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 BATTLE FOR the hearts and votes of ordinary members of the prospective coalition parties is underway in earnest. Without this endorsement, the historic political trinity of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party can’t happen.
The main focus to date has been on the Green Party, which has been openly divided throughout the negotiation process, and whose parliamentary party patched up an uneasy truce in endorsing the new Programme for Government with some abstentions.
Prominent climate activists have been speaking both for and against the programme, including Extinction Rebellion Ireland (XR) which described the deal as ‘a textbook example of spin, jam-packed with fluffy aspirations’.
However, XR member, Paul McCormack Cooney took a more nuanced view. “There is plenty in the programme to be hopeful about, but the language is vague where we need commitments the most. As far as XR goes, it simply isn’t good enough to deal with the climate emergency, and the threat of austerity remains a very real concern”, he told me.
Why the unease?
Much of the unease centres around the fact that the commitment to 7% ‘average annual emissions cuts’ in the programme appears to be back-loaded into the second half of the 2020s, leading to anxiety that this may simply be cover for more of the kind of foot-dragging that has dogged climate action in Ireland since 2011.
While widely presented as a ‘Green Party demand’, the target of cutting greenhouse gases by 7% a year was in fact signed up to by the Fine Gael-led government which endorsed the Paris Agreement on climate change in December 2015.
The fact that no progress towards emissions cuts has been made in the five years since then is wholly down to the political failure to act in line with the science. And, like tackling a fire, the longer you delay taking action, the worse the inferno becomes.
While public attention in Ireland has in recent months been understandably captured by the coronavirus lockdown, in the real world the climate system is showing ever more ominous signs of destabilisation.
For instance, while Irish agriculture has endured near-drought conditions since early Spring, last month was the hottest May globally since instrumental records began. And the first five months of 2020 are also the hottest ever recorded.
Meanwhile, in the first week of this month, temperatures in parts of Siberia well inside the Arctic Circle breached 30ºC. And, while there has been much media focus on air pollution falling as a result of the coronavirus lockdown, last month also saw global levels of the powerful heat-trapping gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) hit 417 parts per million, the highest level in at least the last three million years.
‘Insufferable heat’
Separately, a recent research paper made the shattering projection that, for every degree centigrade the Earth’s average temperature increases this century, around one billion people will endure ‘insufferable heat’, with crops unable to grow and animals also dying in these extreme conditions.
Based on our current level of emissions, scientists estimate that some three billion humans will be forced to abandon their homes and lands in the next 50 years as living conditions become impossible.
Apart from this human disaster on an unimaginable scale, the geopolitical consequences are stark, especially when borne in mind how the European Union was thrown into deep crisis a few years ago as a result of the influx of refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war.
Since tackling the climate emergency is the most urgent challenge, by this measure, the programme for government, for all its imperfections, is by far the best step forward in at least a decade.
The aim is to reduce Ireland’s total emissions by around 50% by 2030, a highly ambitious objective for a country which even Taoiseach Leo Varadkar had to admit was a “laggard” on climate action. Debate continues as to how exactly this goal will be achieved, but the mechanisms being put in place, including five-yearly carbon budgets and a tough new Climate Action Bill, suggest this is not just another false dawn.
Vital changes
Delivering change on this scale requires big actions, and the boldest of these is the plan to retrofit half a million Irish homes to minimum B2 standard by 2030. This is likely to cost around €25 billion over 10 years. This sounds massive until you consider that over the last decade, Ireland spent around €57 billion on climate-damaging imported fossil fuels.
A national retrofit plan will bring employment to every town and county in Ireland, providing a vital post-Covid financial pick-me-up. The bonus for householders is that big savings on fuel bills should make warmer, safer homes self-financing over time.
Equally bold is the plan to have the national grid at least 70% powered by renewables this decade. This includes adding 5GW of new offshore wind farms and interconnectors to France. It is no pipe dream to say that, with political will and vision, Ireland could have electrified our transport and heating systems and by the mid-2030s be a major net energy exporter.
