# Forget Property prices - the real elephant in the room is Energy



## edo

Hi Folks

I've been thinking for a good few weeks now about kicking off a debate on Energy - its funny , over the last couple of months of so I've found the topic jumping up in front of me with increasing regularity , be it a documentary on the journey of a barrel of oil from the north sea to the market , a Primetime report on Irelands energy policy (or lack of) , newspapers articles on global warming , oil prices, a paperback on " the end of the oil " casually picked in an airport transit lounge shop to while away a longhaul flight ,totting up the total amount I've spend on fuel surcharges sending freight around the world this past year (scary - me Financial Controller is still on medication after seeing that one!) etc etc etc. 

I guess what Im trying to say , to use that well worn cliche about money not being the most important thing in life, but its a close second to oxygen - I think we'll be categorising energy up there with it very soon - how we generate it, how we transport it , how much we are willing to pay for it and how much we are willing to alter/compromise our environment to have it. No ne the less I've yet to hear much real discussion on the "Street" about an issue I believe is going to fundamentally change our world , particularly our financial and economic world over the next 40 -50 years or so 

I realise that this topic is vast – trust me I’ve been ruminating for the last few days on how exactly to approach it because energy use touches damn near every single aspect of our lives, particularly here in the more hi tech modern world. This being a Financial site and the fact that Im posting in the Great Financial debates forum I would like to concentrate on the economic implications as opposed to the environmental concerns , though having said that I believe the latter to be just as valid in an economic sense (if you don’t believe me just wait until next year when the irish government will have to face the European commission on our progress towards the Kyoto emission targets and will have to report that we collectively on this little island of ours have blasted straight through them with the speed and care of a boyracer on mind altering substances and watch the Commission hit us all with large and quite substantial fines for doing so).

   Therefore – I will throw up a few opening posers to kick this off

   1)Oil
          Are we paying a fair price – will it increase or decrease going to the future?
What factors do you think will determine this – have we reached peak oil yet? If we have that means there is only 50% left – and bear in mind over 90% of that has been consumed by less than 14% of the worlds population – other 85% are looking to get on the same lifestyle bandwagon over the next 50 years – Do you think the Arabs will bother selling us any with all these new customers after the West’s carry on in their part of the world over the last century or so?
Should I be investing in Oil stocks? Oil companies? Do you think that "peak oil" is a load of complete bull and there are oceans of undiscovered blackgold lying out there?

   Implications for Ireland?

 property – will I be able to drive from Longford to Dublin and not have to wait for my next paycheck to be able to drive back?
Electricity and Gas prices will increasing by 20-30% in the coming months - a blip or a sign of things to come? what effect will this have on consumer spending and employment - particualarly as the current plan of a high tech future will be reliant on a plentiful supply of cheap reliable energy.

Transportation - will I get a boarding pass or a can of red bull when Im checking in at the airport in 30 years time? - will air still be a viable means of transportation for the masses or is it time to seriously consider building that tunnel link to the UK?


   2)Coal and Gas
    They say that there is enough coal to power the world for the next couple of centuries
So can I afford to sit down to a nice coal fire for the rest of my natural life without the nagging doubt in the back of my mind that I’ll be condemning my grand and great grandchildren to a sunless sky and carbon eating algae burgers for their nutrition?
Is it a good time to invest in technology designed to minimise the emissions and produce “clean coal”? technology that will convert and extract gas from coal – will it be cost effective and profitable without drawing excessive carbon taxes? Should I be looking at buying a few disused coal mines down in Castlecomer? – will there be any money in the storage and disposal of such waste? Carbon emission trading – its started in Europe – will this be the way to go for the whole world in the future?

   3) renewables

Are renewables the way to go – or just an expensive unreliable sop to the Green Lobby? Windmills , solar panels , tidal energy , geothermal , large scale gov spending or small scale so everybody can become an energy consumer and producer? Is this a serious runner and the answer to Irelands energy needs – will the energy sector be further privatised and the grid modernised so that anybody can sell their surplus energy on to national market place? Anybody know of any hot start ups or green stocks or are willing to take a punt on fuel cells and the like – the next ballard maybe? 
Are biofuels the way to go? – We have 2 redundant sugar refineries with most of the gear there already to start this sitting there should the gov make us of these and are we willing to subsidise the launch of this – or will we take the easy option and build apartments on them?

   3)Nuclear –(hope I spelt that right – I could feel a touch of the Dubya’s coming on there)

Will we finally have to bite the bullet and go for McWilliams current mot du jour? – Is it a realistic runner? Has the technology improved that much ? Will it be a feasible proposition? Will the nimby’s have any other choice if the we don’t want blackouts at teatime every day?

 Nuclear Fusion – a realistic proposition in the next 50 years? – 100 years ? ever?

Barely a few of the thoughts I’ve been looking at over the past while – It is a vast subject but I believe the most important one facing us at this moment in time – It will have massive implications for every aspect of financial activity in this country and the globe – yet is barely discussed in day to day conversation 

I would welcome any thoughts , ideas,predictions or experiences or tips on any of the above or any aspect which you feel should be addressed under the heading , keeping ,of course ,within AAM’s posting guidelines and rules.

I will come back and give my two cents on various parts that interest me (hope I won’t be talking to myself tho – then again there would be nothing new in that!)

   Later

   EDO


----------



## owenm

I'd like to know what the story is with Gas, more specifically "Irelands" Gas, e.g. What benefit is the benefit to the exchequer for each therm brought ashore and I'm not interested in jobs on site. This relates to the bigger picture above because further discoveries are possible and if we do have susbtantial reserves of Gas offshore how does it bode for us if their is a benefit to the exchequer, could ireland become a manufacturing base for energy intensive industries if we had cheap electricity?


----------



## sunrock

An excellent website is  www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
and peak oil.
Just type it  into your search engine.
I don t   know how to do links_sorry.
Honestly the site above is fantastic and has many interesting links and should answer most peoples questions.
Ignore the book ads_just concentrate on the main article.
The basic premise is that peak oil is either now ,or very close and that we are looking at depletng oil supplies at a time of increasing consumption.
Alternatives just won t provide enough energy.
Transportation fuel seems to be irreplacable except by derivatives of fossil fuels such as electricity or biodiesel produced by oil intensive agriculture or hydrogen formed by electrolysis which  is energy intensive.
Why one may ask are we doing very little?
Simple. We or our leaders aren t concerned about the future in 10, 20 or 50 years down the road.
We pretend that technology or whatever will solve the problem.
Personally i think humans will use up the remaining fossil fuels and will only go to sustainable methods when no other option is left.
It might be a bit like life in 1910 with computers.
As for gas on the west coast of ireland fueling energy intensive industries i think this is highly unlikely.


----------



## PMU

This really is pub talk, bit here’s my few cents worth.
  The average price for oil since WWII is about 25 USD a barrel.  Oil has increased before to higher prices than now, e.g. at the Iranian revolution and the Iran Iraq war in 1981, and between 1973 and 1985 oil was above average. But despite those increases and the current one the average price (inflation adjusted)  is still the same. While the economy did suffer from the oil shock in the 70s, by the 80s, under the wise guidance of the two greatest post-WWII leaders – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan  - the economy boomed even though oil prices were above average for most of that period.  It’s public policy, entrepreneurship, deregulation, privatisation and new ways of working and creating wealth like the dot com boom that determine prosperity and not oil prices.  Increased oil prices may put up the cost of running your car but not should not damage overall prosperity – if we just continue to do what Maggie and Ronnie did. 
  Investing in oil company stocks makes sense, as these really are energy companies that operate on very long time lines, so the oil majors are also the major players in solar energy, ‘clean coal’, etc. If they can’t make money in oil they’ll make it in something else that is related, in which they can use their skills and experience.
  Electricity in Ireland is expensive because the regulator rigs the market in favour of the ESB.  It’s a monopoly supplier to the consumer.  Electricity is cheaper everywhere else.  We’re just being ripped off.
  As for coal there’s a ludicrous amount of it around. The Chinese intend to open 544 new coal-burning stations over the next 25 years.   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm.  So forget about adopting a ‘low carbon’ lifestyle. The Chinese are going for broke on this one.  (And they haven’t touched their oil reserves yet).
  Renewables are largely a joke and most windmills will never ‘save’ the amount of CO2 that went into their manufacture. But as the EU intends to rig the market by forcing a certain % of energy to be generated by renewables, there’s probably a few bob to be made by investing in such companies with well defined business plans. 
  Nuclear is clearly the best, clean, cheap when up and running, no C02, etc. but it is expensive to develop nuclear plants.  The real risk for investors here is that the Saudis may cut the price of oil to say 5 USD a barrel thus rendering void any investment in nuclear power.  So, unless the state provides guarantees I can’t see such investment in nuclear power by the private sector.  (Although the UK appears to be making all the right noises in this area, e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8164-2351724.html)


----------



## Sarsfield

[broken link removed]

I have a copy of the above book.  Now, granted, Feasta is an organisation with an agenda.  But some of the papers in the book make interesting reading.

It can be read for free on the Feasta website

http://www.feasta.org/documents/wells/contents.html?sitemap.html

I agree with PMU on one point.  Whether oil runs out or runs on forever, the oil companies are a good long term investment.    If oil starts to run out it gets expensive and oil companies make big profits.  If it keeps running, they supply the fuel for a growing global economy.  I'm finding it hard to think of a way to lose money on oil companies!

One useless little factoid, prompted by something PMU said - I think ExxonMobil is one oil company with no investment in alternative energy.  I'm open to correction on this.


----------



## PMU

[FONT=&quot]Sarsfield:  I don't want to be accused of  'pumping' certain oil companies but a quick web search will show the oil majors (well the obvious two) are also major providers if not the major providers of solar, bio fuels, and hydrogen technologies.  I don't know about the other company you mentioned.  So we really have to look at these as energy providers and not  'oil' companies. So I’d say these are long-term investments.  If they are not flogging oil they’ll flog some other energy source. So they’ll be around for  long time.  I'd also look at distribution companies (not here but in the UK). It’s a big market, and regardless of how it's made someone has to pump energy to your house.[/FONT]


----------



## extopia

I don't think you should dismiss renewables as a joke without references. I installed a geothermal heat pump last year and am very impressed with both the quality of the heat and the running cost (about the same as running a large fridge). Admittedly the installation costs were significantly higher than an oil or gas system, but I expect to make it back. What's the joke, exactly?

By the way if an oil company is starting to get into alternative energy markets that's actually a good sign - it means the oil company is recognizing they are the energy business rather than just the oil business. And if they are investing in alternative energy it suggests there is no "fad" here. Unless you think these guys don't know what they're doing.


----------



## BigM

Surely the major oil companies have the biggest stake in all this? 
I'm of the opinion that they will be the ones who develop the new technologies (fuel cells etc). 
It's in their own interests to maintain control of energy production and the easiest way to do that once the oil has run out is to be the main players in the new fuel technology.

[broken link removed]

http://www.fuelcells.org/

Of course if these guys turn out to be right......
http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx


----------



## daveirl

extopia said:


> I don't think you should dismiss renewables as a joke without references. I installed a geothermal heat pump last year and am very impressed with both the quality of the heat and the running cost (about the same as running a large fridge). Admittedly the installation costs were significantly higher than an oil or gas system, but I expect to make it back. What's the joke, exactly?


I don't disagree with you on the running costs but I don't understand why you don't just buy the coal and have a coal fire to heat your house. Surely that's much better for the environment than letting the ESB burn the fossil fuel to give you the electricity to run your heat pump. I'd be shocked if it was more efficient. Fair enough if it's 'clean' electricity, but otherwise while economical it's not necessarily good for the environment.


----------



## daveirl

My thoughts:

Generally I think the energy debate is simplified excessively. People seem to think you can't be for Wind Energy *and* for Nuclear. That's what I am, I'm for all types. Regardless of the cost of energy etc, it's reasonable to assume that going forward we are going to need more and more full stop. Hence I think it's important we generate as much as possible, so I'd like to see us have wind, nuclear & clean coal. I don't believe in the economics of solar power myself. Tidal has too much impact on the environment and Hydroelectric is already everywhere you can pretty much put it.

Wind Energy annoys me for the most part. It's just not feasible to get all your energy from wind but some people/groups want you to believe that it is.


