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.
IRELAND’S GREENHOUSE GAS emissions increased by 3.5% in 2016 in another blow to its efforts to reduce its carbon footprint in the next 10 to 20 years.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), agriculture emissions increased by 2.7%, transport emissions have increased by 3.7%, and emissions in the energy industry increased by 6.1%.
EU member states have committed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels as part of the Paris Agreement, which the US has distanced itself from under the Trump presidency.
Ireland is also facing a fine of €75 million each year if 16% of its energy doesn’t come from renewable-energy sources by 2020 (such as solar panels and wind turbines). Currently, Ireland is one of four member states that are predicted to miss their emissions target (we’re now hovering around the 10% mark).
The EPA says the increase in emissions is due to a number of factors, including an increase in traffic congestion caused by the uptake in the economy.
Another factor is that dairy cow numbers have increased by 22% in the last four years while greenhouse gas emissions increased by 8% over that time.
The Irish Farmers’ Association released a statement today urging the government to change that deal in order to reduce Ireland’s emissions and avoid enormous EU fines.
“It is now clearer than ever that the bad climate deal done by former Environment Minister and Green Party Leader John Gormley will result in Ireland having to pay millions of Euro of fines for breaching its renewable-energy and climate obligations,” IFA environment chairman Thomas Cooney said.
Among the measures requested by the IFA are the re-opening of the Green Low Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme, and scaling up of on-farm emission reduction programmes.
The Green Party said that the government needed to”get serious” about reducing Ireland’s emissions output.
“The government says it wants to make the change to a cleaner economy but they are doing nothing to make that switch happen.
Our transport emissions are rising fast because we are not funding public transport, cycling and walking. In our energy policy we are continuing to burn coal and peat as if there is no tomorrow.
This is going to have to change.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I laugh at the people who suggest wind turbines. One of the most unfriendly “green” solutions going. The carbon footprint from the manufacturing and construction of wind farms is ridiculous and such things can never be carbon neutral. They create a huge construction and maintenance issue on the national grid, causing even more of a carbon footprint issue. Not only do they provide a negative environmental impact, but they also cause a huge problem in relation to local attraction and tourism. Let not even start on the fact that wind farms are the greatest scam going when it comes to “money for the boys”. Absolute farce.
@niall: what environmentally friendly alternative would you recommend? It’s a serious question, I’m not winding you. There’s solar and wave I suppose.
@Brian MacCarthaigh: Yes there are those alternatives, but they all come at the cost of causing more emissions during manufacturing and construction and never becoming carbon neutral.
At the end of the day there’s no product or item that is going to come without issues or further emissions.
The best we could look at is conversion of our current plants to biomass. Not ideal, as we will still be creating emissions, but alot less that manufacturing and construction of wind farms.
Another option is storage. Battery banks at specific areas. They wouldn’t be causing any visual intrusions, but still creates manufacturing emissions, but minimal construction emissions as they can be located next to existing sub stations and grid connections.
@niall: Any evidence?
@Ian Walsh: plenty. Don’t even start the “evidence” lark. Do research, open your eyes to the farce of wind energy and you will see.
@niall: Niall, I can’t find anything reputable backing up what you are claiming. If you don’t provide links, I’m afraid what you are saying simply seems like the ramblings of a barstool grump.
@Mitch Peterson: your inability to see past the whole thing seems to be a common issue with those who are hood winked with this “green” lark. Stop being so gullible and open your eyes to what is going on with the whole climate change fiasco.
@niall: And wouldn’t there also be a direct correlation between population increases and emission increases.
@niall: If you cannot provide a link with credible evidence then you are spouting nonsense. Telling others to ‘open their eyes’ when you cannot back up your ‘fact’ is hypocritical.
@niall: And how do you expalin that 42% of denmarks energy in 2015 came from wind? By your logic that would not be possible.
@niall: Please, enlighten me. What is going on?
@niall: “Wind power is cost-effective. Land-based utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available today, costing between two and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending on the wind resource and the particular project’s financing.”
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
@niall: talking out your a$$ bud
@niall: please do elaborate.. Btw solar won’t work for obvious reasons. But wave harnessing is pretty developed technology. It think for 75mil a year you can easily build that 6% slack.
@niall:
“your inability to see past the whole thing seems to be a common issue with those who are hood winked with this “green” lark”….
So you’re able to ‘see past the whole thing’ despite not being able to provide a shred of evidence??
Noone can argue that wind is carbon ‘neutral’ , there is no carbon extraction during the process. An example of carbon neutral would be say, burning timber from a sustainable forest. But you can’t compare it to the levels of carbon spewed out by oil/gas/coal (, you couldn’t beat them if you tried) . The real issue is cost, we are going to have to pay for the changeover, and again by unit cost, it’s a different ballgame compared to all this (effectively) free bundles of energy sitting around in holes in the ground ready to be harvested.
Some Scottish group’s pdf here if anyone is bothered https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.climatexchange.org.uk/files/5314/3325/2390/Main_Report_-_Life_Cycle_Costs_and_Carbon_Emissions_of_Onshore_Wind_Power.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjT19iX0N_XAhXHK8AKHdGkBSgQFghMMAM&usg=AOvVaw08eSwEnF4z-4TYF23-u3_A
@niall: I’ll just leave this here…
15g CO2 / kWh is the figure here life cycle carbon emissions. In 1990, Ireland’s emissions from electricity generation were over 800g/kWh, it’s now about 360g/ kWh or so. Even if you assume a really negative scenario where it’s double the life cycle figure given by NREL, that’s still an order of magnitude below where we are now.