This should mean billions of euros flooding into our economy annually from clean energy exports capable of supplying 5% of Europe’s total electricity needs since Europe’s highest average wind speeds are located off our western coastline. What won’t feature off Ireland’s coasts are new oil or gas drilling projects, with licensing being stopped and a ban on fracked imported gas also being enacted. These are really huge environmental success stories.
The programme’s commitment to at least 20% of transport funding for cycling and walking is another decisive shift. This guarantees €360 a year for a Cinderella sector that has languished as billions were poured into motorway projects in recent decades.
The largely car-free lockdown has underlined a latent public appetite for cycling, but it has to be safe, meaningfully protected and integrated cycleways, not helmets and hi-vis jackets.
On the downside, the programme has failed to tackle agricultural emissions, almost all of which are generated by beef and dairy production, accounting for a third of total national emissions, and these have actually risen by 8% since 2015. The sector plans to use its political clout to duck doing its fair share this decade as well.
The irony here is that agriculture is highly vulnerable to climate-driven weather extremes, particularly droughts and flooding.
The best time to have gotten serious about climate action was 20 years ago. The second best time is right now. Let’s go.
John Gibbons is an environmental writer and commentator who specialises in covering the climate and biodiversity emergency. He is a contributor to The Irish Times, The Guardian and DeSmog.uk and is a regular guest environmental commentator on broadcast media. He blogs at Thinkorswim.ie and also runs the website Climatechange.ie and is on Twitter: @think_or_swim.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
As long as they realise tax doesn’t fix climate change. Remove the planning process for solar panels on houses and let people sell their electricity back to the grid tax free. Give people grants to upgrade the wiring in their home to accommodate electric cars. They need to force large landlords first to upgrade the BER rating of the homes they are letting. They should Lead by example and stop buying diesel buses.
@eoin carroll: Also ban all private planes and
helicopters flying into and around Ireland no need for them (unless used by emergency services). Encourage companies to continue to let staff work from home where they can.
@eoin carroll: 100% change the planning regs made by the dinosaurs
@eoin carroll: drastically cutting meat and dairy consumption is the best and quickest way individuals can contribute to emissions reductions.
@eoin carroll: theres planning permission needed for solar panels ?!
@Connor: Protein is an important part of the human diet most non meat protein is brought in from other countries this isn’t good for the environment either and look up how almond milk is made in California it kills millions of bees and needs a lot of irrigated water no way is that better for the environment. How about just not wasting any meat you buy rather than cutting it out completely.
@Connor:That is absolute b.s Beef and dairy in Ireland for the majority of farmers is based on a grass which is carbon nuetral.If the govt decides to offset our grasslands against a more pollutant industrial output and decides to villify farmers that cant be blamed on cows can it.I suggest you stop buying cars t.v’s phones computers toasters in fact all consumer goods if you really want to make a difference because unlike what the greens would like you to believe Ireland is not the bad boy of the world when it comes to emissions. Bigger industrialised countries can export their carbon for consumer goods manufacture to the likes of Ireland and that includes the transport emissions which skews our output massively and on the flip we are still on the hook for beef and dairy we export.
Surely we should be addressing the real problem, which is the 8bn people consuming resources?
There is no comprehensive solution which does not include massive population control.
Fewer people = fewer resources consumed, less food water demand etc etc
We should be educating people that the single most significant step anyone can make to help the environment is to not have children.
@James Brady: funny thing is that there is a clear correlation between education levels and lower fertility. Some of the most educated countries now have a falling population.
@James Brady: not to harp on but just pointing out the capitalism piece on this. Currently the world is over producing as businesses produce for profit and not for need. We used to have an economy based around scarcity, but scarcity is now gone. This means we can shift to more socialised policies and produce only what we need straight away. Hold companies accountable for producing waste products.
While that is happening you can then begin to educate on family planning etc and address the consumption levels of a growing population.
@James Brady: we can start with you James
I dunno if Ireland make any difference? Those wind farms are crap. China and India and other big nation’s are the real problem when we talk about climate change ..