----------



## elefantfresh

I hope i'm not being too cynical here but, do we really trust our current government with nuclear power? I know its supposed to be more modernised and safer nowadays etc but i'm really not sure about who i'd like looking after something as potentially potent as this. Guy on Newstalk this morning was saying that Sellafield is actually an old cold war establishment that was adapted for nuclear power generation (or words to that effect) and that a new modern station is almost risk free. Still, where on this island could you put it? Just look at Mayo and the current gas problem. Imagine telling those people you're putting a nuclear site round the corner.


----------



## BigM

elefantfresh said:


> Still, where on this island could you put it? Just look at Mayo and the current gas problem. Imagine telling those people you're putting a nuclear site round the corner.


 
That would probably be the biggest problem alright but a neat solution could be to get the UK to build one in the North. Let them get all the flak from the locals and then eventually when NI becomes part of the Republic (as demographics dictate it will)  - hey presto, we've our own reactor!


----------



## sunrock

Investing in energy companies of various kinds is all very well,but this is different from our future energy supplies and/or needs.
First if you accept that oil and gas are finite resoures,then we are depleting that resoure and oil will become increasingly expensive.
Just because the price goes up , it doesn t mean  the supply will increase.
In the last few years oil companies made record profits, even and as a result of tight supplies and big demand.
So even as their reserves declined ,their profits increased.
We are looking at constantly increasing energy prices into the future , barring recessions which can reduce demand.
China burning its coal reserves is going to be bad_imagine the pollution and the effects on global warming and climate change.
China has no oil reserves yet to be exploited_thats why they are going to burn coal and importing oil from around the world.
Renewables should imo be encouraged in ireland.
As a nation we are against nuclear.
I think this opposition would evaporate after a cold winters week without electicity!
In the meantime we might as well use up all the oil and fossil fuels we need,if its the cheapest option.


----------



## conor_mc

daveirl said:


> People seem to think you can't be for Wind Energy *and* for Nuclear.


 
Indeed. It seems we've learnt nothing from our over-reliance on oil. Diversification is probably the most sensible course of action, however costs may mitigate against that once one particular source win the race to become feasible and economically viable.


----------



## conor_mc

daveirl said:


> I don't disagree with you on the running costs but I don't understand why you don't just buy the coal and have a coal fire to heat your house. Surely that's much better for the environment than letting the ESB burn the fossil fuel to give you the electricity to run your heat pump. I'd be shocked if it was more efficient. Fair enough if it's 'clean' electricity, but otherwise while economical it's not necessarily good for the environment.


 
Problem with that is that you still need a pump behind the coal-fire to heat your radiators.... which is powered by the ESB.


----------



## daveirl

conor_mc said:


> Problem with that is that you still need a pump behind the coal-fire to heat your radiators.... which is powered by the ESB.


Agreeds, sorry my real point is that people have these things and they make out that they are environmentally friendly when they aren't necessarily.

Just a pet peeve. It's the same with a lot of things, people don't necessarily look at the big picture. i.e. I'd be pretty sure locally grown food that's not necessarily organic is better than organic food that's imported from thousands of kilometers away.


----------



## conor_mc

daveirl said:


> Agreeds, sorry my real point is that people have these things and they make out that they are environmentally friendly when they aren't necessarily.
> 
> Just a pet peeve. It's the same with a lot of things, people don't necessarily look at the big picture. i.e. I'd be pretty sure locally grown food that's not necessarily organic is better than organic food that's imported from thousands of kilometers away.


 
Aye, fair point. Heard the head of SIMI on the radio the other day telling us how new cars only produce 20% of the carbon emissions of 10-yr old cars, so govt should do another scrappage scheme to tidy up our roads.... which misses the point that driving a 10-yr old car for 10 years probably produces less carbon emissions than building the new car does!


----------



## annR

conor_mc said:


> Aye, fair point. Heard the head of SIMI on the radio the other day telling us how new cars only produce 20% of the carbon emissions of 10-yr old cars, so govt should do another scrappage scheme to tidy up our roads.... which misses the point that driving a 10-yr old car for 10 years probably produces less carbon emissions than building the new car does!


 
Is that conjecture really a valid reason to continue driving the less efficient car?  What's the solution then?  For them to find a less energy intensive way of manufacturing cars?


----------



## ubiquitous

AnnR, 

Should we all just run out and buy new cars every year because the motor dealers' association tells us it is environmentally friendly? Or should we make up our own minds?


----------



## sunrock

Its very hard to know who is being the most energy efficient , in many decisions one makes.
Buy a new car that used a lot of energy in manufacture, or keep the old one though less fuel efficient, is just one example.
I applaud people who try to conserve energy, but it is difficult to see what difference its going to make in the grand scheme of things, when the majority of people and countries are using energy as if they don t care.
And how many people are using aeroplanes, using vast amount of fuel?
A lot of this conservation is cosmetic.


----------



## comanche

sunrock said:


> Its very hard to know who is being the most energy efficient , in many decisions one makes.
> Buy a new car that used a lot of energy in manufacture, or keep the old one though less fuel efficient, is just one example.
> I applaud people who try to conserve energy, but it is difficult to see what difference its going to make in the grand scheme of things, when the majority of people and countries are using energy as if they don t care.
> And how many people are using aeroplanes, using vast amount of fuel?
> A lot of this conservation is cosmetic.


 

Aeroplane's emissions are a bit mis-leading. I remember seeing an advert by Ford in an US airport saying that a jumbo got 5mpg where as their SUV got 23mpg.

Bit misleading as an aeroplane carries far more people than an SUV so is more fuel effecient in transporting people.

However the problem with aeroplanes is that they thier emissions at such an altitude that they compound the green house effect.


----------



## extopia

daveirl said:


> Agreeds, sorry my real point is that people have these things and they make out that they are environmentally friendly when they aren't necessarily.



I am of course aware that my heat pump uses electricity supplied by the ESB. There's nothing I can do about that really - personal wind turbines don't cut it in terms of cost or efficiency. 

 I would be shocked, however, if the amount of electricity used by the heat pump is in any way equivalent in terms of fossil fuel consumption to a coal fire with the same heat output.


----------



## conor_mc

annR said:


> Is that conjecture really a valid reason to continue driving the less efficient car? What's the solution then? For them to find a less energy intensive way of manufacturing cars?


 
Who knows? Maybe the EU should force car manfacturers to publish the emissions per car produced so people can make an informed judgement.

It's horses for courses, but does somebody doing 6/7k miles of school runs a year really need a new car every 3 years? But if you're doing 50k a year, then maybe it is more efficient to replace your car with a more economical model as they become available.


----------



## badabing

extopia said:


> I am of course aware that my heat pump uses electricity supplied by the ESB. There's nothing I can do about that really - personal wind turbines don't cut it in terms of cost or efficiency.
> 
> I would be shocked, however, if the amount of electricity used by the heat pump is in any way equivalent in terms of fossil fuel consumption to a coal fire with the same heat output.



Not a coal fire but yes a gas boiler. The net effect is you burn the same amount of gas, and the cost of the energy is the same. So to anyone thinking of installing a ground source heat system, save your pocket and put in a gas boiler instead.


----------



## extopia

What sources, if any, can you cite for this claim?


----------



## annR

ubiquitous said:


> AnnR,
> Should we all just run out and buy new cars every year because the motor dealers' association tells us it is environmentally friendly? Or should we make up our own minds?


 
The latter of course but as Conor pointed out we don't have that info.  We can only act on what we know about.  

The problem is that most of this stuff is so complicated you'd need to be a full time analyst to figure it out .


----------



## futisle

> Not a coal fire but yes a gas boiler. The net effect is you burn the same amount of gas, and the cost of the energy is the same. So to anyone thinking of installing a ground source heat system, save your pocket and put in a gas boiler instead.



Save with money with a gas boiler? At the rate gas is going up in price! Not to mention paying for a service charge during the summer despite burning no gas whatsoever. Methinks there must be a better way?


----------



## ubiquitous

annR said:


> The latter of course but as Conor pointed out we don't have that info.  We can only act on what we know about.
> 
> The problem is that most of this stuff is so complicated you'd need to be a full time analyst to figure it out .



Maybe then choosing not to act might be the best strategy - despite what the motor lobby and environmental vested interests tell us...


----------



## annR

I can see what you mean, we don't want to be naively obeying vested interests.  But it's also true that the biggest obstacle for people who are genuinely trying to change things for the better is cynicism and apathy.


----------



## ubiquitous

Don't forget that much of the cynicism and apathy directed towards the so-called Green movement in Ireland is well justified. Take for example the often bizarre pronouncements from the likes of Adi Roche and Patricia McKenna, and the hypocrisy exhibited by "Chemical" Ciaran Cuffe, Joe "Waste Charges" Higgins and others. Not to mention the loonies who inhabit indymedia, Shell to Sea etc...


----------



## joe sod

daveirl said:


> I don't disagree with you on the running costs but I don't understand why you don't just buy the coal and have a coal fire to heat your house. Surely that's much better for the environment than letting the ESB burn the fossil fuel to give you the electricity to run your heat pump. I'd be shocked if it was more efficient. Fair enough if it's 'clean' electricity, but otherwise while economical it's not necessarily good for the environment.


 
I do know that when the ESB produces electricity from coal it is very efficient in terms of energy output because they use super heated steam. However the big added on costs with the ESB are their very high labour costs with over manning, and administration costs. If you had a really good domestic heating system using coal it would probably use less energy than powering a geothermal pump but there may not be that much difference in terms of energy used in both systems. However I think the geothermal system would probably be much cheaper over the long term because you would be buying your coal in bags from a shop which is very expensive with all the middle men, whereas the ESB buy their coal in bulk by the shipload which is way cheaper


----------



## daveirl

joe sod said:


> However I think the geothermal system would probably be much cheaper over the long term because you would be buying your coal in bags from a shop which is very expensive with all the middle men, whereas the ESB buy their coal in bulk by the shipload which is way cheaper


Never disputed the cheapness, just said I wasn't so sure that people who are doing all this stuff to their houses are necessarily helping the environment in a measurable way!

Another example of the things I'm talking about, a Mercedes S Class will do less damage to the environment than a Prius because of the way it's manufactured, sure the Prius will burn less fuel but the S Class has standards on what can and can't be used in it's construction.


----------



## annR

ubiquitous said:


> Don't forget that much of the cynicism and apathy directed towards the so-called Green movement in Ireland is well justified. Take for example the often bizarre pronouncements from the likes of Adi Roche and Patricia McKenna, and the hypocrisy exhibited by "Chemical" Ciaran Cuffe, Joe "Waste Charges" Higgins and others. Not to mention the loonies who inhabit indymedia, Shell to Sea etc...


 
Well what do you expect from politicians.  And anything environmental will always attract the usual gambit of dreadlocked people with dogs which I think does more harm than good.  Who cares about all them - people who want to make some sort of difference should still try to figure it out rather than adapting a 'do nothing' approach.


----------



## Marie

PMU said:


> Electricity in Ireland is expensive because the regulator rigs the market in favour of the ESB. It’s a monopoly supplier to the consumer. Electricity is cheaper everywhere else. We’re just being ripped off.
> (snip) The Chinese intend to open 544 new coal-burning stations over the next 25 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm. (snip) Nuclear is clearly the best, clean, cheap when up and running, no C02, etc. but it is expensive to develop nuclear plants. The real risk for investors here is that the Saudis may cut the price of oil to say 5 USD a barrel thus rendering void any investment in nuclear power. So, unless the state provides guarantees I can’t see such investment in nuclear power by the private sector. (Although the UK appears to be making all the right noises in this area, e.g. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8164-2351724.html)


 
Electricity - and fuels generally - are _too cheap!!_   If they were more expensive the response to statistics on finite resources and the damage they cause would be for more parsimonious and responsible use.  Nota Bene that the general debate here so far has been "how can we produce more fuel and keep it cheap" NOT "How do we learn to use less more effectively?"

Blaming China, blaming Brazil for cutting down the Amazonian forests for a ludicrous short-term dollars profit, blaming anyone and everyone else, is not an option.  

Regarding your endorsement of nuclear power the planet is now brimming with radioactive waste which is regularly sent to the African subcontinent for 'disposal' (!???)  If nuclear energy is so clean, safe, effecient, cheap then build a nuclear power-plant in Dublin city centre (Liberty Hall is up for sale I believe?) where the population can  contemplate their decision and achievement.