Furthermore, Vesta, Siemens and Nordex are the main turbine manufacturers used in Ireland, all manufactured within the EU and falling under the cap-and-trade ETS, which separately drives down carbon intensity in the manufacturing and heavy industry sectors.
What’s the evidence behind your assertion? Was it published by BP?
@Watchful Axe: Beat me to it!
@John Smith: I would encourage all to check out the above links. They, and their poster John, are prime examples of what has me so worried about the world. John Smith ignores scientists and believes bloggers. John, I wish you well in life, so please please PLEASE let the anger and hate and mistrust go, and join the reasonable portion of humanity. Apparently, we desperately need the numbers.
@Joe Dobias: There’s no large scale wave electricity generation in the world. Fantasy nonsense.
@Andy K: Danes pay the highest residential electricity rates in the European Union (mostly for government revenue, but partly to subsidize wind power)
@William Grogan: I know right! Wish someone would tell those idiots at MIT. They seem to believe that it could make up about 10% of current world energy needs. The fools! Good thing you and I know better, eh Willie?
@niall: Ok so then replace the Pigeon House and Moneypoint with nuclear power station’s and sure we can bury the waste, perhaps behind your gaff?
@Mitch Peterson: I believe facts, if you dispute any of the facts I presented please post your evidence, BTW, a prediction is not evidence.
@niall: you are talkoing thought your hat wind turbines produce between 2o and 25 times the energy required to build and install them a fugure that goes up to 35 times of the really big turbines you and your attitude are a net negative on the planet https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy
@Marcus Briody: incorrect, first of you used a article by the guardian which immediately invalidates anything it has to say about climate change.
This is closer to the truth.
@Dario Fo:
God forbid.! Unless of course what is planted is coppiced on a seven year cycle. We have now destroyed a salmon and trout industry potentially worth hundreds of millions a year by allowing our streams to be over topped and shaded out, with the further consequence of there being no river weed roots to bind the fine particles in place, which in turn migrate downstream to smother the spawning gravels and go on to then create flood causing deposits in the slower reaches. Look at my longer comment at the bottom of the page.
@Ian Walsh:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise Despite Large Investment in Wind Energy
http://irishenergyblog.blogspot.ie/2017/11/greenhouse-gas-emissions-rise-despite.html
@John Smith: scientists predicted in 1970s that we would have run out of oil long ago
@niall: so is the exorbitant car tax that is nothing but a money racket along with its nct . When you pass nct which in other countries is an emission test (and no the police don’t take your car while you are resolving its problems . )Why doesn’t the exorbitant car tax doesn’t go down ?because is a money racket .
Charge no VRT and no toll charge on electric vehicles….Next years models will finally have a decent range….Close down all ESB peat fired stations…All new houses should have compulsory solar heating….
@John003: negative, if people want an electric car and solar heating let them have it,but let them pay for it themselves, not out of my pocket.
@John003: solar heating waisted time solar power stored in batteries better idea who needs hot water in the summer when solar heating mostly efficient
@Michal Stawowy: Solar heating for a standard house with radiators is not a great idea. Solar and underfloor works quite well… underfloor runs at about 25° rather than 45+° for rads. You’ll get a fair bit of heating with sun even in winter. Backup is of course needed, but most domestic energy is heating, so even smallish returns are worthwhile.
@John Smith: Its either money for Solar Panels or Money to the EU in fines. You choose.
@John003: But sure we can’t even provide internet for all areas in Ireland so when could we expect to have solar power(which I’m all for, but then the powers that be will charge you for using your own SP’s)
We have a lot of carbon problems in Ireland, not least the peat fired electricity generating stations.
Hundreds of thousands of citizens are suffering in fuel,electricity and pre 08 car tax & insurance thanks to the Green Party’s regressive carbon taxes on coal, oil, petrol, electricity PSO etc levies and charges and F all competition for the amount of companies we have and an absent energy minister and the Greens pre 08 car tax too by tree hugging gobs who think robbing the poorest and sickest citizens for fuel, heat, lighting and transport is the answer to “warming” by keeping the old sick and poor freezing literally to death as winter one of our biggest killers cos of Greens extra poverty charges. No votes for Greens ever again Ireland and FF,SF, PBP better end regressive charges if they want votes.
@Jay Lane: you are an example of why the planet is doomed and show how the internet is full of empty bottles. the greens didn’t raise vrt on cars bought before 2008, that was fg/lab, the greens did change it on all new cars from 2008 which saw a 25% reduction in energy use of all cars sold by the time they left government. all experts agree that a carbon tax is the best way to discourage waste and that the taxes raised should be ringfenced to pay for cliamte change initiatives. the carbon taxes that the greens brought in were used to fund the home retrofitting grants which insulated tens of thousands of homes and created hundreds of jobs. the new building regs that they brought in mean that houses built since 2008 are saving hundreds in energy bills annually compared to houses built before they got into power.
