases because it is already a relatively clean society while China (and India) continue spewing on the world from their massive exhaust pipe to the point of killing themselves, exporting food laden with heavy metals and other toxins, not to mention their recycling toxic materials into everything from make-up to toys. Makes perfect sense to me but I have the intelligence of a brussels sprout.
That is so unjust. Firstly to call robust scientific evidence (the scientific community the world over says the evidence is as robust as it is for a link between smoking and lung cancer!) religious is, to put it mildly, ironic! We have among the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world – way way higher than people in India and China. China has a much higher percentage of renewables than us and they are investing heavily in renewables. If we are all going down in the Titanic, then it is bad grace to say we won’t do our bit, especially when (if you believe the science, and why on earth would you not – I mean who WOULD you believe on climate science if not the world’s experts?!) our children’s future really are at stake. If I lived in a developing country I would be really p1ssed off with countries like Ireland that have caused drought and starvation in my country with their emissions, and now refuse to play their part!
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
There are scientists who do not hold the belief in global warming and others who see benefits in global warming. Go back and look at the dire predictions from the 70′s and 80′s that predicted our planet would be in a state of disaster by now. The truth is that the models that have been used to extrapolate disastrous climate change are inherently inaccurate. Per Capita is not a good measure to compare Ireland and China’s contribution to polution. One fifth of China’s land is so toxic it is no longer fit for agricultural use. To the best of my knowledge I know of no Irish City were people must ware gas masks.
Nor are there massive smog clouds poring into the UK from Ireland. Global warming is a way for people without a life to have a cause to fight for, feel guiltily about their existence and prosperity, and gives left wing fascists opportunity to control our lives as they impose their grand vision of utopia on the unsuspecting masses.
Why do Friends of the Earth believe run away climate change is caused by man made carbon emissions, that’s the question they should be asking.
Man made climate change doesn’t exist, the temperatures have not risen in the past 15 years, the IPCC is wrong when it defines climate change as solely caused by man made emissions, and looking at the past history of Earth and indeed many studies increased co2 actually benefits plant life causing more growth.
So how about we start looking at the facts, discard all the indoctrination and propaganda from agencies that have alternative agendas and just get on with our lives knowing our carbon emissions are not doing any harm to planet Earth.
The earth is flat, too! Right?
On climate change, the call to buy insurance by pricing carbon is a cop-out. Where is the cost-benefit analysis?
Re Jay
What, exactly, are you trying to say?
Horgay, um, Friends of Earth believe the robust scientific evidence! Your assertion that temperatures have not risen in the past 15 years flies in the face of every expert in the field, so it is hard to believe you (I assume you are NOT a climate scientist!). To say increased CO2 benefits plant life is a gross over-simplification. Science tells us that we are taking our planet into a climate zone we have NEVER had on earth in the history of humans on this planet – very, very dodgy.
When you say how about we start looking at the facts, please do bring it on, because all of the facts and hard, peer-reviewed scientific evidence is on the side of manmade climate change… what proper scientific evidence from a reputable scientific source can you produce that rebuts all of the hard evidence for manmade climate change? I would love to see it.
Our Big Phil at it again just waiting for his big European job with a big pension. Good Bye Phil
Climate change is the pig in question – at least friends of the earth finally admit it.
“Little more than lipstick on a pig.” That is such a fair description of old Doha Phil
“National Expert Advisory Body ” . How many new quangos is that so far that FG have proposed – after promising to abolish or merge the vast majority of them. Are there not competent people working in the Govt. departments enough, without hiring more positions and funding another outside office that they can blame when things go wrong? That seems to be the FG way.
If based in the past but a current or ongoing issue = Blame FF
If an issue that might bite them in the bum in the future = set up a quango to take the blame instead.
Classic hypocrisy on the Journal trolls. Had Hogan been going after polluters, like he did with septic tank owners, with a sledgehammer to stop pouring their excrement into the water supply, he’d be lambasted.
Instead, he takes a softer approach, and he is lambasted. You can’t win in Irish politics, unless you are sitting in opposition and unelectable to office.
Septic tank charge was only an excuse to squeeze more money out of the Irish tax payer. Nothing really to do with the environment
Johngahan – You as an apologist for FG and Hogan is some laugh !
The man has been an unholy disaster since he was handed this portfolio .
One disaster after another .
As for any kind of soft approach – is this FG Speak for gross incompetence and being totally out of touch with the real world ?
The man listens to nobody and comes across constantly as the schoolyard bullyboy !
I hope Enda leaves where he is – as this incompetent FG/Labour Coalition continue to disintegrate before our eyes! He will help its termination to happen, even more quickly …,thanks be to ……
Cleaning up leaking septic tanks has nothing to do with the environment? I can’t argue with that sort of logic.