Essentially we have to (now, and irrespective of the toothless parallysis of the Kyoto process) put in place stringent and enforced laws to achieve carbon-neutral buildings both domestic and commercial.  We need also to adopt a culture where individuals take responsibility for their own 'carbon footprint'.


----------



## badabing

extopia said:


> What sources, if any, can you cite for this claim?



Your electricity is generated by burining gas, the efficiency is 35-40%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

A heat pump gets averaging 3 units of energy out from 1 unit electricity in (COP 2.5-4)


Worst case; 2.5*.35 = 87% overall efficiency
Best case; 4*.4 = 160% "

A good condensing gas boiler is 96% efficient
[broken link removed]

The heat pump therefore may work slightly worse or at best 1.5 times better....either way nothing very impressive on the whole...Don't think I'll be going out to spend 15 grand to save a couple of hundered quid a year with no real environmental benefit...or do I save any money?:

Electricity at night rate will be around 7.2c/KWh with the new rate (correct me on this if I'm wrong)
Gas with the hike is 5.2c/KWh

Thats nearly 40% more expensive to run...so any system efficiency improvements are wiped out.

At least with gas you can choose from a couple of vendors, with electricity you've got a monopoly to deal with, just talk to medium voltage users who are being hit with wait for it......30 c/KWh peak usage (5-7pm)


----------



## pat127

Marie said:


> achievement.
> 
> Essentially we have to (now, and irrespective of the toothless parallysis of the Kyoto process) put in place stringent and enforced laws to achieve carbon-neutral buildings both domestic and commercial. We need also to adopt a culture where individuals take responsibility for their own 'carbon footprint'.


 
All very well and one couldn't disagree with anything you say and in fairness to many of us we do try as best we can to lead more environmentally-friendly lives. I read recently that the UK accounts for 2% of the world's pollution. However approximately half the world's population live in emerging nations such as China and India and they are desperate to enjoy the polluting, hedonistic lifestyles we have taken for granted for so many years. What are you going to say to them to persuade them to achieve their desires in a more environmentally-friendly manner?


----------



## extopia

Not sure where you're getting the 15k figure, badabing.

The cost of my ground loop and heat pump was about €9,000. It was installed before the SEI grant scheme so the net cost today would be well under €5,000. 

Its heating power is rated 10kW pump, electrical power consumption is 2.48kW

The cost of a suitable condensing gas boiler for my house at the time would have been about €2,500.

So the incremental cost of my heat pump if I'd been able to get the grant would have been about €2,500.

The COP of my heat pump, by the way, is stated as 4 @ -5 deg C, 5.4 @ 0 deg C. Let's say 4.5 on average.

So best case 4.5*0.4 = 180% efficiency

That's an 88% improvement on a condensing boiler according to your method above.

I have no choice really but to run it off the ESB grid, that's true.


----------



## badabing

Yes but you've got additional costs of an underfloor heating system, so you total excess costs are 15k


----------



## extopia

The choice of underfloor is independent of the heat source. If I had a gas boiler I'd still have underfloor heating as that was what I wanted. You can't take that into account.

Not sure what the excess cost of underfloor heating over conventional rads is, at any rate. What's the cost of a typical radiator installation in a 150 sq metre 3 bed house, not counting the boiler?

Underfloor heating is not for everyone, but we like it.

I'm happy that a geothermal system uses less fossil fuels than oil or gas system. I'm happy to pay a slight premium because of that, although I expect to recover the extra cost in time as long as maintenance costs are not too great. I'm not happy that I am more or less forced to buy electricity from a fossil-fuel company, but there's not much any of us can do about that.

The cost of a viable wind turbine (i.e. one that could produce an output that could reasonably be expected to meet most of the power needs of an average house), was about 35k the last time I checked. A 1k turbine can be installed reasonably cheaply but it's not much good for anything. The larger turbines would start to be viable once they can be fed back into the grid (i.e. your meter runs backwards when you're producing excess energy).


----------



## daveirl

Marie said:


> Electricity - and fuels generally - are _too cheap!!_   If they were more expensive the response to statistics on finite resources and the damage they cause would be for more parsimonious and responsible use.  Nota Bene that the general debate here so far has been "how can we produce more fuel and keep it cheap" NOT "How do we learn to use less more effectively?"


How exactly are they too cheap. They can't be too cheap they are what they are. Everyone knows that oil and gas are finite resources. The market has priced this fact in. The can't be too cheap. 

Secondly what's wrong with wanting to produce cheaper fuel. I'm of the opinion the sooner we use all the oil the better, then and only then will be the real incentive to work on real alternatives be there.


----------



## sunrock

[. However approximately half the world's population live in emerging nations such as China and India and they are desperate to enjoy the polluting, hedonistic lifestyles we have taken for granted for so many years. What are you going to say to them to persuade them to achieve their desires in a more environmentally-friendly manner?[/quote]

If you don t  stop your polluting,hedonistic lifestyles that we in the west have taken for granted ,
then we are left with no option but to nuke you back to the environmentally friendly stone age,
with radiation as central heating!


----------



## Marie

comanche said:


> Aeroplane's emissions are a bit mis-leading. I remember seeing an advert by Ford in an US airport saying that a jumbo got 5mpg where as their SUV got 23mpg.
> 
> Bit misleading as an aeroplane carries far more people than an SUV so is more fuel effecient in transporting people.
> 
> However the problem with aeroplanes is that they thier emissions at such an altitude that they compound the green house effect.


 
Today's Irish Times reports that_:-_

_The Government has given "green" tax breaks of more than €3.5 million to the drivers of luxury high performance cars and SUVs this year, it has emerged._

These expensive vehicles produce MORE harmful emissions than standard but are rebated as they have "hyrid" (part-electricity-powered) engines).  The gubbernent uses 5 as Cabinet State cars.  Not surprisingly the Green lobby flag this up as part of the muddled thinking and hypocricy on the energy issue. _"The green VRT rebate is given to cars which are electric, part-electric or run on biofuel, regardless of their levels of emissions"._
(snip)  _"The Lexus RX 400h attracts a VRT rebate of €11,662 because it has a hybrid engine. A further 60 of the Lexus GS 450h, a luxury hybrid saloon, have also been sold, according to the figures._
_Each of these attract a VRT rebate of €13,568 , and are being used as State cars by the Minister for the Environment Dick Roche, the Minister for Sport John O'Donoghue, and the Attorney General Rory Brady_."

Not an appropriate role-model for ordinary bods earnestly recycling their glass, paper and cans and maximising insulation on their homes!


----------



## Marie

daveirl said:


> How exactly are they too cheap. They can't be too cheap they are what they are. Everyone knows that oil and gas are finite resources. The market has priced this fact in. The can't be too cheap.
> 
> Secondly what's wrong with wanting to produce cheaper fuel. I'm of the opinion the sooner we use all the oil the better, then and only then will be the real incentive to work on real alternatives be there.


 
Dave - the point I was making is that the costs of pollutant radioactive substances is not factored in, nor is the cost to the environment in enduring damage (have a peep at "Planet Earth" Sunday evening 9.00pm BBC1, for example, to see the effects).  There is more to "cost" than the production and distribution figures.  The "cost" MUST include the cost of neutralising waste of all kinds.  It's that element which is absent from most thinking and debate on energy and pollution...........which are probably, as the original poster suggests, the real issue in our world today.  

As an aside - now that "pulling out" of Iraq has been mentioned, now that Rumsfeld has been sacrificed, I expect President G.W.Bush or his successor begin to engage seriously with this issue.  They have failed to acquire another energy-source; America will (hopefully? probably?) begin to turn itself around in terms of energy-profligacy.


----------



## Superman

Marie said:


> As an aside - now that "pulling out" of Iraq has been mentioned, now that Rumsfeld has been sacrificed, I expect President G.W.Bush or his successor begin to engage seriously with this issue.  They have failed to acquire another energy-source; America will (hopefully? probably?) begin to turn itself around in terms of energy-profligacy.


Pulling out does not include pulling out of the oil fields.  There are permanent American military bases already established in Iraq.


----------



## sunrock

Conserving energy in IRELAND is all about reducing our imports of oil and gas _i e. to reduce our import bill.
As irelands  emissions from burning fossil fuels is neglible compared to worlds output,we might as well use what we want, while the supplies of fossil fuels last.
There will be no problem switching to alternatives ,when the day of serious shortages arrives.
At the moment , oil and gas can t be beaten for availability and price and ease of usage.
As the americans drive their suvs , i wouldn t ask anybody to turn down their heating or lights below their comfort level.
WHY should i?  So the drivers of s.u.v.s can get another few months driving as oil runs out.
People have forgotten that cheap oil etc has vastly improved peoples quality of life.
Apart from cheap transport,food and medicene,heating of homes in winter prevents discomfort and death  of large numbers of especially elderly people.
As fossil fuels run out and become increasingly expenpensive,people will turn to whatever soucre they can get their hands on, including trees coal turf etc
Nuclear? everyone will be lobbying their tds to build one in their locality.
And finally to b+b.
Bikes and blankets of course.


----------



## Marie

Perhaps that sentiment could be incised in large script on the outer walls of the IRISH nuclear power-plant........"Shure yez'll manage somehow!"

I am not interested in debate at that level so this will be my last posting here.  There are already comprehensive threads on recycling and optimal use of different kinds of energy (threads begun on AAM in the Ez-Board days) which can be found by using the search engine.  

The OP and many others are becoming conscious of these issues and feel an urgency about addressing them. Others - like your good self and the government - acknowledge there is a problem to which a range of solutions exist with which you are neither involved nor responsible.   The logic of this is that it is up to 'them' (others) to solve. Impasse.


----------



## MadPad

*Forget Property prices - the real elephant in the room is Energy* 

or rarher the lack of alternative energy...

Agree 100%


----------



## rabbit

I think the day will definitely come when as a country we regret scattering so many houses around the country outside of the main urban centres where people work / go to college / hospital etc.  The distances people commute by car is crazy, not just in Dublin but in rural counties where people left major towns to live in rural tax incentive areas....eg Dromahair Co. Leitrim has been promoted by auctioneers as a suburb of Sligo. Leitrim is of course tax incentive, just like certain villages like Tubbercurry, Collooney etc.


----------



## futisle

Are there not real economic consequences down the line if we don't do something about our energy supplies? Because we import over 90% of our energy needs, we are very open to the instability of world energy markets. When oil and gas get scarce, will it be just a question of copying what some other forward thinking country, say Sweden for example has done or will it be too late. As someone here already said energy prices are relatively cheap at the moment, but we still have one of the highest elecdtricity prices in europe. If the fuel to make electricity gets more expensive where will out electricity prices go? Since we are also highly dependent on foregin investment, where will the incentive be for companies to invest in Ireland if both our wage rates and our energy prices are so much higher than other countries? Why won't they relocate to, I don't Venezuela (maybe there's a better ecample), which can provide them with cheap energy? If this happens we won't have to worry about commuting long distances cause there won't be much work around to get to


----------



## pat127

futisle said:


> Are there not real economic consequences down the line if we don't do something about our energy supplies? Because we import over 90% of our energy needs, we are very open to the instability of world energy markets. When oil and gas get scarce, will it be just a question of copying what some other forward thinking country, say Sweden for example has done or will it be too late.


 
You hit the nail right on the head there Futisle. We've lost the run of ourselves entirely in this country IMO. A few good decisions as to how we should attract industry into the country (which worked beyond our wildest expectations) and we think we manage our own affairs. Almost total dependency on imported gas (from Russia at that) - even if this fiasco on the West coast gets sorted-out that gas will reduce our dependency on imports to about 50% and for only 10 years. No coal of any real commercial value, almost-depleted supplies of turf etc. On the same general topic, we cannot defend ourselves and of course we remain significantly dependent on our paymasters in Europe.

As to copying Sweden or some other such advanced country where I presume you mean that they can use their forests, we have totally ignored our need to grow trees to the extent required and the lead-time is far too long for it to be of any practical use. (There is not and there will not be any alternative to importing wood pellets for example). As for Biomass - I read somewhere that we'd need 10 times the land we have available to become anything like independent. It doesn't leave us with many alternatives I think. Nuclear? Not that we couldn't do it I suppose but the NIMBYs will fight it to the bitter end or to the point where it'll be too late to play catch-up.