the last time we had this amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere sea levels were 13 mhigher than they are now, the reason that we haven’t seen the worst effects yet is because the oceans have absorbed the excess heat which is killing them. The oceans are dying, we have lost a third of our topsoil in the last 50 yrs, half the worlds wildlife in the last 40 yrs, half the farmland birdlife in the eu since 1980, i could go but whats the point? people will continue to attack the green party for having to tackle an economic crisis that they didn’t create after only being in gov for a few months.
whenever anyone attacks them for what happened i ask ” how would oyu have solved a crisis with banks tens of billions in debt and a budget deficit of over 20 billion a year?” and nobody has been able to answer this yet and never will because every one of you would have ended up doing what the greens had to do. Now ff who created the crisis look like they will get back into power while the green party who are the only party taking the imminent destruction of civilization seriously are attacked by a huge percentage of people
i have a v bleak image of the future, i think that the children of today will be fighting for survival later in their lives and the comments here only back my dark image of the future. humans are apes with smartphones, parasites on this planet and the only people who are trying to make us work in harmony with nature are the evil ones in many peoples eyes. the people who care about the long term survival of the planet and its people are the enemy while the fake salemen, sociopaths are topping the polls.
the internet is full of empty bottles making noise, people with little or no real understanding of issues acting like they know whats really going on, the type of people who helped Trump get elected. so what if i am a tiny minority, so what if most people commenting here and on other pages are aginst everything that i and the green party stand for, this doesn’t make us wrong, it only proves how removed people have become from their natural environment, hurricanes, flash floods nothing seems to be snapping people out of their collective denial that the planet is dying. humanity believes that we are superior to nature, somehow removed from it and this arrogance will, in the not too distant future, lead to the destruction of all that our ancestors fought so hard to create
we are living in an age when for the first time in human history the future is going to be worse instead of better for future generations and anyone who votes ff/fg is playing a part in this destruction whether the realise it or not. i will vote green no 1 til the day i die or til civilisation starts to crumble, whichever comes first but til that happens i will continue to fight for the protection of this beautiful planet we call home even if it makes me an outsider. i would rather be an outsider fighting for whats right than be part of a group that is collectively destroying the home on which we all live https://phys.org/…/2013-05-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere…
We need to put a stop to this Climate Change nonsense, this whole thing is nothing but the West’s vanity project, it’s based on nothing but some very dubious computer models.
@John Smith: i’ll believe the scientists in preference to you.
@Fiona deFreyne: in fairness the scientists aren’t helping themselves! Look at the diesel car fiasco…..supposedly clean, now they’re claiming they’re the dirtiest….how are the ordinary Joe soaps supposed to believe anything they say when they’re not sure themselves.
@selfsustainable: you are confusing atmospheric pollution and green house gas emissions.
Diesel is dirty but it has forced the motor manufactures to introduce new measures to reduce CO2 emissions.
@selfsustainable: Attributable in part to vehicle manufacturers rigging vehicles when being emissions tested though.
@Fiona deFreyne: not confusing anything, I’m just making a point about scientific studies been a bit askew and indeed wrong every now and again. Pollution is pollution and all contribute to the problem.
@John Smith: Wrong!!!!!!!
@John Smith:
You clearly don’t understand the overwhelming amount of empirical scientific data if you think its based on “nothing but some very dubious computer models”.
@selfsustainable: the science is compelling if you understand the science.
Higher levels of CO2 and methane have been demonstrated to increase lower atmospheric temperatures and sea temperatures.
@Fiona deFreyne: science sometimes makes mistakes, that’s all I’m saying. Nothing is black and white or right and wrong, everything is questionable, I don’t need to be a scientist to know that, same way you’re not one so you Don’t know either.
@Fiona deFreyne: which scientists? That’s such a blasé comment… Ya can’t even name a science study or the credentials of who wrote it or the funding behind them….. Such a weak comment
@Fiona deFreyne: If you stood at the top of a cliff and 1000 scientists told you that you could fly, would you jump or say show me?
@Avina Laaf: overwhelming imperical evidence!!! There is no imperial evidence, and I mean none! A prediction is not evidence.
@Fiona deFreyne: course you would
@John Smith: if a scientist predicted you would fall to your death off that cliff you mentioned, using the THEORY of gravity, would you give out about predictions and theories then too?
@Ross Stewart: People are so easily fooled and once the ‘theory of gravity’ is invoked everyone falls to pieces without actually knowing what Newton was doing even though I do. There are no mathematics involved , there are just normal judgments of motions and how we perceived them, especially planetary motions and how the theorists tried to reduce it to experimental sciences -
“Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.” Newton
That roughly means the Earth attracts the apple (Newton’s apple), the moon attracts the tides, the Earth attracts the moon and finally the moon attracts the Earth hence it is really the ‘theory of attraction’. Where predictions comes into it along with modelling takes a bit more explaining but it can be done with a bit of common sense but ultimately Newton botched, fudged, manipulated and distorted astronomical principles to get his agenda to fly.
* “That roughly means the Earth attracts the apple (Newton’s apple), the moon attracts the tides, the Earth attracts the moon and finally the Sun attracts the Earth hence it is really the ‘theory of attraction’.”
@John Smith: You’ve conveniently reversed the logic there John. The scientists would be the ones insisting that you will fall to your death. You are the one who’s insisting that 1000s of scientists are wrong as justification for your expectation that you will fly.