@Henry: but what can individual farmers and workers in China and India do either!? So really no-one should take any responsibility or take any action!
The fact is green energy is coming whether we like it or not. For one thing oil and coal won’t last forever. Now – would you have the Chinese and Indians buy our green tech, or us buy theirs?
@Henry:
Every country has been asked to reduce their own emissions by 7%.
Small countries make a difference by showing the big ones what is possible.
As I said on another article, the plastic bag levy and the smoking ban were pioneering ideas that paved the way for similar countries to act.
@Henry: That’s a dangerously irresponsible way of thinking. European countries’ CO2 emissions per capita are among the highest (most in Top 30) while India and China ranked 101th and 38th. Ireland is 40th. Every single individual and country is involved in climate change and must play an equal part in reducing its impact.
@Henry: We are a spec on the wider problem but we still need to pull our weight
@Deirdre O’Byrne: not sure we’re talking about individual farmers in China; we’re more talking about the fact that the CCP is opening one new coal powered power plant per week which is materially impactful.
@Fintan O’flaois: yet they produce far less CO2 per head than we do. It’s more than a tad unfair to complain about their opening power plants when we do effectively nothing to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel.
@Seriousnojoke: so what you are saying is European countries need to have a population explosion so that their country emissions per capita reduce like India and China? Do you see how stupid you can look when you don’t understand the information you are regurgitating?
@Deirdre O’Byrne: Yes because the calculations for carbon emissions are skewed to favour bigger more industrialised countries who can export carbon with the goods they sell to the consumer country. China as a country is the single biggest contributer to carbon emissions in the world almost a third on its own and thats with favourable emissions calculations. I would love to know what the real tallies amount to for the likes of them and the states and germany if they were not allowed to export the carbon cost of the manufacture of consumer goods.
@Dino: Why not per capita?! Developed countries outsource heavy pollution industries to poorer countries for cheap labour and materials abroad and fresh air at home. When the pandemic hits you want the supply chain and jobs back and when environmental problems happen you want to keep them out? Well tough, the world doesn’t spin just for you!
Greater socialism to control the runaway train that is capitalism could also help. This is where the greens need to stay strong to their principles.
Agree that Irelands carbon footprint is a drop in the ocean when it comes to other countries, but we still can’t use that as an excuse to do nothing. If every other country just said “well we’re not as bad as China” then no progress would ever be made.
Whatever about climate, it seems to me the weather is the same now as it has always been in my lifetime.
Carbon Tax not going to change that.
The greens would disagree.
They think the best time to tackle it is in five years time
According to Eamon Ryan the 7% annual reduction was a redline issue for the Greens to go into government. Backloading it seems like a bit of a cop out to me.
Unfortunately most of you who have commented and the dude who wrote the article have fallen for the climate change scam propagated by billionaires who see huge profits for them by winding up the climate zealots
By the way these billionaires made all their money from oil and gas and still do.
Give your collective heads a shake people
@Ned:
Okay which part of anthropogenic global warming is a scam
@Maurice: main scam is that Earth’s temperature will rise dangerously if we continue to burn fossil fuels. BS based on dodgy models.
Secondary scams are that windmills are useful for generating electricity or electric cars are less polluting than ICE cars.
The disasterous predicted temperatures are based on exaggerated models.
Anyone who questions them is attacked mercilessly by the woke, man not ball.
The author of this article has distinguished himself with merciless attacks on distinguished meteorologist Ray Bates,. He is just an ‘environnental journalist’. A kind of warmist high priest.
Thejournal lowering it’s standards.
@Ned: Spot on. The answer to this mega problem coming on top of us, is Gen 4 nuclear. Wind only has a load factor of 35% and solar much less, indeed is quite useless at times we need it, 7 to 9am in the Winter mornings and 5 to 7pm in the evenings.
