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 HAS MISSED its greenhouse gas emissions targets for the third year running.
New figures from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed that Ireland marginally reduced its greenhouse gas emissions (by 0.2%) last year, but not enough to reach our target set out in the EU emissions budget.
Ireland produced 60.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent last year, five million tonnes above the target.
The agriculture sector produced by far the most greenhouse gases again last year at 20.6 million tonnes, over one-third of all emissions.
The transport sector was second at 12.2 million tonnes with both sectors producing more greenhouse gases than in 2017.
The increases in both sectors are influenced by increased activity and economic growth.
Household emissions also increased last year with the EPA saying that a colder winter upped demand for home heating. The 7.9% increase in household emissions was among the largest percentage increase across any sector.
Ireland was gripped by significant snowfalls and icy weather during Storm Emma and the so-called ‘Beast from the East’ in March 2018.
The EPA said that with oil heating still the predominant heating fuel there is a significant challenge in dealing with extreme weather events in a sustainable way.
“At a time of global urgency to address climate change this is a national trend that we must reverse,” the EPA’s Dr. Eimear Cotter said today.
“It is time for businesses and communities to support and be supported in taking action to reduce emissions. Ireland must implement the ambitious commitments in the 2019 Climate Action Plan to play its role in averting the worst impacts of climate change.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Agriculture makes up one third of emissions but this report highlights home heating ? Are you missing the elephant in the room ?
@D walsh: Exactly. The entire residential sector accounts for under 10% of the total emissions, but that’s the focus of this article.
Soft target, easy to tax though…
@Fergus O’Neill: “The 7.9% increase in household emissions was among the largest increase in any sector.” Really there’s no excuse for increasing emissions anywhere. Also, if we don’t want to make reductions in food production, then we need to make reductions in all other sectors.
@Fergus O’Neill:
Residential rose nearly 8% whilst agriculture rose nearly 2% on 2017 levels.
The total emissions figures also reflect the size of the sector.
Lets not forget that farmers also have homes.
@Paraic: higher population would do that ,statistics is the the pizz out of Joe public
@Gerard Heery: Except no it wouldn’t. Population growth is running at 1.2%
@Paraic: can someone tell me how to use less fuel without spending 100k + to upgrade the house which most people cannot afford
@Thomas Sheridan: Yes. https://www.seai.ie
100K is a gross exaggeration. Just changing lights for LEDs is an affordable beginning. When you are replacing old broken appliances, go for the highest energy rating you can afford. Changing your boiler for an energy efficient one, €2K but you will get that back in no time. Changing out a draughty front door, €1,200. Complete replacement of all doors and windows €7K. Closing up disused chimneys, a couple of hundred or do it yourself. You don’t have to do everything all in one go. In the long run, you’ll reap the savings.
@Paraic: I’m not stupid Paric and I have already done most of your suggestions. I replaced windows and pumped cavities to seai standards years ago and they are both now considered useless as well as being more expensive than your figures.
Throwaway condescending comments like yours don’t help but publishing details and costing of completed projects might help
@Thomas Sheridan: Why are those measures now useless? Your house is well insulated by the sounds of it. Why mention €100K if you’ve already done the work ages ago? Plenty of homes with little to no insulation that can do more.
@Paraic: because old houses (1975) have 50mm cavity gap with no cavity above window head height wheras passive houses have 150 to 300mm gaps. New dg windows have far higher U values and new houses are more airtight. Old houses have no insulation under concrete floors and cannot be retrofitted without major upheaval. I am aware of LO’s and private buyers demolishing good houses rater than do a full insulation upgrade. So not as simple as you suggest.
@Thomas Sheridan: There are loads of solutions for old houses. External cladding, if your can’t disrupt. Extra loft insulation is cheap and easy. Passive House rating would be an unrealistic goal for such an badly constructed house.
@Paraic: not for the money you are suggesting unless it’s a small terrace house.
But I am looking at people beside me living in new passive homes – all paid for out of our taxes. And even better, the occupants don’t have a carbon footprint from driving to work – because they don’t work.
This is the utopia model for us all to aspire to. Only carbon footprint is from sky box & 70″ tv
How ironic that cold weather is a reason for increased emissions. Hard to believe people are buying this brainwashing
@Seamus Hughes: Indeed. Tell me more about how you don’t understand how climate change works.
@Paraic: it works on over population
@Paraic: Paraic, some facts about the extreme green narrative.