@Gerald Kelleher: so everyone is ignorant of what Newton was doing…except you. Wow, with an ego like that, I’d say your head has its own gravity too
@John Smith:
Your ignorance should embarrass you.
@Ross Stewart: but I know I would die, the same way I know I can’t fly, the same way I know climate change is nonsense, unless someone wants to show me some actual proof, BTW….. Predictions are not evidence.
@Ross Stewart: People are not stupid, once they see that it was a theory of attraction they then can consider how Newton tried to connect it to astronomical predictions (eclipses, transits, things like that) to make it into the ‘theory of gravity’. It is quite entertaining for those who can interpret diagrams and imaging but ultimately a waste of time and certainly awful as predictions are applied to Earth sciences.
It all began when the theorists tried to bypass the Sun and appealed to the ‘fixed stars’ for predicting events as time and dates within the calendar framework. It pastes motions of all celestial objects including the Sun, moon and planets onto a celestial sphere without regards as to what is moving around what -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI
It takes a bit of effort to see how the whole scheme plays out but that requires that people at least see that things are recognizable and not beyond their normal judgments.
@John Smith: Can you read a graph John? https://plot.ly/~le-0013/8.embed
It’s not predictions John. The predictions were made in the late 80s. The evidence is observational data compiled over the last 3 decades which have been in keeping with those predictions.
@Paraic McDonagh: it’s a simple premis, I don’t believe in climate change the same way I don’t believe man can fly, if a thousand scientists tell me I can fly I ask them for proof, if a thousand scientists tell me man made Climate Change is real, I simply say “show me proof?” BTW, a prediction is not proof.
@Avina Laaf: I use facts to form my opinions, you should try it sometime, if I want my fortune told I’ll give mystic meg a call.
@John Smith: I just showed you proof. Is it that you can’t interpret graphs?
@Paraic McDonagh: anyone can plot a graph, it looks like the hockey stick graph, now totally debunked.
@John Smith: so if scientists predict that a comet will hit the earth based on its flight path, trajectory etc, you would also want to see proof then too?!! The proof is there when it’s too fu**ing late and we’re all toast.
@Paraic McDonagh: Nonsense, proof comes in the form of reliable sources, you BS graph doesn’t even say what dataset it’s using.
@Ross Stewart: But there is lots of evidence comets have struck the earth before, it’s called evidence. There is no evidence man can control the weather, a computer model prediction is just a prediction, it’s not evidence.
Nobody gets the empirical joke and that is the real shame. The clockwork solar system of the late 17th century empiricists models the motions of the Earth so there is one more rotation than there are 24 hour weekdays in a year !!!!!!! -
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” Empirical conclusion
I love the innocence of people in trying their best to believe what academics tell them even when it is an assault on their experiences and senses when they can interpret a rotating Earth with the rise and fall in temperatures each 24 hour day -
http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
What began with modelling motions using clocks (clockwork solar system) in the 17th century has now spread to computers in the 21st. The only thing missing are adults.
@John Smith:
I’m cringing for you here….
@John Smith: Has the thought even entered your mind to google the phrase “Evidence for climate change”? Maybe read one or two of the 177 million resulting articles rather than asking me to hold your hand. The first one is by Nasa. But do you trust Nasa John? They don’t share the same flat Earth convictions as you. Maybe check out some of the links in the references. I’m sure all of them can’t have been debunked.
@Paraic McDonagh:
Don’t hold your breath – John is living proof of the truism that ‘ignorance is a choice’.
@Paraic McDonagh: And still the only evidence you could come with is a long debunked hockey stick graph with no source! You follow this up with a Google search!, Very scientific.
@John Smith: So your argument is. “Oh that graph looks like another graph that a blogger ‘debunked’”. And “The result of Google search result that includes thousand of peer reviewed research papers isn’t science”. If I delivered a peer reviewed paper into your hands you’d say, printing something on paper doesn’t make it scientific. Face palm. I can only lead the horse to water.
@Paraic McDonagh: Anyone could have produced that graph, where is your source? There are lots of peer reviewed papers claiming they can predict the future but if I want my fortune told I’ll give mystic meg a call. There is no facts behind Climate science, just BS predictions, the facts are extreme weather isn’t increasing, Greenland is gaining ice, the Antarctic has been gaining ice for decades and according to NASA sea level rise is only 1.7mm/year, that’s about 560 years just to get to one metre sea level rise.
@John Smith: “There is no facts behind Climate science, just BS predictions”. Your statement shows complete and utter ignorance. As I explained earlier. There are tons and tons of facts behind climate science. That’s how science works, it makes a prediction and checks the theoretical predictions against facts. It’s 3 decades since greenhouse effect theory was first put forward. The predictions of the late 80s have now become empirical fact because it turned out; Prediction = Observation (Facts).
It’s not even clear what part it is you don’t believe. Do you not believe that the global mean temperature has been rising at an unprecedented rate? Do you not believe that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial revolution? Do you not believe that man has been responsible for CO2 emissions? Do you not believe that the sea level has risen by 20cm since 1870? Or that last year was the warmest year on record? Do you not believe NASA? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The facts you deny the existence of, are all well set out and understood. I’ve provided you with an extremely credible source, complete with references. The source of the data in the graph I posted earlier, is the superimposition of: NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Temperature) and NOAA Reconstruction from ice cores + Observational data (CO2). And yes the graph is like a hockey stick but no, it hasn’t been debunked. It’s observational data. Why are you just making up lies John?