Gen 4 was invented sixty years ago, but suppressed for two major reasons. Firstly no use for bomb making and secondly would put the fossil fuel gang our of business. Needs a lot of investment to bring it forward a.s.a.p., like for instance 10% of what has been ploughed into wind and solar over the past fifteen years, meaning approx one thousand billion dollars. All this wind game is being pushed heavily by the fracked gas corporates, who aim to have us over the barrel. Really good short Youtube explains Gen 4 well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju59gcdmdvI&t=20s
By the way the writer John Gibbons was on with Moncreiff last Friday, Newstalk. Enthusing about Sweden, who incidentally are already 40% old type nuclear.
@Ulick Stafford:
You’re very general in what you say is a scam so if you could expand a bit that would help. However here is a good video looking at the claim of electric cars being just as damaging
https://youtu.be/hwMPFDqyfrA
@Ned: Spot on. The answer to this mega problem coming on top of us, is Gen 4 nuclear. Wind only has a load factor of 35% and solar much less, indeed is quite useless at times we need it, 7 to 9am in the Winter mornings and 5 to 7pm in the evenings.
Gen 4 was invented sixty years ago, but suppressed for two major reasons. Firstly no use for bomb making and secondly would put the fossil fuel gang our of business. Needs a lot of investment to bring it forward a.s.a.p., like for instance 10% of what has been ploughed into wind and solar over the past fifteen years, meaning approx one thousand billion dollars. All this wind game is being pushed heavily by the fracked gas corporates, who aim to have us over the barrel. Really good short Youtube explains Gen 4 well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju59gcdmdvI&t=20s
By the way the writer John Gibbons was on with Moncreiff last Friday, Newstalk. Enthusing about Sweden, who incidentally are already 40% old type nuclear.
All the talk about cutting out our cattle is rubbish. More methane is going to be released from the permafrost than from a billion more cattle.
@Nicholas Grubb:
I think a lot of the nuclear focus is on getting ITER to work. Getting fusion technology over the line.
The 3rd most expensive building in the world is a Finnish generation 3 nuclear reactor, why would gen 4 be cheaper?
@Ulick Stafford: It seems you are looking at dodgy models. If you have evidence that the models are wrong publish it and I am sure you will become a noted Nobel Laureate. You won’t because the models have been consistently correct. The Kochs have spent a lot of money and bought some scientists who have not managed to produce one piece of peer reviewed evidence for the anti scientific nonsense they spout. Master Bates does not have any credible scientific evidence for his claims either though he probably enjoys looking at dodgy models. The evidence for AGW is overwhelming, the evidence against is non-existent. Here is a sample of some of the peer evidence for AGW. Just the A to B selected. C to Z can be supplied later. Which ones do you say are wrong?
Abbot, C.G., 1910: The solar constant of radiation. Smithsonian Institution
Annual Report, p. 319.
Ackerman, T., and G. Stokes, 2003: The Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement Program. Phys. Today, 56, 38–44.
Adkins, J.F., et al., 1998: Deep-sea coral evidence for rapid change in
ventilation of the deep North Atlantic 15,400 years ago. Science, 280,
725–728.
Agassiz, L., 1837: Discours d’ouverture sur l’ancienne extension des
glaciers. Société Helvétique des Sciences Naturelles, Neufchâtel.
Albrecht, B.A., et al., 1995: The Atlantic Stratocumulus Transition
Experiment – ASTEX. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 76, 889–904.
Alley, R.B., et al., 1993: Abrupt increase in Greenland snow accumulation
at the end of the Younger Dryas event. Nature, 362, 527–529.
Arrhenius, S., 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the
temperature on the ground, Philos. Mag., 41, 237–276.
Aßmann, R., 1902: Über die Existenz eines wärmeren Luftstromes in der
Höhe von 10 bis 15 km. Sitzungsbericht der Königlich-Preußischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Sitzung der physikalischmathematischen
Klasse vom 1. Mai 1902, XXIV, 1–10.
Balachandran, N.K., and D. Rind, 1995: Modeling the effects of UVvariability
and the QBO on the troposphere-stratosphere system. Part I:
The middle atmosphere. J. Clim., 8, 2058–2079.