An unpleasant prospect! I'm beginning to think that Sunrock may have a point. 'Smoke 'em while you've got 'em' and to heck with the consequences. After that - surely someone somewhere will want our little green resourceless island? Our beloved leader said recently that we'll soon reach our pre-Famine population levels. Looks like poor Paddy will be hitting the emigration trail again. It's not as if we don't have plenty of practice at it but don't throw out the oul 'pick and shovel yet.

Who started this thread anyway? It's getting me totally depressed. I think I'll jump into the 4WD and nip down to the boozer for a couple of scoops.


----------



## Superman

pat127 said:


> It's getting me totally depressed. I think I'll jump into the 4WD and nip down to the boozer for a couple of scoops.


For the true Irish experience - don't forget to drive home afterwards.


----------



## PMU

Marie said:


> Electricity - and fuels generally - are too cheap!!



 Marie: On electricity edo’s original point was “Electricity and Gas prices will increasing by 20-30% in the coming months “. I pointed out that in Ireland market rigging, ESB monopoly and lack of competition at the consumer level are probably the reasons for increased prices. Electricity prices in Ireland aren’t ‘too cheap’; they are more expensive than they otherwise need be.




Marie said:


> Blaming China, blaming Brazil for cutting down the Amazonian forests for a ludicrous short-term dollars profit, blaming anyone and everyone else, is not an option.


 I’m not blaming China; they’ve massive coal reserves and it makes sense for them to develop them to fuel their economy and raise their standards of living. But with China pumping out all that CO2 it’s been estimated that even if the UK shut up shop and totally stopped producing carbon emissions that CO2 emissions from China would negate it in two years.  




Marie said:


> If nuclear energy is so clean, safe, effecient, cheap then build a nuclear power-plant in Dublin city centre (Liberty Hall is up for sale I believe?) where the population can  contemplate their decision and achievement.



There’s one on the Wyfla peninsular in Wales beside Holyhead, which is not that far away. It might as well be in the city centre.



Marie said:


> We need also to adopt a culture where individuals take responsibility for their own 'carbon footprint'.


We do this in effect by taxing petrol, gas and home heating oil, which are the main discretionary uses of carbon by consumers.   But climate taxes just don’t work.  When you pay road tax you may not like paying it but you get roads; when you pay waste charges you may not like paying it but you get your bins collected; income tax gives you infrastructure, police security, etc., and PRSI gives you health and pension services. You may not like paying these taxes but you do get something in return. But introduce ‘climate taxes’ and what do you get? You get toss all as you don’t get a better climate, it’ll still rain tomorrow; and it doesn’t matter which government you vote in.  They can’t spend the carbon tax money in different ways that will change the climate no more than King Canute could stop the tide coming in. Climate taxes are pointless, unproductive and just further distort prices; which leads to poor decision making and poor investment decisions.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]


----------



## pat127

Superman said:


> For the true Irish experience - don't forget to drive home afterwards.


 
That wouldn't be a responsible thing to do, now would it? No, Mrs Pat will pick me up in her 4WD.

Anyway, enough of the levity. In all this intense debate, no one has mentioned water which is becoming a very scarce resource altogether. That's a reference which usually triggers a smart remark so I'll get my retaliation in first. Even in our rain-soaked land, we have, or are rapidly developing, supply problems. Elsewhere, the situation is dire. Changing climatic conditions are making matters extremely difficult for people in various parts of the world, people in many cases who already have major problems getting water for their animals, their crops and themselves. Future wars, it's said, will take place because of water shortages.

So what's that got to do with us?  Conflicts elsewhere always have a knock-on effect. Relief funds are required for starters. Secondly the uncertainty factor can have a negative impact on stock-markets world-wide.

Coming right back to one of edo's original questions...my advise is that if you have any money left over after buying the oil-company stocks, invest in (a) armaments, and (b) desalination technology.


----------



## EvilDoctorK

> However approximately half the world's population live in emerging nations such as China and India and they are desperate to enjoy the polluting, hedonistic lifestyles we have taken for granted for so many years. What are you going to say to them to persuade them to achieve their desires in a more environmentally-friendly manner?



I'm a believer in how technology can transform a lot of the debates that we're having at the moment  - I'm reminded of reading something quite a while ago (in a book published maybe 30 years ago) which stated that it would never be possible for everyone in China to have a telephone as there simply wasn't enough copper in the world ... seems kinda ridiculous now doesn't it 

Also re: increased energy usage in emerging economies ... it's a question worth asking (or at least having a debate over) as to what the trade off is between emissions increases and economic growth .. Sometimes the debate seems a little simplistic as it's assumed that all emissions are bad ... but what if allowing those emissions lifts x million people out of abject poverty for example ??

Of course climate change is a problem but so is global income distribution - Rich first world economies have been allowed to industrialise which as brought huge prosperity to those economies - why shouldn't the rest of the world have that chance too ??  Is a 1 degree rise in temperature worth doubling the income of 500m people ?? ...   Interesting questions that I don't know the answer to but I think are worth asking more than they seem to be asked at the moment.

I think a lot of the peak oil stuff is a bit simplistic as well .. there's no shortage of oil - there may be a shortage of oil that can be extracted at a reasonable price in politically stable locations for sure .. but higher prices will bring forth more supply (e.g. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4649580.stm ) and will encourage alternative energy sources - that's the market working as it should.


----------



## darex

EvilDoctorK said:


> I think a lot of the peak oil stuff is a bit simplistic as well .. there's no shortage of oil - there may be a shortage of oil that can be extracted at a reasonable price in politically stable locations for sure .. but higher prices will bring forth more supply (e.g. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4649580.stm ) and will encourage alternative energy sources - that's the market working as it should.



This article doesn't mention that converting the oil sands into something useful takes huge quanties of energy. Currently natural gas is used but natural gas on the North American continent is in short supply so it is probably more efficient to use it directly and even if not it will run out long before the Alberta oil can make much of an impact on peak oil scenarios. The only practical way that Alberta oil will make any significant difference to peak oil is to build nuclear power stations in Alberta to provide the power to extract the oil - and then that brings up the issue of limited supplies of uranium.


----------



## darex

I have to say the quality of debate on this thread hasn't been great (with a few honourable exceptions). This reflects the staggering lack of knowledge in Irish society in general on energy issues both in government and the media and the general populace.

The only person in this country who seems to have a clue on these issues is David McWilliams and even some of what he says is questionable. 

If anyone really wants to understand the magnitude of what we are facing read the Hirsch report that was produced for the US government in 2005:
[broken link removed]

I would agree with the OP that energy issues are of much greater significance to the Irish economy than property prices except in the very short term.


----------



## soma

darex said:


> I have to say the quality of debate on this thread hasn't been great (with a few honourable exceptions). This reflects the staggering lack of knowledge in Irish society in general on energy issues both in government and the media and the general populace.



I'd have to agree.

I'm very much a newbie to the world of Peak Oil Theory and I can *completely* understand why general society is unaware, disbelieving or dis-interested in the theory. I'm a fairly open-minded individual and I've read the peak oil arguments and find them compelling. But at the moment, _*my brain cannot accept or even truly grasp*_ what life would be like if P.O. advocates are correct. It actually feels somewhat akin to thinking "we're all gonna die some day, so why are we even bothering?".

I was really pleased to find  but subsequently v disappointed to see that discussion is next to non-existant on the forum.


----------



## annR

I agree about the lack of knowledge.  As a country, Ireland is only just catching on to recycling which is a pretty basic concept.  Many people aren't ready to think about energy itself and all the implications.  Indeed any existing debate was probably only 'sparked' because of the increasing prices.
One aspect is that it is a very complex issue and there might not be that many people around who are informed enough to really discuss it properly.  Many environmental problems are like this in my opinion.


----------



## EvilDoctorK

darex said:


> This article doesn't mention that converting the oil sands into something useful takes huge quanties of energy. Currently natural gas is used but natural gas on the North American continent is in short supply so it is probably more efficient to use it directly and even if not it will run out long before the Alberta oil can make much of an impact on peak oil scenarios. The only practical way that Alberta oil will make any significant difference to peak oil is to build nuclear power stations in Alberta to provide the power to extract the oil - and then that brings up the issue of limited supplies of uranium.



Yes - but even at that it's still a huge net gain in energy .. and it should soon (if not already) be possible to get the energy to extract the oil from the bitumen which is a by product of the oil extraction process.

Loads more here for those interested - http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/energy/Ene.../EMAOilSandsOpportunities2015Canada2006_e.pdf

Obviously producing oil in the deserts of Saudi Arabia is much cheaper and will remain so for the foreseeable future (The do have reserves of 70yrs production at current rates) ... but the basic point that higher oil prices will call forth more supply remains I think valid I think.  Quite an interesting take on it here - http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2006/0724/042.html

As the Saudi Oil Minister once said  - the stone age didn't end because we the world ran out of stone .....


----------



## darex

EvilDoctorK said:


> Obviously producing oil in the deserts of Saudi Arabia is much cheaper and will remain so for the foreseeable future (The do have reserves of 70yrs production at current rates) ... but the basic point that higher oil prices will call forth more supply remains I think valid I think.  Quite an interesting take on it here - http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2006/0724/042.html



Actually the supply of oil is avery insensitive to price because the main factor determining supply is geology. This is nicely illustrated by the article above. In spite of the gazillions of wells drilled in the US production has fallen steadily since the early 1970's. The price has fluctuated greatly over that period and yet production has barely budged from its long term downward trend during that 30 year period - and that is in spite of all the dramatic improvements in technology over those 30 years


----------



## sonnyikea

Utopian? Preached by evangelists? Sure. The word Nanotechnology is bandied around to describe any technology that uses small, miniscule parts. However the real description of nanotechnology is manipulation at the atomic or molecular level. If in the next 50 years, as has been mooted, this technology can be harnessed and used safely then it will be the answer to all our energy worries and more. 

http://www.foresight.org/ has more information.

It seems to be unrealistic or touching on science fiction but I've been watching this with great interest ever since I produced my thesis at the end of the 90's and it has moved on at an extortinate rate. The Japanese seem to be very keen on it.

The downsides are pretty heavy and there are enough evil people in the world to stop the technology in it's tracks but if the downsides can be overcome and the technology developed in the right way then who knows.

I'm certainly hoping for my children and grandchildren and great grand children that it is more than just a pipe dream, because whatever the answers to the energy questions are they just create more questions.


----------



## EvilDoctorK

darex said:


> Actually the supply of oil is avery insensitive to price because the main factor determining supply is geology. This is nicely illustrated by the article above. In spite of the gazillions of wells drilled in the US production has fallen steadily since the early 1970's. The price has fluctuated greatly over that period and yet production has barely budged from its long term downward trend during that 30 year period - and that is in spite of all the dramatic improvements in technology over those 30 years



I'll beg to differ ...  that's not really what I take from the article.

What you say is true for the US (the lower 48 states anyway) but the point the article was making is that there's been very little exploration outside of the US & Canada in the last 20 years due to a combination of low prices and the determination of some governments to keep a lid on supply because they're worried more about future demand.

Nobody is denying that the ultimate physical amount of oil in the ground is determined by geology... but there's a lot more of it out there than some would have us believe (previous "peak" predictions have been well wrong) and currently global supply isn't constrained by geology, it is constrained by geopolitics and an "exploration deficit" over the last 20yrs.


----------



## darex

EvilDoctorK said:


> I'll beg to differ ...  that's not really what I take from the article.



I agree that the article is trying to suggest that there is endless suppies of crude if only politics and low oil prices are didn't constrain exploration. However it sows the seeds of the destruction of its own argument by showing how many wells have been drilled in the lower 48 resulting in no noticable difference in downwards supply trends.


EvilDoctorK said:


> What you say is true for the US (the lower 48 states anyway) but the point the article was making is that there's been very little exploration outside of the US & Canada in the last 20 years due to a combination of low prices and the determination of some governments to keep a lid on supply because they're worried more about future demand.
> 
> Nobody is denying that the ultimate physical amount of oil in the ground is determined by geology... but there's a lot more of it out there than some would have us believe (previous "peak" predictions have been well wrong) and currently global supply isn't constrained by geology, it is constrained by geopolitics and an "exploration deficit" over the last 20yrs.