First it was global cooling and an impending ice age, then it was global warming until no warming occurred for almost 20 years, then it was climate change in an attempt to blame bad weather on humans to enforce political change, until the IPCC said they couldn’t make a connection between increased Co2 and hurricanes, droughts, tornados etc. Now the faithful have been told to only use the term climate emergency. This is a religion not a science
@Seamus Hughes: Your “facts” are false. I couldn’t be bothered educating you, since you didn’t bother to do it yourself. Here’s a ready reckoner, go nuts!: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php You sound like a moving statue head. Are you a moving statue head Seamus?
@Seamus Hughes: You use denial of fact and blind faith to court your climate denialist stance and have the audacity to call ACC a religion? Look if you want to disagree with the vast majority of scientists and a wealth of evidence that’s your perogative but what you’ve said is so hypocritical it’s hilarious. Global cooling did happen thanks to heavy particulate matter or smog from industry, that has been regulated and alleviated to some extent. Warming has been occurring for the last 20 years so I don’t know where you’re pulling that from. Here are the last headline statement from the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/3.-Summary-of-Headline-Statements.pdf
@Seamus Hughes: the logic of the neanderthal strikes again…..its all so simple isn’t it?, I add 2 and 2 together and I get 17 so it must be this…….educate yourself a bit and then make an informed comment.
@Seamus Hughes: You clearly don’t have a clue about the difference between climate and weather.
@Diarmuid Hunt: Your wasting your time. He actually knows that he’s spoofing because he’s referring to this: “First there was an increase of 0.35°C (0.63°F) in the global average temperature from the 1910s to the 1940s, followed by a slight cooling of 0.1°C and then a rapid warming of 0.55°C up to the end of 2006. Since 2006 to date we have experienced a further warming of 0.3°C.” He’s cherry picked the slight cooling period from the overwhelming trend of increasing temperature. That takes a level of understanding. So he’s either a troll or deliberately and cynically spreading disinformation or quoting others who are. What worries me is the number of thumbs up people knowingly spouting disinformation are getting. It speaks volumes about our system if education.
Or graphically, see 1st chart on this page:https://www.theconversation.com/amp/global-warming-hiatus-is-the-climate-change-myth-that-refuses-to-die-108524
@Paraic: I don’t think it says as much about our education system as you think. It is much easier for the human mind to dismiss an uncomfortable fact than it is to change their worldview. What we witness here on an almost daily basis is a defense mechanism built into the human psyche, the more cognitively invested one is in their worldview the more ardently they will deny fact. It is difficult for people to have a relatively fluid worldview that is open to change based upon new data and facts. Unfortunately it’s easier to say for example “butter was bad for you last year, now it’s good for you so I’ll just distrust science and go with my gut”. Obviously if our education system was based more on critical thinking than cramming for tests it would go some way to alleviating this issue.
@Diarmuid Hunt: The trouble is, stage 1 is denial, but stage 2 is anger. There’s going to be a lot of toys flying out of the cot soon if the comments here are anything to go by. I agree, our school system suffers from education inflation. Points scoring rather than gaining any real understanding.
@Paraic: CO2 is not the driver of climate change it is the result of oceanic warming which is driven by the sun. CO2 has a correlation to this warming & as such is conveniently used by the carbon trading hedge fund lobby. You’d be better off following the money than persisting with your unscientific approach of trying to prove a theory which is fundamentally flawed.
@Mick Byrne: Post any peer reviewed paper that backs up your claim. Because this graph shows that the exact opposite is true. Of course, what would NASA know about climate, what with their fleet of climate measuring satellites and what not? https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/
@Mick Byrne: Follow the money but ignore the petrochemical industry’s money?
@Paraic: hahahaha
What a load of nonsense. It us not average people’s fault that the targets were not met. Maybe if more money was put into public transport, we wouldn’t be forced to commute in our cars, for example.
@Stephen Nolan: maybe if more people used public transport there’d be money available to improve it. Public transport is fine in my area but usually half empty outside school rushes
@Dave O’Keeffe: I just had a 40min wait outside Connolly Station for the no. 14 bus which is supposed to be every 10mins. Public transport may be fine in your area but unfortunately not everywhere else.
@Stephen McCluskey: ever think the traffic from the over dependency on cars is what’s causing the delay.
@Darren Byrne: The heavy rush hour traffic does cause delays no doubt but the 14 joins the Malahide Road at Donnycarney Church and there’s a bus lane all the way into Amiens Street, so a short delay is acceptable and expected but not 40mins.
@Dave O’Keeffe: Every single bus is packed to capacity on my commute between 7 and 9. And likewise when coming home in the evening. There is no train or tram available to us so your point is fairly moot.