Barnett, T.P., 1995: Monte Carlo climate forecasting. J. Clim., 8, 1005–
1022.
Barnett, T.P., et al., 1999: Detection and attribution of recent climate
change: A status report. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 80, 2631–2660.
Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius, 1987: Vostok
ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2. Nature, 329,
408–414.
Battle, M., et al., 1996: Atmospheric gas concentrations over the past
century measured in air from fi rn at South Pole. Nature, 383, 231–235.
Bender, M., et al., 1996: Variability in the O-2/N-2 ratio of southern
hemisphere air, 1991-1994: Implications for the carbon cycle. Global
Biogeochem. Cycles, 1, 9–21.
Berger, A., M.F. Loutre, and H. Gallée, 1998: Sensitivity of the LLN
climate model to the astronomical and CO2 forcings over the last 200
kyr. Clim. Dyn., 14, 615–629.
Berner, W., H. Oeschger, and B. Stauffer, 1980: Information on the CO2
cycle from ice core studies. Radiocarbon, 22, 227–235.
Berson, A., and R. Süring, 1901: Ein ballonaufstieg bis 10 500m. Illustrierte
Aeronautische Mitteilungen, Heft 4, 117–119.
Birchfi eld, G.E., H. Wang, and M. Wyant, 1990: A bimodal climate response
controlled by water vapor transport in a coupled ocean-atmosphere box
model. Paleoceanography, 5, 383–395.
Bjerknes, J., 1964: Atlantic air-sea interaction. Adv. Geophys., 10, 1–82.
Bjerknes, J., 1969: Atmospheric teleconnections from the equatorial
Pacifi c. Mon. Weather Rev., 97, 163–172.
Blake, D.R., et al., 1982: Global increase in atmospheric methane
concentrations between 1978 and 1980. Geophys. Res. Lett., 9, 477–
480.
Blunier, T., et al., 1998: Asynchrony of Antarctic and Greenland climate
change during the last glacial period. Nature, 394, 739–743.
Bond, G., et al., 1992: Evidence for massive discharges of icebergs into the
glacial Northern Atlantic. Nature, 360, 245–249.
Bony, S., K.-M. Lau, and Y.C. Sud, 1997: Sea surface temperature and
large-scale circulation infl uences on tropical greenhouse effect and
cloud radiative forcing. J. Clim., 10, 2055–2077.
Brasseur, G., 1993: The response of the middle atmosphere to long term
and short term solar variability: A two dimensional model. J. Geophys.
Res., 28, 23079–23090.
Brazdil, R., 1992: Reconstructions of past climate from historical sources
in the Czech lands. In: Climatic Variations and Forcing Mechanisms
of the Last 2000 Years [Jones, P.D., R.S. Bradley, and J. Jouzel (eds.)].
Springer Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 649 pp.
Brewer, P.G., et al., 1983: A climatic freshening of the deep North Atlantic
(north of 50° N) over the past 20 years. Science, 222, 1237–1239.
Broecker, W.S., 1997: Thermohaline circulation, the Achilles heel of our
climate system: will man-made CO2 upset the current balance? Science,
278, 1582–1588.
Broecker, W.S., and G.H. Denton, 1989: The role of ocean-atmosphere
reorganizations in glacial cycles. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 2465–
2501.
Brohan P., et al., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global
observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850. J. Geophys.
Res., 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548.
Bryan, F., 1986: High-latitude salinity effects and interhemispheric
thermohaline circulations. Nature, 323, 301–304.
Bryan, K., 1969: A numerical method for the study of the circulation of the
world ocean. J. Comput. Phys., 4, 347–376.
Bryan, K., and M.J. Spelman, 1985: The ocean’s response to a CO2-induced
warming. J. Geophys. Res., 90, 679–688.
Bryan, K., S. Manabe, and R.C. Pacanowski, 1975: A global oceanatmosphere
climate model. Part II. The oceanic circulation. J. Phys.
Oceanogr., 5, 30–46.