Its all a matter of degree. Geo-politics and low exploration and investment rates by NOCs (national oil companies in Saudi etc.) undoubtably has some effects on supply at the margins. However this factor isn't going to change any time soon. These countries have the cop on to realise that oil is an appreciating asset so they have no incentive to increase production. (Why use up all your oil and gas as the UK has while prices are cheap when you could hang on to it and sell it for much higher prices later). Because of this we can't expect any action by NOCs to postpone peak oil.


----------



## sunrock

Of course oil, gas will gradually  become more scarcer and much dearer; but they will not run out in our lifetimes.
The increasing price of the cost of fuel will force people,except for the very rich, to use energy more sparingly and efficiently.
Insulated houses to the best standards,alternative energy will be tested and examined for its benefits.
I personally think great savings can be made by people driving less 
and even flying less.This unfortunately will only happen when the cost proves prohibitive , as it seems people love to drive, and to go on 3 or 4 overseas holidays when they could take 6 weeks off and go on  just one long holiday.
And nobody  it seems wants to share their car with other workers on the long commutes to work ,if they can avoid it.
And not to mention all the houses that have only 1 person living in them
Water may be a scarce resoucre , but nobody in ireland should worry that we will have a fresh water problem anytime soon.A lot of this concern is whipped up by the water companies.Countries in hotter climates of course may have aserious problem.
The tar sands in canada can produce oil ,but it is very energy intensive and very bad for the environment.No doubt if oil gets over 100 or 200 dollars a barrel ,production in canada will be stepped up.
And for the record ,i do believe in conservation and investing in alternative soucres of energy i e wind,wave.
But we might as well use what we need, especially as we have the money.
We have very expensive energy from esb etc ,but thats at retail level.
I m   sure the ESB don t pay over the odds for oil gas etc


----------



## extopia

sunrock said:


> Of course oil, gas will gradually  become more scarcer and much dearer; but they will not run out in our lifetimes.



No one is claiming that they will. But that's a bad excuse for doing nothing.



> But we might as well use what we need, especially as we have the money.



Wealth is a also a bad excuse for irresponsibility. But don't confuse access to money with wealth. Truly wealthy people tend to know something about value - and wasteful practice is not good value.

We need to take responsibility as individuals, and start with the small things - using energy efficient lightbulbs, turning off lights, switching off unused appliances.

This naturally leads to more significant behaviour changes - using public transport when possible, investing in energy efficient heating systems, understanding and taking advantage of opportunities for passive heating etc.

The bottom line is we have to start to take responsibility as individuals, influencing others when we can, rather than taking a pessimistic view, like for example, "Ireland is too insignificant in terms of global energy consumption, so let's do what we like."


----------



## MadPad

EvilDoctorK said:


> Yes - but even at that it's still a huge net gain in energy .. and it should soon (if not already) be possible to get the energy to extract the oil from the bitumen which is a by product of the oil extraction process.
> .....


 
....it is very worrying that most of these new sources of energy dont 'eat their own dogfood', i.e. dont use some of the surplus energy produced from the mining/drilling/biomas conversion in order to demonstrate that they are in fact new net energy producers and not a scam just to get tax credits or something...

From my very limited reading, the main issues with the tar sands is the amount of energy and fresh water needed to extract the oil from the tar sands. up to 4 times as much water wasted as oil produced. That water has to go somewhere, and is superheated in order to 'wash' the sands... When you consider that the output is X million bpd, thats a lot of heat and a lot of waste, wouldnt like to have a well anywhere near it...

But i believe, whatever about the extra pollution, the oil sands are in fact net energy contributors. ... I dont believe any of the "green biomass" alternatives are net energy producers, ie. it takes more inputs in terms of oil used for fertilizer/energy than whats produced...

the next 10 years will be very interesting, either theres a lot of scare mongering going on or theres nowhere near enough


----------



## MadPad

Heres a cheery little movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug


----------



## EvilDoctorK

darex said:


> However it sows the seeds of the destruction of its own argument by showing how many wells have been drilled in the lower 48 resulting in no noticable difference in downwards supply trends.



The lower 48 states have been heavily drilled for around the last 150 years (by commercial oil companies with different incentives to NOCs) - and they never had great reserves anyway ... the point I think is that areas that do have huge reserves - the Gulf / Russia etc. have hardly been touched from an exploration point of view and this is changing now with higher prices once again encouraging exploration.


----------



## room305

Surprised nobody here has mentioned the latest Green Party intiative.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=184&si=1723222&issue_id=14886

Rather than imposing a carbon levy on companies, they are now proposing that each individual in the country is allocated a carbon quota. Individuals who do not exceed their quota will be eligible for a rebate or if they do exceed their quota, they may be hit with an additional levy. They are also considering allowing free market trading of unused quotas, akin the the EU emissions trading scheme.

Not sure about the feasibility of the scheme but I like the idea in principal. There is little incentive in this country to act "green" and the chance to sell my unused carbon quota to those who are less compliant would be warmly welcomed!


----------



## ubiquitous

What a wonderful idea!! Another tax!! Lovely!!


----------



## soma

sunrock said:


> Of course oil, gas will gradually  become more scarcer and much dearer; but they will not run out in our lifetimes.
> The increasing price of the cost of fuel will force people,except for the very rich, to use energy more sparingly and efficiently.



The rebuttal (from Peak Oil theory websites etc) against improved efficiency is Jevon's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

The idea being that when a resource is used more efficiently, consumption actually increases.


----------



## room305

ubiquitous said:


> What a wonderful idea!! Another tax!! Lovely!!



Did you read the article? Anyone who tries to reduce their carbon emissions will _gain_ under this scheme. The people who will pay extra will be those who drive SUVs, take multiple trips abroads etc.


----------



## ubiquitous

Yes I did read the article. 

As I said it is a wonderful idea. People will just love taking out their calculators to see if they are winners or losers. Just as they did in relation to the "income tax down/stealth taxes up" merry-go-round that followed the 2002 election...


----------



## MadPad

ubiquitous said:


> Yes I did read the article.
> 
> As I said it is a wonderful idea. People will just love taking out their calculators to see if they are winners or losers. Just as they did in relation to the "income tax down/stealth taxes up" merry-go-round that followed the 2002 election...


 
Im skeptical of this as an idea... Its pretty simple to introduce a carbon tax.... increase the tax on, petrol, diesel, natural gas, turf, electricity, heating oil, fertilizer, plastics .... all fuels, including airline fuels. 
very easy to have a carbon credit for people, your first X units of electricity or gallons of oil dont have tax... and companies cant claim back the taxes spent on these items....

So the more u use, the more u pay, no rebates.... but lets see the greens spell it out simply like that and see who votes for it...

but they will probably have zillions of consultants and public servants, coming up with schemes, which can be gotten around and waste more energy administrating than they save...


Saw also they are pushing for biofuels tax exemptions. Would be all for this _provided the biofuel plants operate in a closed loop system, ie. they are demonstrable self sufficent and net energy contributors, not relying on inputs of electricity or fertilizer to subsidize them._
Otherwise you'll end up with so called green fuels which are really just tax scams and further damaging the environment. i.e; using more oil to make the fertilizer, plough the land, and extract the biodiesel than what gets produced, or worse still, encouraging tropical countries to hack away some more forest so they can sell you some "green diesel"


----------



## darex

room305 said:


> Surprised nobody here has mentioned the latest Green Party intiative.
> 
> http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=184&si=1723222&issue_id=14886
> 
> Rather than imposing a carbon levy on companies, they are now proposing that each individual in the country is allocated a carbon quota. Individuals who do not exceed their quota will be eligible for a rebate or if they do exceed their quota, they may be hit with an additional levy. They are also considering allowing free market trading of unused quotas, akin the the EU emissions trading scheme.



This would be great if there was a feasible method of implementation. It is really annoying to see people driving SUV's and ruining things for the rest of us and getting off scot free, there should definitely be some serious financial punishment for them.

Also the fatalistic argument that there is no point a small country such as ireland doing anything is nonsense. All modern governments copy each others policies and if we can show good workable green policies then there is no doubt that other countries would adopt our measures into their policy mix.


----------



## darex

MadPad said:


> Saw also they are pushing for biofuels tax exemptions. Would be all for this _provided the biofuel plants operate in a closed loop system, ie. they are demonstrable self sufficent and net energy contributors, not relying on inputs of electricity or fertilizer to subsidize them._
> Otherwise you'll end up with so called green fuels which are really just tax scams and further damaging the environment. i.e; using more oil to make the fertilizer, plough the land, and extract the biodiesel than what gets produced, or worse still, encouraging tropical countries to hack away some more forest so they can sell you some "green diesel"



This is a very valid point. The technical term for it is *EROEI *(energy returned on energy invested). The energy return on most biofuels is almost non-existant. The Americans have poured billions in to bio-fuels and by their own govenrment admission they get hardly any more energy out than they put in. Brazilian sugarcane is somewhat more effective - it has a respectable EROEI.

However in this countries situation by far the best alternative energy source in terms of EROEI is wind power. We would get something like 10 times as much energy out as we put in - this would be similar or better than the EROEI of modern oil fields and is high enough to power a modern economy


----------



## room305

ubiquitous said:


> Yes I did read the article.
> 
> As I said it is a wonderful idea. People will just love taking out their calculators to see if they are winners or losers. Just as they did in relation to the "income tax down/stealth taxes up" merry-go-round that followed the 2002 election...



Are you being sarcastic?

A carbon tax shouldn't (in principle) operate as a revenue generator but is designed to coerce people into beneficial modes of behaviour (e.g. use public transport, car pool, buy low-emission cars, use airlines less, recycle more etc.). Agree with Madpad that energy efficiency will need to be looked at in total - as a lot of biofuels are not actually energy efficient if the crops are grown specifically for the purpose of biofuel generation.

Allowing resale of unused carbon tax credits means people will see a direct benefit from being environmentally-friendly. For example, people may be encouraged to not purchase a car and sell their petrol-related tax credits to the idiot at the end of the street who bought an SUV.

If this is coupled with a scheme to allow resale of generated electricity onto the national grid, it may make home renewable energy sources a more viable option.


----------



## darex

room305 said:


> If this is coupled with a scheme to allow resale of generated electricity onto the national grid, it may make home renewable energy sources a more viable option.



Both Italy and the UK have schemes in place to allow consumers to sell energy back to the grid - I really don't understand why we don't, yet another example of our backwardness with respect to energy policy I suppose


----------



## EvilDoctorK

soma said:


> The rebuttal (from Peak Oil theory websites etc) against improved efficiency is Jevon's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
> 
> The idea being that when a resource is used more efficiently, consumption actually increases.



Yes - but if supply increases too that's not necessarily an issue is it ... Mr Jevon's original theory concerned coal and we didn't run out of that (we've largely stopped using it because we've discovered better alternatives to steam engines ... and one day we'll surely have a better alternative to the internal combustion engine too and oil usage will decline as well)


----------



## EvilDoctorK

darex said:


> This is a very valid point. The technical term for it is *EROEI *(energy returned on energy invested). The energy return on most biofuels is almost non-existant. The Americans have poured billions in to bio-fuels and by their own govenrment admission they get hardly any more energy out than they put in. Brazilian sugarcane is somewhat more effective - it has a respectable EROEI.
> 
> However in this countries situation by far the best alternative energy source in terms of EROEI is wind power. We would get something like 10 times as much energy out as we put in - this would be similar or better than the EROEI of modern oil fields and is high enough to power a modern economy



I've never really looked into it in enough detail but i've heard it said that wind energy isn't considered reliable enough to provide baseload to the power grid ... because it's not that predictable other power plants need to be kept on "hot standby" to kick in when the wind literally stops blowing - while wind energy might stop us using fossil fuels sometimes it doesn't replace "convential" power stations in teh way that other non carbon emitting options like nuclear or hydro electric can as they're more predictable power sources.


----------



## EvilDoctorK

darex said:


> Both Italy and the UK have schemes in place to allow consumers to sell energy back to the grid - I really don't understand why we don't, yet another example of our backwardness with respect to energy policy I suppose



100% on this ... smart metering (that can allow variable prices to dissipate peak power loading as well as allowing reverse selling of micro generation back to the grid) should be a major policy objective ... the technology to do this is readily available now.


----------



## ubiquitous

room305 said:


> Are you being sarcastic?