There is little point cutting back on food production here, only to have it replaced by production on the other side of the same planet. The reason we are so far behind on our targets is because of the “jobs in the bogs”, made even worse by then importing vast amounts of wood biomass to replace the turf, again from the other side of the same planet.
Meanwhile on the other side of the same planet, RTE’s World Report, tells us that there is an exponential increase in the construction of coal fired power stations in SE Asia, far more damaging than any of the so called mitigating moves in the likes of Europe.
As for blighting the country and coastline with wind and solar, that is pure madness. They each have terrible load factors and thus must be backed up with fossil plant capable of carrying the whole load every, dark foggy morning, like as I write.
Apart from proper Scandinavian wood biomass scheme based on CHP plant in every town, to cover some of our base load and provide a new income source for farmers, there is only ONE way this world crisis is going to be solved and that is the mass production worldwide of modular, factory built molten salt nuclear. (5,3 toxic) . Very well explained Moltex Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju59gcdmdvI
All to be super stimulated by a world wide UN based levy on aviation fuel, of which we are using seven million barrels a day and again exponentially expanding.
You can keep your bus lanes and bicycles. Lets get real!
@Nicholas Grubb: Factual, logical, sensible and absolutely correct but because of this it has no place on the Journal
@John Mc Donagh: well except it’s not. That’s just Nicolas’s opinion. He is very pro nuclear which is grand but it’s in all reality never going happen in Ireland or necessarily needed. Although we are going to connect our grid with Frances which is all nuclear and ours which can be excess wind to allow import and export.
Ireland aside internationally the development of nuclear seems to be halted or not being developed , without seeing the investment or interest it’s difficult to see the promised breakthrough in the much acclaimed new modern reactors.
@Rory Mac Daibhéid: Rory. I am a hydro and biomass man. It wasn’t until I saw mention of Jim Hansen in Michael Viney’s column in the IT, that I did a right click Google and was fairly horrified by what learned. Hansen and his comrade Schellenberger were the main advocates of the mass move into wind and solar in the U.S. until of course they found it it wouldn’t work. What happens when we get a long winter blocking high. Everyone in Europe cant hang out of French nuclear all at once.
@Nicholas Grubb: how does it not work? Some days we use more gas some days we use less it’s not that difficult to manage, renewables will continue to grow and contribute more.
I think you need to get a better understanding of the way electricity grids work.
Now, just back to the climat change brainwashing campaign. Got it? Nope? Keep your wallet then.
Quick question, what is the estimated amount we can realistically get emissions down to in the next 5 years? I mean without going back to candle light, shutting down entire industries etc
@Ronanfitz: China is 9 years ahead on its Paris agreement targets. They’ve been embracing wind, solar, electric vehicles etc. Realistically, we should be able to meet our target emissions to schedule without major impact and even some benefits. Using energy inefficiently costs more.
https://tinyurl.com/y5fupopp
@Paraic: You talk so much BS.
@brendan H: Can’t think of an argument, so resort to name calling. The first resort of the troglodyte.
@Paraic: “However, Haikun and colleagues admit they didn’t analyse many small cities, which have the potential to develop more, so the real emissions may end up higher.”
They admit its guesswork at best. Analyzing the whole country on ~50 cities that account for 35% of Chinese emissions. Mathematical gymnastics at best.
@Daniel Dunne: So you read the article and cherry picked what you want to hear from the overall message. Here’s a quote from the source article: “using a Kuznets function based on China’s historical emissions, we project that emissions for China should peak at 13–16 GtCO2yr−1 between 2021 and 2025, approximately 5–10 yr ahead of the current Paris target of 2030. So yes it could turn out to be 5 or even 10 years ahead rather than the stated 9. Meanwhile Ireland is the worst offender in Europe.
@Paraic: No point having a debate with a cult member who either shouts racist or climate denier or whatever sheep cult is the flavour of the month to shut down debate. Why isn’t your god Michael Mann out debating with the other side of the argument if just to annihilate them or make them lost for words like the guy he lost in court to or Willie soon etc, because they want a public debate, and don’t say the science is decided, because Pluto was one thought of as a planet but then they changed it to a moon. Science always questions everything.
@brendan H: I couldn’t be bothered answering most of that abusive guff. But yes, science always questions everything, that’s how I can have such a high confidence level, when it tells all of us that the planet is warming, it’s caused mostly by CO2, and we are the ones producing most of it. I note that not a single point you made has a single shred of science backing it up. Michael E Mann is the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. was put through the wringer by denialists looking for blood when he presented factual temperature data. An investigation was forced upon him. The outcome: His data was found to be precise. The committee concluded that his accusers were ignorant of climate science.