Bryson, R.A., and G.J. Dittberner, 1976: A non-equilibrium model of
hemispheric mean surface temperature. J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 2094–2106.
Bryson, R.A., and G.J. Dittberner, 1977: Reply. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1821–
1824.
Budyko, M.I., 1969: The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of
the Earth. Tellus, 21, 611–619.
Buys Ballot, C.H.D., 1872: Suggestions on a Uniform System of
Meteorological Observations. Publication No. 37, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute, Utrecht, 56 pp.
@Maurice:
Just look at the Moltex Youtube. Gen 4 is based on factory built modular design. The one off monsters are just like the childrens’ hospital. Bottomless pits.
@Maurice: mans impact on it is the scam , the world will warm and cool again as it did over the last millions years mans impact on it is minimal to nothing.
Read up on it do the research
We should have but we had FFG holding power and being directed by big business lobby groups, we change or we dont, 2nd chance at the ballots coming soon..
Eamon has tucked up his own party so i dont know what the greens can do to recover apart from completely rejecting pfg and go out on the attack..
@MickN: if the greens chicken out of government this time, they’re finished.
Not much flipping climate change evident in Dublin today. Blown off my feet earlier and lashing now. Summer of 2018 seems very distant.
European countries’ CO2 emissions per capita are among the highest (most in Top 30). Ireland was ranked the 40th in 2018. People seem to forget that we in developed countries have the freedom to enjoy/consume more resources hence produce more greenhouse gas than developing countries. When almost every household here owns at least one car, can eat meat and drink milk everyday, people in developing countries are mostly using bicycles/public transport and living frugally.
Every single individual is responsible for climate change and must play an equal part in reducing its impact.
@Seriousnojoke: developing countries still eat meat and drink milk. It’s the industry and energy in developed countries that make the difference. Businesses and corporations can be far more effective in reducing emissions than individuals
@Yun Wyn: Indeed energy consumption is a big factor, however according to the UN, Livestock are responsible for about 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
In Ireland, Agriculture accounts for the majority of methane (CH4) emissions (85%) due to the dominance of cattle and sheep livestock production in Irish agricultural output.
@Seriousnojoke: methane from livestock is on 12 year cycle. So it disappears after 12 years. If rumenants were so bad they have been producing methane since the evolution of man and even before that in huge numbers. Ireland produces Least amount of emissions per liter of milk in eu and 5th in beef so less livestock in Ireland means more in feedlots in Amazon. Agriculture produces a lot of emissions but new technologies such as a small seaweed additive which if given to cattle would make them carbon negative. Yes Agriculture produces a lot but I think is being scapegoated as it also takes in huge amounts of carbon
@Seriousnojoke: Again, why use per capita, are you seriously agitating for a population explosion in Europe so our energy use per capita falls in line with higher populated countries? Ridiculous argument, if there was a brain cell in the whole environmental lobby they might realise why nobody takes them seriously.
@Dino: Why not per capita?! Do people in the 3rd world countries deserve less resources and economic development per person than the superior Europeans? Remember back in the 1950s Britain had serious air pollution which caused thousands died. By outsourcing heavy pollution industries to poorer countries, developed countries get to enjoy cheap labour and fresh air at the same time. But in the pandemic they realise they’ve become too dependent on the developing countries supply chain and start blaming them for “stealing our jobs”. How convenient!
GH gases are produced everywhere so everyone every country must take the responsibility and you think we should let the poor people continue being poor so you can lay back and do nothing??
I’m amazed at your selfishness, bigotry and greed.
Another modern day priest giving us a sermon
If GPs want to make a difference then they should take their opportunity to go into government. Voters wlll remember if they cause a crisis of their making particularly after their own negotiators signed off on the pfg!
Give us a break,climate change has been with us since time began,
We should have tackled climate change FORTY PLUS years ago
@Todd Hebert: Well anthropogenic (man-made) climate change was only recognised as a potential threat in the late 1980s so forty years makes no sense, even thirty would’ve been highly optimistic, we have wasted a couple of decades though.
have your say