Yes



room305 said:


> A carbon tax shouldn't (in principle) operate as a revenue generator



Agreed but can you honestly imagine any Irish government resisting the temptation to use it in this way?


----------



## argolis

sunrock said:


> I applaud people who try to conserve energy, but it is difficult to see what difference its going to make in the grand scheme of things, when the majority of people and countries are using energy as if they don t care.



I hate this negative attitude. For several reasons:

1. What headway can be made when politicians hear people speaking like this? If they hear the public talking positively about conservation, they're more likely to represent this attitude in the Dáil and take action.

2. You say what difference does it make when the rest of the world doesn't bother. Well, somebody has to lead the way. Other countries already have, they conserve very effectively and are continually improving. It probably arose out of the first point by the way.

3. It costs money to start initiatives and educate people. That's why Germany, Scandanavia, etc lead the way and the poorer countries you mention lag. It's up to us as the richest countries to bear the costs of learning and developing solutions because we have that luxury. The improvements WE learn to make can be applied with less cost to subsequent countries. There may be no need for poorer countries to pollute as badly as we have in order to come up to the same standard of living . They're not OUT to pollute, the end goal is to have the quality of life that we have.

4. Lastly, I would take immense pride in my country being among the cleanest and forward-thinking in the world, wouldn't you?


----------



## darex

EvilDoctorK said:


> I've never really looked into it in enough detail but i've heard it said that wind energy isn't considered reliable enough to provide baseload to the power grid ... because it's not that predictable other power plants need to be kept on "hot standby" to kick in when the wind literally stops blowing - while wind energy might stop us using fossil fuels sometimes it doesn't replace "convential" power stations in teh way that other non carbon emitting options like nuclear or hydro electric can as they're more predictable power sources.



This is a significant problem. Currently the main suggestion to overcome it is to spread the generation capacity over a large area (The wind is always blowing somewhere). Airtricity (our main wind power producer) have come up with a scheme which they call a SuperGrid that would provide wind power for much of northern Europe see:

It is said that the UK and Ireland alone have enough wind power to power Western Europe


----------



## sunrock

I previously stated that i believe in conservation and alternative soucres of energy ,such as wind and wave.
Not sure about biofuels as they need a lot of energy inputs and land.
The fact that fossil fuels are used up on a massive scale around the world is just stating a fact.
Carbon taxes on an individual level are going to be very difficult to implement,with a whole array of exemptions and loopholes being inevitable.
Increasing taxes on petrol and SUVs makes more sense ,but i m sure people think we pay enough taxes.
Personally i feel there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding conservation, with people saying use less energy, and yet I am sure they are driving a big car and at least trying to live in a big house.
How can we as an individual and a country conserve more energy?
Drive less?
Consume less?
Take less holidays?
I don t hear anyone suggest we reduce our standard of living, and i m afraid thats what it s going to take.
A recession would definitely do it.


----------



## room305

ubiquitous said:


> Agreed but can you honestly imagine any Irish government resisting the temptation to use it in this way?



No doubt if the carbon tax scheme is implemented as poorly as the penalty points system we will have yet another government initiative that is used largely for revenue accrual and doesn't really change undesirable behaviour. However, don't write it off in advance until we see the details.

If as a country we agree that living in a green lifestyle is desirable, then the economic rewards and punishments administered by the government should be changed to reflect this desire.

However, given their suspicious failure to levy a tax on SUVs (a classification difficulty apparently) I am less than confident that the government views green issues as anything more than an annoyance to paid lip service too. Since we live in a democracy, it is up to us to change this.


----------



## room305

sunrock said:


> Carbon taxes on an individual level are going to be very difficult to implement,with a whole array of exemptions and loopholes being inevitable.



Not necessarily. We apply VAT to just about everything and nobody regards it as difficult to implement. It is exemptions and loopholes that make taxation difficult - I see no reason for any to apply in this case.



sunrock said:


> Increasing taxes on petrol and SUVs makes more sense ,but i m sure people think we pay enough taxes.



If taxes were halved people would still say they pay enough tax. The beauty of this scheme is that people who do not exceed their quota can sell the unused portion of their quota on a secondary market. Therefore, these people will actually end up better off than they are now.



sunrock said:


> Personally i feel there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding conservation, with people saying use less energy, and yet I am sure they are driving a big car and at least trying to live in a big house.



This doesn't make any sense.



sunrock said:


> How can we as an individual and a country conserve more energy?
> Drive less?
> Consume less?
> Take less holidays?
> I don t hear anyone suggest we reduce our standard of living, and i m afraid thats what it s going to take.



It's not just about consuming less energy - but using renewable energy in place of finite energy resources. If managed correctly nobody has to reduce their standard living. If we ignore the problem then everybody suffers as the price of finite energy sources increases.



sunrock said:


> A recession would definitely do it.



What a wonderful solution. Presumably unless you are proposing some kind of permanent depression with ever decreasing energy consumption and associated destitution, this only delays the inevitable rather than postponing it indefinitely.


----------



## EvilDoctorK

darex said:


> This is a significant problem. Currently the main suggestion to overcome it is to spread the generation capacity over a large area (The wind is always blowing somewhere). Airtricity (our main wind power producer) have come up with a scheme which they call a SuperGrid that would provide wind power for much of northern Europe see:
> 
> It is said that the UK and Ireland alone have enough wind power to power Western Europe



I recall reading about this now that you mention it ... an expensive idea to construct i'd imagine (and how much of the generated energy would be lost in transmission / how carbon intensive would the construction be ?) - I just wonder if the sums would add up on it ?

I also read somewhere recently that windmill type turbines are not the optimal design (you can't make them any larger really without problem caused by the extreme rotation forces / blade tips going supersonic). Apparently cylindrical style wind turbines would probably be more efficient and more scalable


----------



## ubiquitous

room305 said:


> Not necessarily. We apply VAT to just about everything and nobody regards it as difficult to implement.



Anyone who has direct experience of the bureaucracy of VAT would not say this. It is the most evaded tax of all, is cumbersome to administer (except that almost the entire burden of administration is lumped upon the business sector) and it is riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies.



room305 said:


> It is exemptions and loopholes that make taxation difficult - I see no reason for any to apply in this case.



None at all?
1. How do you propose that a carbon levy be operated in relation to agriculture? Livestock produce a large % of our total carbon output. What will this mean for future food production?

2. Do you propose that rural dwellers end up being taxed much heavier than their city cousins given that they have no option but to drive everywhere they want to go, given the almost 100% absence of public transport in most rural areas?

3. How do you propose to deal with anomalies arising from cross-border movement? For example I don't use any less carbon if I fly from Belfast instead of Dublin, yet under your proposal I would be taxed for flying from Dublin while no charge would apply from Belfast.

4. How do you propose to negate the effect on resource-heavy industrial production facilities where an increase in costs would have consequences for employment?

5. Would this levy apply to inward air traffic into the country as well as outwards? If not, why not? If yes, what would be the consquences for tourism?


----------



## soma

EvilDoctorK said:


> Yes - but if supply increases too that's not necessarily an issue is it ...



Depends on what you mean by 'supply' I suppose. If you mean supply increasing in terms of new oil fields being found etc that's one thing. But if you mean supply increasing by OPEC simply ramping up production of existing reserves then that is most certainly a issue as it speeds up resource depletion.



EvilDoctorK said:


> Mr Jevon's original theory concerned coal and we didn't run out of that (we've largely stopped using it because we've discovered better alternatives to steam engines ...



Fingers crossed that this is what happens to oil, that it turns out be replacable by either some tech break-thru or any other resource on the planet. 



EvilDoctorK said:


> and one day we'll surely have a better alternative to the internal combustion engine too and oil usage will decline as well)



Unfortunately there are few indicators that this is more than wishful thinking at the moment, it's not just a matter of finding another energy source, it's a matter of finding another economically-scalable one. I sincerely hope P.O. advocates are proved wrong, I mean who wants to be living in a cave


----------



## room305

ubiquitous said:


> 1. How do you propose that a carbon levy be operated in relation to agriculture? Livestock produce a large % of our total carbon output. What will this mean for future food production?



The carbon levy should be applied to agriculture same as anything else. Just because one industry generates more pollution than any other doesn't mean we should exempt it from carbon tax. If farming isn't economically viable once we account for the environmental cost then it needs to adapt.



ubiquitous said:


> 2. Do you propose that rural dwellers end up being taxed much heavier than their city cousins given that they have no option but to drive everywhere they want to go, given the almost 100% absence of public transport in most rural areas?



In rural areas, it often doesn't make any sense to provide public transport as the public by very definition is sparse in such areas. This will be part of the cost of country living but again adaption is key, travelling less, using low emission vehicles, biofuels or counter-balancing by using renewable energy for home heating and electricity provision.



ubiquitous said:


> 3. How do you propose to deal with anomalies arising from cross-border movement? For example I don't use any less carbon if I fly from Belfast instead of Dublin, yet under your proposal I would be taxed for flying from Dublin while no charge would apply from Belfast.



We only have control over what is within our own borders, so obviously we can only apply the carbon to travellers leaving Dublin and hope the UK and other countries follow suit.



ubiquitous said:


> 4. How do you propose to negate the effect on resource-heavy industrial production facilities where an increase in costs would have consequences for employment?



I don't, although perhaps the government could give grants to companies to make the necessary changes to reduce their carbon output.



ubiquitous said:


> 5. Would this levy apply to inward air traffic into the country as well as outwards? If not, why not? If yes, what would be the consquences for tourism?



Same as point 3, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to tax incoming passengers, so we should just tax outgoing passengers and trust that other countries will implement measures to control their own carbon output.

Obviously there will be some areas of difficulty with such a system and as with any tax there will be tax evasion. However, I think appropriate taxation is a good way to induce people to reduce their carbon footprint. Especially if it is coupled with real rewards for reduction. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your opinion on how we should go about reducing carbon emissions?


----------



## ubiquitous

room305 said:


> The carbon levy should be applied to agriculture same as anything else.... If farming isn't economically viable once we account for the environmental cost then it needs to adapt.
> 
> In rural areas, it often doesn't make any sense to provide public transport as the public by very definition is sparse in such areas. This will be part of the cost of country living but again adaption is key, travelling less...


What you are proposing therefore is likely to...

1. have devastating effects on agriculture which is barely economic at the moment without being literally taxed out of existence. 

2. tax rural dwellers much more heavily than city dwellers

3. Cause major employment losses in food production and carbon resource-heavy industries

Sorry I can't see this ever being politically feasible at all in Ireland.



> We only have control over what is within our own borders, so obviously we can only apply the carbon to travellers leaving Dublin and hope the UK and other countries follow suit.


So you would propose introducing this levy even if it is not implemented in the UK?



> it would be very difficult, if not impossible to tax incoming passengers, so we should just tax outgoing passengers.


This doesn't make sense. It is impossible to exempt incoming passengers as they will simply be taxed when they exit the country. Again I don't think you have thought through the implications for tourism. 

At this stage, it appears that the carbon levy would have dire consequences for our:
1. agriculture & food production sector
2. tourism industry
3. much of our industrial production.

Will there be anything left in the economy at that stage?



> I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your opinion on how we should go about reducing carbon emissions?



I am actually very sceptical of the whole climate change argument, especially as thirty years ago the scientists were worrying about global cooling. I am also sceptical of man's ability to affect climate change for better or worse. That said, if you want to reduce carbon emissions, I would have thought that nuclear power and afforestation are 2 of the most obvious options -however our self-appointed "environmentalists" seem strangely to be collectively allergic to both nuclear plants and spruce trees - which leaves us back at square one.


----------



## extopia

Global warming sceptics might read an article called [broken link removed] published in 2005 in The New Yorker. You can find parts 2 and 3 in various places online, or at least you used to be able to.

Food for thought.


----------



## daveirl

I'm not a sceptic of global warming *however* I am a massive sceptic of the doomsday senarios presented by Green campaigners. Big deal the environment changes, human beings have survived large changes in our environment before and will again.


----------



## extopia

Perhaps - but does that warrant doing less than we can, now - even if the consequences of global warming turn out to be less catastrophic than some of the proposed scenarios - or even if it turns out to be just a blip?

This is a big issue, and just because the media have finally jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean it's not something to be taken seriously.