@Ronanfitz: very hard to predict the future. During our last recession our targets were being met due to the low levels of activity. This would not be a good thing obviously though. A few hot years would reduce the demand for home heating also. It’s very difficult for a growing economy which includes expanding agriculture to reduce by the levels required. Applying all the policies in the Climate action plan would help but the money involved in beyond budgets so the transition is likely to be slow or stationary.
@Rory Mac Daibhéid: The reality for Ireland is that, all of the Artic ice that melted this summer flows into the sea. This pool of cool water will block the gulf stream from reaching us, making our winters cooler than we have been used to. Don’t depend on global warming to save us on our heating needs. Our local situation is worse for us.
@Paraic: i didn’t mention global warming saving us.
I don’t know anyone can predict how the climate will affect but estimate. One of them theories on the gulf stream is bad but until it happens there is no way of knowing. The ocean is very complicated as is the atmosphere and our influence on it.
@Rory Mac Daibhéid: It already has happened. Russia announced yesterday that they have discovered 5 new Islands under ice that has now melted. The ice has to go somewhere, it is now in the seas just north of us in the form of cold water. We can absolutely know what will happen, because climate models are highly accurate. They tell you exactly.
@Paraic: Absolute rubbish you speak, we cannot cause the climate to change, every prediction ever made on the climate hasn’t come true, your deranged and a story teller. Time will prove your sort wrong. Russian islands gone because of sea level rise, pull the other one.
Population increased by 65000 in the past year but let’s not mention that as a contributing factor.
Ironic though that we scapegoat the very simple basic expectation of being warm in your own home. Not huge power hungry data centres, not increasing dairy herd numbers, not the failure to provide any proper cycle lanes in urban areas.
All about the money..
Save the planet a scam for more bankers money..
FFG will to accept a few frozen deaths in return for their silver..
Or a proper plan for home insulation. I was in a friend’s new build recently. He almost never prise the heat on. The money he saves on heating is incredible.
@steovani: Over 80% of homes are not properly insulated hence more heating used in he cold, who is going to pay for that upgraded insulation when most of can’t afford to? The govt/greens have dodged that question.
@Niall O’Neill: Who’s paying more in the long run for all the fuel burned?
@Paraic: Who’s getting more money in the long run? Government coffers via Carbon taxes – cha ching!
@Daniel Dunne: So then insulating is a better option. You actually get a grant would you believe!
Just another tax…. sheep
Does the traffic in the table include the air traffic above us which is the M1 to and from the States and Canada to Europe and Middle East. This pollution which is created above us comes to ground with all the low pressure when it turns to acid rain and we get plenty of it.
Isnt the ozone layer smaller now i don’t see the problem.
@Seriously stunned: Either bad trolling or advertising your own stupidity.
@Seriously stunned: 1) the hole in the ozone layer is not related to climate change or GHG emissions. 2) It is smaller now precisely because we, as a global society, went and did something about it, which shows if we want change we can do it. Could we fix the climate crisis? Absolutely, we could. But, people simply don’t care. As a society we have simply lost responsibility and everything has become throwaway. Toss your cigarette butts out the window. Throw that wrapper on the ground. Toss your children into someone else’s hands. Thanks for the memories, Mam, but f*ck off into that nursing home. Spilled some fuel? Let someone else clean it up. Too much CO2? Let our kids sort it out. Wants are now seen as needs. A bunch of entitled, selfish and irresponsible brats is what we have become.
so we should just leave off the heating, sit back and die of hypothermia should we ? would that suit the ‘climate change ‘agenda ? most of us do as much as we can to cut back on things like single use plastics ,recycling ,etc – we cant do anything about heating our homes – we cant afford to pay 50,000 + for insulation (which should have been put in place when the houses were built -but self regulation /no regulation on the building trade ?) we cant afford to rip out our oil /gas/solid fuel fired heating systems and replace them with geo thermal /solar or electric heating (bit pointless as well seeing as most of the electricity in this country is reduced by generating stations that burn goal ,gas, oil ,or solid fuels ) the problem in this country is that any ‘alternative ‘ way of heating the family home is way beyond the affordability of most people – and then you have V.A.T stuck on top !! once again this is an attack on those who have the least – the people with the least income are most likely to have older poorly insulated homes ,most likely to rely on open fires with back boilers to run their heating systems ,yet these are the very people that will be hit hardest by the introduction of ‘carbon tax’s ‘ they are ALREADY in ‘fuel poverty’ -over 150,000 people could not afford to heat their homes properly last winter according to st vincent paul , this winter will be worse again –but hey ! it will suit the upper middle class ‘greenies’ to see a few thousand ‘scroungers’ killed off this winter just so they can glat about ireland ‘doing its bit’ to save the planet !!