Hogan is getting on with a dirty job that few other elected officials would do for fear of never getting elected again; their priority being their own re-election. Hogan probably won’t get elected again. But at least he had some balls and got a job done that few would ever tackle and now we have somewhat of a better organised septic tank system and will have a meterable watersystem. Future politicians can decide what to charge, but the infrastructure is now there.
Sinn Fein I am sure will refuse to do anything that doesn’t win votes, or risks losing a single vote. Such pandering to your largest demographic will ultimately culminate in the collapse of the country. You can’t lead a football team, let alone a country, without managing for the future. If you want appeasement and happy talk, read the brochures of the responsibility-free opposition.
The Septic tank charge evolved from EU legistlation that Ireland had failed to enforce. Hogan brought in in late and managed to make it lucrative. How many site inspections have been carried out by his department so far using these funds? That issue was not about concern for the environment, it was about us being good boys in Europe and nothing more.
John, have you seen the number of inspections carried out? Laughable it’s all about the money. I do agree about SF if anyone in government said the sky was blue, SF would disagree and say its green, and if they were in government it would be greener, with no plan or explanation how they would do it.
I think its in the range of 400-450 so far this year. That’s about 4inspections a day nationwide. 450,000 registered tanks nationwide. Maybe it’s just one guy on a bike doing all the inspections
The target for 2014 is 1,000 inspections (100 officers are employed by local authorities and authorised as EPA agents) . If Hogan was serious about this he would set the target at least 50,000 – that’s 500 site inspections per officer per year only. Hoover up the money for registration and move on. Good old Phil.
John
SF simple hog the comments section here. Like a well oiled brigade.
I’m sure there is good people in SF with good ideas but it’s hard to hear that against the screaming of the ‘on message’ platoon on here.
@ James. For the record I am in no way tied or allied to any party. I’m a former Labour voter who is fed up with the empty rhetoric that we are being sold time and time again in election scenarios ( Yes, this applies to all parties who gain power historically in the history of this State) .
Indeed there is a quite large cohort of left-wing or anti-gov posters on here but I would have to assume not all ‘trolls’ are SF supporters. What worries me more are the folk with invisible profiles (A Twitter/FB account with no personal info or opinions – just linked comments back to this site) . In my experience most of these posters pop up to either defend Govt bad news or promote Govt press releases. The folk you call SF usually can be clicked on and you find a real person (whether or not you agree with their opinion is a mater of personal politics/ethics/education )
I know I’d listen faster to a human who may have different views to mine than a robot with no viewable profile or history.
I think its in the range of 400-450 so far this year. That’s about 4inspections a day nationwide. 450,000 registered tanks nationwide. Maybe it’s just one guy on a bike doing all the inspections.
He’s not wearing lipstick, that’s the reflection of his tie!
Hogan talking old sh1te as usual, go jump in a septic tank Phil!
I am a “man-made climate change” sceptic, but there is no harm to be done by cutting down on our use of fossil fuels etc.
But usually any mention of carbon taxes, usually means TAX .
It could just as easily be called the green eyes or blue eyes tax, but sounds “better” if used with am image of a polar bear on a floating ice berg with a suitable caption.
I’m curious as to why you are a sceptic, given all the evidence… I agree tackling our emissions does not need to mean tax – conservation of energy is a no brainer as a first move… we already have free insulation for low income homes and subsidised insulation for non low income households, but I think the Government needs to go further…
Our current energy policy is massively weighted in favour of supply solutions and not demand. Policy has been dictated by huge energy utility companies, mainstream, element, shell et al ..that are interested in only one thing..further development in energy production..grid 25 is going to cost us 4 billion. A quarter of that spent on deep retrofit insulation and a move to sustainable use of existing generation plant along with greater use of practical renewables like anaerobic digestors would serve us better than the current plan to destroy our environment with 1000′s of turbines and pylons. Developer led policy for developer benefit with refit subsidies and high fuel bills paid by us taxpayers..
Ever Wonder why it went from global warming to climate change ?,I think people are generally fed up with being asked to pay a wealthy few, & impoverish the poor on very the shady science that is global warming sorry climate change ….. Ironic if not hilarious those idiots tracking the ice melt of Antartica in January getting frozen in it ……
Gary I bet Phil me bankers hole Hogan does not even understand what climate change is. Saving energy is not the issue here, we can’t because of population growth. We need clean energy like nuclear energy. Get away from fossil fuel.
We are working on another tax to pay for bankers dept……….I mean emissions. Our pr machine is working day and night to come up with an idea how to screw the people and set up quangos to employ the lads and secure their pensions.
have your say