@Paraic McDonagh:
The temperature has been rising since the end of the last ice age, man is responsible for SOME increase CO2 in the atmosphere, although a lot of studies combined with historical data suggests CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around -http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2568, 20cm since 1870 is a sea level rise of 1.3mm\year, but here is what NOAA say about sea level rise -http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm, certainly no need to be alarmed. Here’s what NASA say about Antarctic ice, the single greatest threat climate change has to offer, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses, Arctic ice has been stable for a decade now. Extreme weather is NOT increasing.
@John Smith: scientists were predicting an ice age in the 1970s….its all BS
@Owen M: The coming ice age – 1978 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA&feature=youtu.be, Here’s Dr. Steven Schneider hyping Cooling, now he’s hyping warming, he was following the money obviously – 1978 Global Cooling Alarmism vs. 2008 Global Warming Alarmism-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdWTBNyvX0&feature=youtu.be, same scientist pushing warming and cooling.
Whenever you hear the words global warming reach for your wallet because you’re about to be had!
@John Smith: Scientists in the 70s were talking about an approaching ice age, because if nature was left to itself, we really should be entering one. Natural climate is slow changing and due to motions of the Earth relative to the sun. Greenhouse effect theory has superseded that idea because we have piled so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it’s actually artificially reversed the natural trend. So yes, scientists were talking about cooling in the 70s (40+ years ago), but have changed their model because of 40+ more years of us pumping out greenhouse gases. It’s not that difficult a concept to grasp John. The current rate of change is unprecedented.Do you even understand the difference between change in temperature and rate of change of temperature? Your statements have no basis in facts.
@Paraic McDonagh: You’re getting a tad desperate now don’t you think?You know they were talking about an ice age in the 70′s because the planet had ben cooling since the 1940′s, you get that right? Try and find a record of that cooling today? You won’t because it’s been ‘adjusted’ out of existence, try find the MWP, again it’s been ‘adjusted’ away, same for the 1930′s warm period, same for the hiatus the IPCC were forced to acknowledge, all ‘adjusted’ from the history books. I’m the only one actually offering facts, you’re just squirming like all Alarmists when confronted by facts.
@John Smith: I haven’t seen you offering any facts John. Ironic from someone who insisted on getting sources, that you haven’t presented any yourself. Most of what you’re saying is beside the point. You can’t seem to comprehend the difference between change and rate of change. Otherwise you wouldn’t be talking about relatively minor rates of change between the 40s and the 70s when there have been hugely significant increases in rates of change between the 90s and the present time. A period of time you are deafeningly silent on. Why is that?
@Paraic McDonagh: Silent! Can you not read? I already mentioned the IPCC being forced to acknowledge the HIATUS in AR5 in 2013! -http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf, that references a complete pause in warming from 1998 – 2013, recent enough for you? Of course that has been ‘adjusted’ from history too. So much for your ‘hugely significant increases’, did you not see the FACTS I posted about Sea Level Rise and Antarctic ice? The cooling up to the 70′s was so ‘minor’ it caused a global cooling scare FFS! You haven’t posted a single fact to back up AGW, why don’t you post your child’s graph again, that’s very impressive. Just like all Alarmists, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about, all sound bites and no facts.
Solution, Wind Turbines.
@winston smith: and solar PV.
@Dario Fo: Correct. There’s no consistency in the level of onshore wind in Ireland. Fluctuation in generation can cause havoc on the grid. Trees and general landscape cause drag and reduce efficiency.
One morning back in 2008 the entire grid was supplied by wind only. That very same evening wind covered less than 5%.
@Simon O’Connor:
While you are right about land based turbines been much less efficient than offshore (on average offshore produce 50%more like for like) the problem is the enormous cost of building and maintenance off shore, 300%extra.
@winston smith: no it’s not. Read the facts first , turbines are the worst form of ” green energy Production ” the cost of manufacture and installation including absolutely vast amounts of concrete, diesel and steel Not to mention the stroke policy of subsidies paid to the chosen few makes this the completely wrong choice , really .
@Ken Ross: where did you get your info from? i suspect some right wing fossil fuel sponsored sites. wind turbines produce between 20 and 25 times the embodied energy required to build and install them https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/29/turbines-energy
@Ken Ross: Its 10 sq. meters of concrete and a big aluminium pole. The environmental cost of manufacture can be made back in less that a year. You’re talking crap.
@ForeverFeel1ng:
While I’m in favour of wind turbines on land I should point out its considerably more than 10sq meters of concrete. The ones I have seen had a 12 by 12 Base by 7m deep. Works out at 1000 cubic meters of concrete per mast.
@winston smith: hahahahahaha
https://data.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm
It’s about time that these Greenies are out back in their box. Ireland is not an industrialized nation, so factory emissions are low. (The Rhur area of Germany alone spews out multiples of what we would)
We are a small blot on the globe. By these reports we are causing top levels of emissions. In the greater scheme of things the actual emissions are negligible compared The the highly industrialized countries (that would like a contribution from us to their coffers)
You want emissions? https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-12.0/centery:25.0/zoom:4 and that doesn’t include airlines etc. Not a lot of them around Ireland.
Emissions = excuse for taxes. Courtesy of the Greens.