Now, just back to the climat change campaign. Got it? Nope? Keep your wallet then.
The big corporations are the biggest polluters, poor people being blamed for climate change. also we don’t have much alternatives available. Public transport outside of Dublin non existent and most people have no choice but to use coal and oil to heat their homes in freezing conditions. But the metropolitan liberal elite have no such worries
I wonder what idiot negotiated these green targets….were they ever realistic?
@Aire Dezamba: Not realistic and utterly pointless if China and India are let off. It needs to be torn up and renegotiated.
@Burn_the_Witch: They’re not let off. China is 9 years ahead of it’s Paris accord agreement targets. Each Irish person emits 5 times more CO2 than an Indian citizen. But hey, keep pointing the finger at someone else, right?
@Paraic: Debunked above – that “China is 9 years ahead” article is based on pure guesswork.
@Daniel Dunne: Eh, No it’s not. Provide a source that isn’t a blog, thanks. Weren’t you the one that insisted on sources?
Now, just back to the brainwashing climat change campaign. Got it? Nope? Keep your wallet then.
Who set these targets ? We the public were never consulted
How are the powerhouses of the world doing ..China U.S.A and Russia doing. I’d imagine they aren’t screwing their citizens with the green agenda.. the next great tax take
cows eating grass helps the air, surely should get a credit for grass fed animals?
@David Lafferty FCCA: The emissions from cows is the largest or second largest after transport emissions in our inventory. The thing is as you mention, grass that is our main feedstock for cows, doesn’t get an allowance as a carbon sink. If the grassland management and land management was accounted for differently we would solve our problems in the emissions targets. I don’t agree with the way the use agriculture emissions in the same inventory as transport and industry, their emissions are toxic and pollute plus kill people, cows bleach out some methane whilst producing sustainable protein products. The system the EU implemented upon Ireland is flawed without giving Ireland flexibility’s for agriculture. The EU have actually amended this for 2030 targets, not 2020 ones.
Co2 from transport needs to be split into contributory parts to get a grip on this.
Eg
private
Commercial
Aviation
Marine
Etc
Some fuels pay no duties and no carbon tax.
Are we been told or dictated to that tiny Ireland is the biggest blame for the worlds pollution when it has no effect
How
@Paraic: that’s juts not true. The first principle of modelling is that the outputs are wrong. There is no magic machines predicting the future. We can’t tell the weather more than a few days in advance.
A model is quite simple input a based on what we think happened and get output b based on what we think.
The most accurate science is the one looking back at the graphs of increases in co2 and how this has affected things .
As for telling someone what exactly will happen that’s just fantasy.
Yawn Yawn Yawn
Public services up 8%, nice to see, leading the way…
Pesky Farmers !!! Worst polluters in every way !
@Con Veron: To be more specific, beef Farmers. Even switching to eating chicken instead will help. Methane and CO2 output are way higher for beef farming than other types of meat. https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/scientists-find-beef-production-harmful-to-the-environment/
@Paraic: Yes you are spot on. Beef is the worst. We should shut that down and get our beef instead from a raped out rain forest in Brazil. We can at the same time make use of the wood biomass made available for shipping over here to truck up to keep the old peat stations going at 30% efficiency. No, I don’t think so.!. Sell our beef at top price in a mega, beef processor cartel breaking deal with the Chinese, in exchange for taking four of their MSRs for Moneypoint http://www.bene.ie and let the farmers grow our own biomass for burning in local town CHP plant at 80% efficiency, all at massive economic and environmental advantage to local Ireland.
@Nicholas Grubb: Have you considered the possibility of eating something else? Why is “beef from raped out rainforests” your only solution? Your other points continue along the same vein. You haven’t noticed the wind farms all over the country I suppose? Importing timber wouldn’t be there way forward. Maybe we could plant 440 million trees by 2040? https://tinyurl.com/yxp9x2zv
Surprised no not me
Ask energy companies to reduce their energy prices / profit to almost nothing in winter time and you will see everyone moving to electric heating solutions… But they need to profit. Nobody is really concerned about the future….
have your say