The evidence that something massive is taking place is overwhelming. The link to overuse of fossil fuels is compelling. The science isn't being made up as we go along.


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> I am actually very sceptical of the whole climate change argument, .



unfortunately for your theory the people who actually study climate change (scientists) all agree that climate change is accelerating and the major driver is man. The only question is if and how much we can slow it down.
Ref1
Ref2
Ref3
I don't get the whole sceptisim to climate change, if a doctor tells you you have xyz disease, you don't see people who have no medical training saying "I am very sceptical of the existance of xyz disease". They realise that someone with 8 years training and 20 years expierence in a certain field has a better understanding of the topic than they do. Why is climate change different? (Personally I think because the changes happen so slowly. Ignore the doc and you could be dead in 6 months, ignore the climate change scientist and it's your children who will have to pay)


----------



## ubiquitous

Of course climate change is accelerating. I fully accept this. Climate change has happened throughout history (remember that Oliver Cromwell died from malaria contracted in Ireland in the 1640s-50s when Ireland was a much hotter place than today). The question is, as you say, whether we can slow it down. I'm not yet convinced that we can, at least to the extent that would warrant us unilaterally dismantling much of our economic, social and employment infrastructure.

It is simply incorrect to say that all scientists agree that the major driver of climate change is man. Maybe all the scientists that you see on the Irish Times, RTE or the BBC? (Btw, one would hope that our policymakers will depend on sources a little more reliable than wikipedia in making decisions on this area on our behalf.) However there is a greater diversity of opinion out there than you might think, and scientists are not infallible. Don't forget that 30 years ago the scientists were telling us that the earth was cooling down at an alarming rate; and 20 years ago they were telling us that nuclear proliferation would have us done for by the turn of the millennium.


----------



## Glenbhoy

ubiquitous said:


> What you are proposing therefore is likely to...
> 
> 1. have devastating effects on agriculture which is barely economic at the moment without being literally taxed out of existence.


Without having read the whole thread - would the whole new industry of carbon offsetting not be able to give farming a masive boost - new uses of farmland, either for wind farms, afforrestation, developing manure power stations, the growing of algae to utilise photosynthesis for power production......



diarmuidc said:


> unfortunately for your theory the people who actually study climate change (scientists) all agree that climate change is accelerating and the major driver is man. The only question is if and how much we can slow it down.
> Ref1
> Ref2
> Ref3
> I don't get the whole sceptisim to climate change, if a doctor tells you you have xyz disease, you don't see people who have no medical training saying "I am very sceptical of the existance of xyz disease". They realise that someone with 8 years training and 20 years expierence in a certain field has a better understanding of the topic than they do. Why is climate change different? (Personally I think because the changes happen so slowly. Ignore the doc and you could be dead in 6 months, ignore the climate change scientist and it's your children who will have to pay)


The majority of scientists agree that the earth is currently getting warmer, there is not a unamimous consensus as to why, climate has always changed, man may or may not be a causal factor in this instance.  Personally, i have no problem in running with the theory that it's our carbon emissions that are causing change, and that we should cut such emissions, better to be safe than sorry.
Whilst taking decisions to cut carbon may have short term economic consequences, it also creates many opportunities in new industries, these are decisions that will have to be taken soon anyway (as fossil fuels run out), so why not try and get ahead of the game and become world leaders in alternative technologies - as a small island with virtually no fossil energy resources, it's not as though we have much to lose!


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> It is simply incorrect to say that all scientists agree that the major driver of climate change is man. .



OK I should have phrased that as "majority of scientists".

Your dismissal of wikipedia is patronising. If you had taken the time to read the articles, you would have seen that most(all) claims on the wikipedia pages are referenced.

Scientists also told us in the past that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. That doesn't make the current scientific claim that the earth is round and revolves around the sun incorrect. Bringing up global cooling is a red herring.


----------



## ubiquitous

diarmuidc said:


> Bringing up global cooling is a red herring.



Not necessarily when the global cooling & anti-nuclear campaigns of the 1970s & 1980s were spearheaded by the same environmental forcess that are now pushing the global warming agenda.


----------



## ubiquitous

Glenbhoy said:


> Without having read the whole thread - would the whole new industry of carbon offsetting not be able to give farming a masive boost - new uses of farmland, either for wind farms, afforrestation, developing manure power stations, the growing of algae to utilise photosynthesis for power production......



Unfortunately afforestation has barely taken off in Ireland, mainly and ironically because of the efforts of the environmental lobby to stymie it at every turn. 

I have little confidence in the viability of wind farms except where they are backed by heavy subsidies.

Manure power stations are a non-runner unless you have cattle producing vast quantities of methane (ie carbon) literally on an industrial scale. The experience of large-scale factory farming to date is not a happy one, either from food safety or animal welfare viewpoints.

I know nothing about the possibilities surrounding the production of algae. I can only imagine the impact that industrial algae production would be likely to have on watercourses and other areas of the natural environment.

Even if some or any of the above options prove in the long run to be feasible, you are still left with the paradox that the end of Irish agriculture will mean the end of Irish food production, which means more importing of more food products and ingredients, which means more transport and shipping, which means more carbon production...


----------



## diarmuidc

ubiquitous said:


> Not necessarily when the global cooling & anti-nuclear campaigns of the 1970s & 1980s were spearheaded by the same environmental forcess that are now pushing the global warming agenda.



It's unfair to tar all with the same brush. Most scientists and engineers I know (and I am one) are pro nuclear. The mis-imformed "green" movement don't speak for us all.


----------



## ubiquitous

Fair enough. The reason why I focused on the Green movement is that our recent discussion above has been largely predicated on the Green Party's new carbon tax policy. The Green Party has long been among the leading forces pushing  successive global cooling/anti-nuclear/anti-afforestation/anti-carbon campaigns.


----------



## darex

ubiquitous said:


> It is simply incorrect to say that all scientists agree that the major driver of climate change is man. Maybe all the scientists that you see on the Irish Times, RTE or the BBC? (Btw, one would hope that our policymakers will depend on sources a little more reliable than wikipedia in making decisions on this area on our behalf.) However there is a greater diversity of opinion out there than you might think, and scientists are not infallible. Don't forget that 30 years ago the scientists were telling us that the earth was cooling down at an alarming rate; and 20 years ago they were telling us that nuclear proliferation would have us done for by the turn of the millennium.



This is pure head in the sand stuff. The only reason there is scepticism in the media about climate change is because the George Bushs administration adopted a deliberate, knowing and conscious policy to sow doubt about it. There is absolutely no scepticism in the scientific comumity about climate chage existing and that man is responsible for much of it. 
If you don't believe this then go and see "An inconvenient truth" where this point is very clearly illustrated


----------



## pat127

daveirl said:


> Big deal the environment changes, human beings have survived large changes in our environment before and will again.


 
You'd need to be more specific to stand over that statement. The last major environmental change which would be in any way even remotely comparable with what's being predicted now was probably the last Ice Age. The population of the world was very small however compared with the situation today and their lifestyles were extremely basic by our standards - hunter/gatherers or 'slash-and-burn' farmers. They had the capability to retreat before the oncoming ice and return in its wake with little impact on their living standards. One of the biggest issues with the impact of global warming is that vast numbers of people who live in flood-plains will be displaced and basically have nowhere to go, or by moving will find themselves in the same situation as people in North Africa who are being displaced by desertification, i.e. embroiled in wars and conflicts as they compete for others' space.

I'd accept your view okay if you said that some humans will survive but the entire focus is to get through whatever may lie ahead without wholesale destruction of life, or severe damage to the world's economies.


----------



## Glenbhoy

pat127 said:


> The last major environmental change which would be in any way even remotely comparable with what's being predicted now was probably the last Ice Age.


And how and why did it start?


----------



## ubiquitous

darex said:


> The only reason there is scepticism in the media about climate change is because the George Bushs administration adopted a deliberate, knowing and conscious policy to sow doubt about it.



Really?  So Ol' GW is to blame for everything? And if I don't agree with all of what Al Gore (yes, he who invented the internet) and others are saying, I automatically must be a Bush dupe? Pull the other one...



darex said:


> There is absolutely no scepticism in the scientific comumity about climate change existing and that man is responsible for much of it.



This article "Climate change: Menace or myth?" from the New Scientist highlights the existence of, without necessarily agreeing with, the uncertainty and scepticism among scientists on this subject. Attempting to deny the very existence of this scepticism in the first instance hardly makes for informed discussion.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18524861.400


----------



## extopia

ubiquitous said:


> ...the global cooling & anti-nuclear campaigns of the 1970s & 1980s were spearheaded by the same environmental forcess that are now pushing the global warming agenda.



The main forces behind the global warming "agenda" are scientists, many of whom have converted from previously sceptical positions. The main forces against this so-called "agenda" are governments and vested interests in the oil economy.


----------



## darex

ubiquitous said:


> Really?  So Ol' GW is to blame for everything? And if I don't agree with all of what Al Gore (yes, he who invented the internet) and others are saying, I automatically must be a Bush dupe? Pull the other one...



Well I don't like to point out the obvious but yes you probably are indirectly a George Bush dupe with your views as stated. The US administration several years ago created a systematic campaign to suggest to the media that the science of global warming was questionable when at the time there was an extremely strong scientific consensus. They even prevented the re-appointment of the head of the IPCC because the reports it produced mirrored this consensus. 

However slowly but surely all the citadels of denial are capitulating as the evidence becomes more overwhelming by the day. Prehaps the most interesting one is the recent conversion of significant sections of US religous right - leading to very real fissures in that movement.





ubiquitous said:


> This article "Climate change: Menace or myth?" from the New Scientist highlights the existence of, without necessarily agreeing with, the scepticism that does exist.
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18524861.400



From the article above:

In the face of such evidence, the vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we release more CO2 into the atmosphere


----------



## edo

ubiquitous said:


> Really? So Ol' GW is to blame for everything? And if I don't agree with all of what Al Gore (yes, he who invented the internet) and others are saying, I automatically must be a Bush dupe? Pull the other one...



Steady on the Al Gore invented the internet myth - one those - if somebody says it enough times it must be true - check the facts

http://sethf.com/gore/

Ps - why is always somebody on the US republican right wing who starts this kind of misinformation - be it above or the climate change denial?


----------



## darex

darex said:


> However slowly but surely all the citadels of denial are capitulating as the evidence becomes more overwhelming by the day. Prehaps the most interesting one is the recent conversion of significant sections of US religous right - leading to very real fissures in that movement.



Wow! yet another capitulation - and a big one at that! The IEA, which is the high priest of ever expanding fossil fuel usage, has in its latest report called for strong policy action to curb CO2:

"This will require "strong policy action" by governments, the IEA says, otherwise energy demand and CO2 emissions could both increase by more than 50 per cent by 2030, threatening "severe and irreversible environmental damage"

see: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19225774.000


----------



## ubiquitous

darex said:


> ...yes you probably are indirectly a George Bush dupe with your views as stated....


Thanks for putting my mind at ease on that one. You have an amazing insight into the workings of my brain. Do you mind me asking how did you acquire this skill?



darex said:


> ... Prehaps the most interesting one is the recent conversion of significant sections of US religous right...



Not in my Bible School, yet...



darex said:


> ..., the vast majority of scientists ...


So "all scientists" now reduces to "the vast majority" - which was my point all along. Is that your final bid?



edo said:


> Steady on the Al Gore invented the internet myth - one those - if somebody says it enough times it must be true - check the facts


The facts? Fair enough. Lets see what the man himself said: 


> "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet"



'Nuff said, methinks.


----------



## extopia

Whatever about Gore's internet claims (and in fairness his interest in the internet was well before its mass availability) it should not detract from his interest in the environment, which cannot ever IMO be claimed to to opportunistic.


----------



## pat127

Glenbhoy said:


> And how and why did it start?


 
Not sure of the point of your question, Glenbhoy but if it's a request for information I'd refer you to the Malinkovitch model and more recent  scientific views which now hold that the model doesn't quite provide the explanation.


----------



## darex

ubiquitous said:


> Thanks for putting my mind at ease on that one. You have an amazing insight into the workings of my brain. Do you mind me asking how did you acquire this skill?



This is an interesting question. We all get our political views on issues like this mostly from the media, either directly or through friends and family.