@Father Hody Commody:
Per capita, Ireland is one of the biggest emissions culprits in the world.
@Father Hody Commody:
plus we miss our target because of the farmers and heir grass fed herds and they pay no tax on that either.
not only will we miss 2020 targets but likely miss 2030 and 2050 too
thank you farmer gael
@Avina Laaf: Not per country
@Living The Laws: Yes, but apart from notional exports of pharmaceuticals, a lot of which aren’t manufactured here and don’t even see the country, or bits and bytes, or door plaques, this country has always been and will always be an agricultural based economy for agri goods. That’s us. That’s how we survive. If it means emissions, tough. Small country, relying on emission making products that is a minute contributer to the overall situation should not be held in such a high state of responsibility.
@Father Hody Commody:
Of course somewhere with a huge population like India is going to emit more in absolute terms than a small country like Ireland, but relatively speaking we’re a far worse offender than they are.
@Avina Laaf: nonsense
@Father Hody Commody: tough?!if we destroy the planet therell be no Ireland anyway so your point will be moot. If everyone makes a contribution then generations will be able to enjoy the earth as we do. Farming is a big contributor to emmissions.needs to change.
@Ken Ross:
Unfortunately not. If you think it’s nonsense perhaps you can provide the figures to prove it?
So, the carbon taxes are NOT working then?
@Daniel Dunne: not enough of a deterrent.
@Fiona deFreyne: Are you advocating for higher carbon taxes? What level is enough, €2.00 per litre of petrol or diesel? €3.00 per litre? What is your opinion of an ideal price to stop people driving and heating their homes?
@Daniel Dunne: how about every one stop replacing their cars every two years and drive them with a low tax rate going down to zero the closer you get to say 12 years…. The cost of replacing a cars carbon footprint is huge…. Cheaper to offer incentives for that methinks
@Colm Feighery: Totally agree. Currently the insurance sector is pummelling the motorist with double-priced policies for cars 10+ years. Motor tax is massive on cars over 9 years old too. The greenest thing to do is keep your car running for as many years as possible, yet the taxes and insurances cripple you for doing it.
How is one supposed to be able to save for an electric car if all these taxes are eating up the very money you could be using to save up for one.
@Daniel Dunne: more tax…yipee … more tax
@Daniel Dunne: Carbon taxes were never intended to ‘work’. They are just another massive scam in the long list of scams.
@Daniel Dunne: best thing is if we all move back to the dark ages….that will work
It is awful seeing a 3.5 % increase at a time when green house gas emissions are already far too high.
In other countries green house gas emissions are actually reducing.
Recent science indicates that not only do we need to stop the increase in CO2 emissions, we need to take CO2 out if the atmosphere by carbon sequestration measures.
Oh no. I see some new taxes coming soon.
@Randy Knights: stick and carrot.
@Fiona deFreyne: Would ya go way outta that. Taxes have continuously gone up on fossil fuels in this country since the beginning of time yet we’re still using more of it than ever. Them carrots are tasty indeed! Our emissions numbers went down ten years ago not because of any intentional government initiative but because of a recession. Carrot and stick is here’s energy produced without using carbon fuels and its cheaper, not here’s more tax on the only viable energy source Johnny Everyday realistically has to use. “Carrot and stick” Just shut up would ya, you’re doing us all a disservice with your ‘good intention’d’ naivety.
@Rambly Knights: I can sense that you are upset, but I cannot understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase that??
The climate and energy brief needs to be taken off Denis naughton and given to an adult. The minister is asleep at his desk
Ireland needs to get serious about it’s politicians. Enough FF and FG gombeen politics.
@Adrian: we could never accuse Irish politicians in FF and FG of being serious.
The Paris Climate Agreement is super effective…I’m serial you guys.
Transport and energy are the bigger increases.
The expansion in dairy farming has contributed in the agricultural side.
Take out a globe….now find Ireland…..We’re a flippin blip! No matter what we do, we won’t change a damn thing while others spurt crap into the atmosphere! Look at China and India, even the US, unless they do something radical, the likes of us little dweebs are piddling in the wind!
@selfsustainable: Thousands die early in the UK and Ireland due to air pollution. Even if, as you say, making changes makes little or no difference in a global scale, it does on a local level.
@selfsustainable: we can hardly contribute to global,measures if we are nit doing our part. We only get away from hypocrisy for so long.
Big fines on the way for Ireland may modify behaviour.
@Fiona deFreyne: We could claim ethnicity though. :-)
@selfsustainable:
Whatever about a couple of decades ago, China is now leading the way with renewables.
@selfsustainable: well said , absolute logic
@selfsustainable: China is becoming a work leader in renewables and forward thinking. They have plans to totally end all coal production by 2030. Insane considering the level of GDP they get from exporting it.
@Thomas McGuire: you need lots of sunlight for particles to become pollutants, Ireland does not have that in case you didnt notice
Why did our government sign up to something over which they have little or no control? More taxpayer money squandered.
Eat more burgers and steak, quick!!!
@Paul Culligan: And drink plenty of milk!. ‘That’s a very milky cup of tea Mrs. Doyle ‘
@Paul Culligan: I will celebrate tonight with a large steak
Gives the government the excuse to raise taxes but put no alternatives or solutions in place.
Sure just tax anything that emits any gas, that will def solve the problem? Tax solves any problem, right??? RIGHT???
No more beef farming.
@Stephen Maher: Getting rid of our beef exports will be 20 times worse than Brexit you gombeen
Another massive infrastructure project will help no end….. Apple data centre with a massive use of cooling and a drain on our resources will push it up to a great jaysus percentage
The points about wind been a farce are completely wrong. Wind is fast becoming one of the cheapest forms of energy on the planet. Just look at Mexico where The Italian company ENEL has signed a bid to make electricity from wind at 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour, a new record low that easily out performs dirty fossil fuels. When the wind is not blowing – no worries there either – battery storage from wind will deliver it to the grid when needed. This is already happening right now in Australia where Tesla has built the world’s biggest battery at 100-megawatt lithium ion battery is getting ready to burst into action.
@GO GREEN: There are NO grid scale batteries. Is your name Pollyanna??
@William Grogan: I already said that there was in South Australia able to power 30,000 homes when up and running.http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tesla-powerpack-battery-south-australia-1.4416028
Every river in holland is heavy polluted by barges with diesel. The idea that Ireland is a pilluter is a joke. Germans and Dutch love our clean country. Their air is heavily pilluted from car fumes. Bogus information about Ireland. 80 mln people in Germany. 18 mln in small holland + millions of pigs. How anyone believes this bull is beyond me. Dont even start about US China India.
@gregory: a yeah but look at all the bul skite that is up in the dail
@FlopFlipU: fair enough, if we get rid of the Dail then we’d easily reduce our emissions considerably.
@gregory:
You’re clueless.
Amount of noxious emmisions coming out of dail eireann on a daily basis is probably responsible for 95% of that bill. Dail bar I hear is lethal due to Guinness and pork pies.
Planetary climate is one of the more beautiful topics to discuss but only in context of all the other planets in the solar system yet many are too far gone with the computer driven hallucinations to stop and think what climate actually is. It is no use telling people that what is called ‘climate change’ is a rigged system that tries to bump up the success in short term weather modelling to climate and then reduce the Earth’s atmosphere to the conditions in a common greenhouse , that in itself does nothing.
Planetary climate is the rate in change in surface conditions across a year and that rate is determined by the degree of inclination -
http://calgary.rasc.ca/images/planet_inclinations.gif
If the Earth had the inclination of Uranus, the rate of change every 6 months would be wild as the Arctic circle would extend down to 8° of the Equator and likewise the Antarctic circle. It means for Ireland that we would experience conditions similar to those currently within the Arctic circle with months of constant daylight followed by months of complete darkness with a short period where the Sun would rise and set daily. This is meant for those who can appreciate the miracle of this planet with just the right amount of variation to make life possible.
@Gerald Kelleher: Wow! What planet are you from?
@William Grogan: Not everyone is an empirical redneck so raising the standards in discussing planetary climate is going to appeal to those who can think for themselves. It is a shame to see many stuck in a rut mindset but it isn’t my business to deal with them, climate is as enjoyable as geology or any of the other Earth sciences once it is taken in context of all planets of the solar system once people with more expansive thinking stop and think about it. There is even a role for computer modelling but as a means to compare what happens when different inclinations are involved but common sense is needed for that to happen.
@Gerald Kelleher: Sometimes, I think, who ties your shoelaces for you Gerald?
@Paraic McDonagh: You are just kids who are great at slogans and stock phrases but have no common sense . The computer generated hallucinations might entertain those who live off predicting doom but it is just the work of schoolboys who never made it to adulthood.
Nuclear Power. Everything else is just greenwash.
@William Grogan: What about the fish https://inhabitat.com/japan-mulls-pouring-1m-metric-tons-of-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-pacific-ocean/
@William Grogan: Remember Mayak 1957 one of the worlds worst nuclear accident. https://www.ft.com/content/2d853158-d064-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
just stop grownig beef & pork and grow crops instead. This would have a diouble effect
-reduce methane/CO2
-increase CO2 absorption.
Just have a look at Agriculture’s lion share of the co2 emissions:
the whole climate change debate is flawed as the parameters it is conducted in are flawed ie that of the economic model obsessed with chasing GDP, growth, consumer confidence, car sales etc etc. This all amounts to a shit load of shite bought, sold and dumped. Whenever we change the lens to look at this in a another way, of buy less, but better, recycle, consume smart etc. then maybe we can have a go at tackling this. But that seems ages away from here
Encourage removing fuel wastage. Updating housing older housing and building regs to the highest spec. Improve water pressure so that combi / condenser boilers can be installed. Invest big time in public transport.
A great cause but what the hell makes it possible that the EU can fine us, if we used the money for this rather than on the fine, then wouldn’t that be better???
We have 3000MW of wind and our emissions have increased – JOIN THE DOTS
The worlds top destroyer of the environment,Tax the cow farts.
@Thomas Heffernan:
Wrong end.
Who cares
@Stephen: the younger generations.
@Stephen: Better people than you or I.
@Stephen: only those wishing to make millions out of us suckers
so the official reported transport figures and even dairy cows are included but for off shore fracking off the coast of mayo and cork and fracking across the world the gases 1000 times more what it is from cars in Ireland and agriculture but the fossil fuel dirty industry is untouchable they get subsidised with tax cuts and deregulation, while the Irish drivers and Irish farmers get hammered with all kinds of threats and fines, great to fall in the net of the ‘climate offenders’.
Ireland is the only EU country that has actually increased its emissions, but instead of trying to do something, we are starting to look for a scapegoat for signing us up into the deal. How more Irish can our behaviour be, eh? As much ambition as a boa constrictor after swallowing a fat pig.
@Stephen McManus: I’m sure Germany has too because it’s dumping Nuclear in favour of coal because Merkel is beholden to the Green Religion.
Look at Economist Colm mc Carthys article on turbines etc . Facts
Back in the 1683 to 84 the river Thames froze up to 28 cm climate change well the clue is in the question
@Colette Kearns: The flooding in Ireland in the in 1920s and 40s was much worse than now
Screw the EU, 14% of our energy coming from Ineffective sources is a heavy burden on Ireland.
It’s not a “bad deal” you are just lazy fvcks! Who couldn’t be bothered actually doing some thng about climate change!
@Joe Dobias: Incorrect, it’s a bad deal, Climate Change is a ridiculous farce.
I blame the bloody farmers. We are 2000% self sufficient in Beef and 1500% in Milk.
WE DON’T NEED ANYMORE COW’S!!
@ForeverFeel1ng:
“Brexit will be bad for Ireland”
“We should eradicate a quarter of all our exports to satisfy the Greens”
Conventional thinking.
the last time we had this amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere sea levels were 13 mhigher than they are now, the reason that we haven’t seen the worst effects yet is because the oceans have absorbed the excess heat which is killing them. The oceans are dying, we have lost a third of our topsoil in the last 50 yrs, half the worlds wildlife in the last 40 yrs, half the farmland birdlife in the eu since 1980, i could go but whats the point? people will continue to attack the green party for having to tackle an economic crisis that they didn’t create after only being in gov for a few months.
whenever anyone attacks them for what happened i ask ” how would oyu have solved a crisis with banks tens of billions in debt and a budget deficit of over 20 billion a year?” and nobody has been able to answer this yet and never will because every one of you would have ended up doing what the greens had to do. Now ff who created the crisis look like they will get back into power while the green party who are the only party taking the imminent destruction of civilization seriously are attacked by a huge percentage of people
i have a v bleak image of the future, i think that the children of today will be fighting for survival later in their lives and the comments here only back my dark image of the future. humans are apes with smartphones, parasites on this planet and the only people who are trying to make us work in harmony with nature are the evil ones in many peoples eyes. the people who care about the long term survival of the planet and its people are the enemy while the fake salemen, sociopaths are topping the polls.
the internet is full of empty bottles making noise, people with little or no real understanding of issues acting like they know whats really going on, the type of people who helped Trump get elected. so what if i am a tiny minority, so what if most people commenting here and on other pages are aginst everything that i and the green party stand for, this doesn’t make us wrong, it only proves how removed people have become from their natural environment, hurricanes, flash floods nothing seems to be snapping people out of their collective denial that the planet is dying. humanity believes that we are superior to nature, somehow removed from it and this arrogance will, in the not too distant future, lead to the destruction of all that our ancestors fought so hard to create
we are living in an age when for the first time in human history the future is going to be worse instead of better for future generations and anyone who votes ff/fg is playing a part in this destruction whether the realise it or not. i will vote green no 1 til the day i die or til civilisation starts to crumble, whichever comes first but til that happens i will continue to fight for the protection of this beautiful planet we call home even if it makes me an outsider. i would rather be an outsider fighting for whats right than be part of a group that is collectively destroying the home on which we all live https://phys.org/…/2013-05-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere…
The biggest problem here is our gross abuse of the PSO levy, which now comes to €500m. a year. Most of this has been going to big Wind, but a substantial part goes to biomass. Not of course sustainable native biomass, but biomass raped out of some other environment elsewhere on this suffering planet and shipped over here to be burned at crazy low efficiency in one of the “should have been closed down” peat stations up in the midlands. This abuse is meant to finish up sometime in the future, but watch out. The corporates involved are brazen enough to have planned for its continuation by converting half of Moneypoint to do the same thing. Bord na Mona have just bought a wood pellet plant in the US for $60m. to facilitate this, which works on the same model as the “cash for ash”.
What we should be doing is the original plan of going the Scandinavian route of thousands of district heating schemes and CHP plant in all our towns countrywide, using principally coppiced material off our 300,000 kms of hedgerow, at present being hammered to the scut annually by flail, riparian over cover off 22,000kms of what were our spawning and rearing streams, forest waste, invasive species such as rhododendron and gorse, willow off our cut away bogs, and much, much more. All this would have massive added value to the rural economy and a great boost to farmers incomes, including carbon credits. Let alone the ecological and environmental advantages it would bring.
On top of that a move to constructed wetlands, as demonstrated down near Tramore, would do a massive job in sequestering carbon on which more credits could be claimed and locking up excess nitrates and phosphates in the process.
smart money is on an ice age
It’s all hoppy cock,,,,back in the day and,,,i mean back in the day,,,,there we’re no issues with polution,,,and the funny thing about it all,,,,we we’re burning more then than now,,,,and back then was when all “Green Fuel” started it’s all a cop to get you to drive an “Electric”car half whitts”"im going to by a horse and cart,,,,and apply for a “European” grant to buy it,,,these “Europeans” are real Ejits.
have your say