So given that there is a diversity of opinion in the media how do individuals form their own differing opinions? Answer inbuilt biases cause people to filter what they read both in terms of within an individual article and in terms of news outlets, so individuals with reactionary biases will tend to favour appropriate outlets and progressives will favour appropriate outlets and articles. The US administration was well aware of this. Put something into the media space that will appeal to reactionary biases and it will be picked up and become part of the political discourse, regardless of whether it is well founded or not.

This is what they did with global warming and the reactionary elements of the US media picked it up and ran with it. Enough of the scepticism leaked over here to allow people over here to pick up similar opinions if they tried hard enough, although you did have to try pretty hard because European governments never supported the US line, if fact if anything the opposite (see David Kings statements for the UK government).


----------



## ubiquitous

darex said:


> individuals with reactionary biases will tend to favour appropriate outlets and progressives will favour appropriate outlets and articles.



Your choice of language is interesting. For what its worth, I can see GW Bush's point in relation to the uselessness of the Kyoto protocol etc in preventing climate change but otherwise I think the man is a headbanger, and an ineffective and useless President of his country. Which camp does that place me in?

Would you describe the Green Party (whose policy we are discussing) as reactionary or progressive? For example I see very little progressive about their attitude to nuclear power, but their record as advocates for recycling etc has been progressive in the extreme.

Which camp are you in yourself?


----------



## EvilDoctorK

darex said:


> Wow! yet another capitulation - and a big one at that! The IEA, which is the high priest of ever expanding fossil fuel usage, has in its latest report called for strong policy action to curb CO2:
> 
> "This will require "strong policy action" by governments, the IEA says, otherwise energy demand and CO2 emissions could both increase by more than 50 per cent by 2030, threatening "severe and irreversible environmental damage"
> 
> see: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19225774.000



Funny that I was served a Land Rover overlay ad when I visited that article


----------



## sunrock

Just read that OPEC reckoned that worldwide oil demand is 83.4 million barrells of oil per day.
50 gallons per barrel 4,170 million gallons of oil.
3.8liters per gallon 15,846million liters of oil.

Please resist the temptation to correct my maths I ve got a good calculator.
So something like 2 liters of oil per every person on earth per day.
U. S. USES A QUARTER OF TOTAL.
The idea we ll be living in a cave in a type of stone age when fossil fuels run out is in accurate.
It ll be more like the 19th century.
The winters will be cold,without central heating not withstanding global warming.
I turn off the heating at night.An extra blanket or two does the trick.
The first 5 minutes is very cold,unless one does a minutes warm up of exercise.
Whatever about oil which is a relatively clean fuel,its successor coal is going to be environmentally disastrous,especially as its use is going to be multiplied many times not least to extract fuel for transportation.
On a personal note i have become a frequent poster!


----------



## Glenbhoy

ubiquitous said:


> Unfortunately afforestation has barely taken off in Ireland, mainly and ironically because of the efforts of the environmental lobby to stymie it at every turn.
> 
> I have little confidence in the viability of wind farms except where they are backed by heavy subsidies.
> 
> Manure power stations are a non-runner unless you have cattle producing vast quantities of methane (ie carbon) literally on an industrial scale. The experience of large-scale factory farming to date is not a happy one, either from food safety or animal welfare viewpoints.
> 
> I know nothing about the possibilities surrounding the production of algae. I can only imagine the impact that industrial algae production would be likely to have on watercourses and other areas of the natural environment.
> 
> Even if some or any of the above options prove in the long run to be feasible, you are still left with the paradox that the end of Irish agriculture will mean the end of Irish food production, which means more importing of more food products and ingredients, which means more transport and shipping, which means more carbon production...


 
True, we have not made many inroads, but we are in a position to.
Wind - I think in the long run, wind will be essential for us - even if not economically viable now, it will be in the near future.
Manure  - joke suggestion, but the methane could be harvested for heating if we're really stuck - does burning methane create more carbon than letting it degrade naturally?
Biodiesel crops - crops such as rape seed and elephant grass could be big winners for farmers?
Paradox re transport etc - possibly we will have to transport more food, but do we not already produce too much?  With all the excess energy we have, we could actually produce all the exotic foods we want in really big greenhouses, maybe down in the midlands I reckon.  As we are now producing so much green energy our transport systems will run on green energy, so it's irrelevant how much shipping we need.




pat127 said:


> Not sure of the point of your question, Glenbhoy but if it's a request for information I'd refer you to the Malinkovitch model and more recent scientific views which now hold that the model doesn't quite provide the explanation.


My point was that this happened without any human influence, scientists don't know why it happened, so is there not a possibility that they're wrong in this instance and global warming will happen regardless.  Could it not be that we are currently just moving back from the ice age to the historically higher temperatures that have been prevalent for most of the past 4bn years?  



sunrock said:


> Whatever about oil which is a relatively clean fuel,its successor coal is going to be environmentally disastrous,especially as its use is going to be multiplied many times not least to extract fuel for transportation.
> On a personal note i have become a frequent poster!


I have no worries whatsoever about the depletion of fossil fuels, we (well not me, as I'm not very ingenious) have many, many different sources of energy - my own new favourite is algae - brilliant
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/11/greenstar_produ.html
Well, actually I do have one worry, maybe in 500 yrs time mankind will look back and say, those idiots, they actually _burned_ all of the oil (mankind having discovered some futuristic cure for all illness and quasi eternal life emanating from oil) (I'm not advocating that any of ye go drinking the black gold mind)


----------



## pat127

Glenbhoy said:


> My point was that this happened without any human influence, scientists don't know why it happened, so is there not a possibility that they're wrong in this instance and global warming will happen regardless. Could it not be that we are currently just moving back from the ice age to the historically higher temperatures that have been prevalent for most of the past 4bn years?


 
There is that possibility of course, but what if the scientists are right? That's one of the big issues. The risk of a natural disaster happening is a fact of life. If there is a meteorite heading our way or the Yellowstone super-volcano (which is 20,000 years late based on its cycle heretofore) decides to blow, there's nothing we can do about it but as long as there is a possibility (and some would say a very strong possibility) that we are causing or even aggravating the situation, shouldn't we try to do something about it?


----------



## sunrock

Must correct my previous post where i said we use .5 liters of oil a day per each person on earth.
I t should be 2 liters of oil per person on earth per day.


----------



## Glenbhoy

pat127 said:


> There is that possibility of course, but what if the scientists are right? That's one of the big issues. The risk of a natural disaster happening is a fact of life. If there is a meteorite heading our way or the Yellowstone super-volcano (which is 20,000 years late based on its cycle heretofore) decides to blow, there's nothing we can do about it but as long as there is a possibility (and some would say a very strong possibility) that we are causing or even aggravating the situation, shouldn't we try to do something about it?


I agree completely, I'm very much of the opinion that it's better not to take chances on such things.  What I don't like is people coming out with these supposedly incontrovertible truths about how global warming is undoubtedly due to man's influence (and I'm not having a go a you here).


----------



## imogen

I think I must be getting very old. I just realised it is now 21 years since I was involved in editing a short briefing document about the evidence for climate change prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme to brief decision makers in governments on the arguments for and against. 

In the interim the only thing I think I've changed my opinion on is that I feel more pessimistic and less optimistic that human beings are capable of sufficient foresight, altruism or even comprehension of the concept of deferred benefit to do anything about this issue. 

One of the fantastic advantages Ireland has is that as a small country with a particularly well-educated civil service, it can bring about much more radical change over a much shorter timescale than almost any other OECD country when it chooses, despite being at the mercy of global fluctuations due to its open economy. I don't see any sign that the country's brains and power brokers are focussed on this issue. I wish they were.

All the best

Imogen


----------



## pat127

"I will come back and give my two cents on various parts that interest me (hope I won’t be talking to myself tho – then again there would be nothing new in that!)"

Edo, I'd be fascinated to know what you think of the debate so far?


----------



## MadPad

Glenbhoy said:


> ..............
> Well, actually I do have one worry, maybe in 500 yrs time mankind will look back and say, those idiots, they actually _burned_ all of the oil (mankind having discovered some futuristic cure for all illness and quasi eternal life emanating from oil) (I'm not advocating that any of ye go drinking the black gold mind)


 
Dont know if you were being serious or not but that is a good point.. Oil of some form is essential for all high tech manufacturing, just burning it (particularly in patio heaters) is such a waste....


----------



## darex

ubiquitous said:


> Would you describe the Green Party (whose policy we are discussing) as reactionary or progressive? For example I see very little progressive about their attitude to nuclear power, but their record as advocates for recycling etc has been progressive in the extreme.



The core thesis of the green party is progressive in that they have realised ahead of others that we can't sacrifice the environment in the name of economic growth. However there is no doubt that they have reactionary elements - such as the Irish greens policy on Europe (not shared by all European greens by the way).
I think the jury is out on Nuclear power. In a global sense it certainly looks to be much the lesser of two evils as the moment and hence supporting it would be progressive I suppose.
However I just don't see nuclear as being a real option for Ireland. I think we would be much better off building a decent connector to the UK and using their nuclear power and selling them surplus wind energy when we have it. We can ramp up wind energy supplies pretty quickly but it would take us forever to get a nuclear power station up and running.

Also uranium supplies are limited and so if every country ramps up nuclear energy production all at the same time uranium prices are going to go sky high. Ireland would be better to concentrate on what what we have the natural resources for and that is wind power. This country is one of the best spots in the world for wind power.


----------



## DirtyH2O

darex said:


> This country is one of the best spots in the world for wind power.


 
Do you have a link to the source for this?


----------



## extopia

What about wave power? Anyone know what developments if any are going on in Ireland? I know there was an experimental setup somewhere in NI.


----------



## PMU

darex said:


> The core thesis of the green party is progressive in that they have realised ahead of others that we can't sacrifice the environment in the name of economic growth.



That make's about as much sense as saying we can't offend This post will be deleted if not edited immediately in the pursuit of economic growth.  It's not 'progressive' it's dogma.


----------



## extopia

More like common sense, I'd say.


----------



## pat127

"EU climate policy is gearing up to confront the US. Imports from countries that refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol could be subject to punitive tariff duties -- a new measure intended to pressure the Bush Administration. A climate tax on flights may also be introduced. "


For the detail see:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448968,00.html


----------



## shanegl

Lucky for us then that countries like China and India are exempt from Kyoto.


----------



## MadPad

heres my 2 cents on this; its a bit long but then I didnt have time to write a short post.... 

Its worth going back to the basics, we are still governed by basic physics. The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed, energy is just converted from one form to another. Outside of nuclear, energy is not generated. To take oil, tremendous energy (heat and pressure) was exerted on decayed algae and other organic material over millennia to convert some of this material to oil. Some of this energy is now released when the oil is burned. A cup of oil will move a one ton car 10 kilometres in as many minutes. How many people/horses are needed to do that? The peak oil merchants say were screwed, we have used up half of the oil already. Anyways, we are using oil at a faster rate than it is being produced. So we are 'borrowing' energy from the future. 

However, unfortunately, the oil/coal etc won’t just disappear after use; it will be discharged to the atmosphere. No physical matter will be destroyed; it will all end up as "greenhouse gases"
A good macro view of the environment is described by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science)) Its only a theory but it has gained credibility over the past number of years... Anyways, conversion of oil etc. to energy, whether for electricity generation or transport, is producing literally millions of tons of CO/CO2 emissions which, whatever about theory, is seriously affecting the environment

People, we haven’t changed that much over the years and aren’t that different in different countries. The Easter Islanders who cut down their trees and effectively screwed their descendants over were probably no more stupid than us. Or the people who built Newgrange would be able to drive a car or use an ipod, they were every bit as smart as we think we are. We, at least in ireland, are incredibly fortunate to be alive at this time in history...But, we don’t inherit the earth from our parents; we borrow it from our children. If we care about them, we should leave it in as good nick as we found it, and that means not leaving a mess for them to clean up.

The economic aspect….. Capitalism is a great system, but it is based on growth. A company must grow and continue to grow in order to succeed e.g. imagine if AIB said profits were static? At a fundamental level, there is a conflict between capitalism and sustainability, unless the limits to growth are so far off as to be meaningless. I prefer capatilism, growth sounds more exciting than suatainability but are we approaching limits to growth?

Whether the ultimate constraint to our fabulous lifestyle is supply (oil etc), or environmental degradation (pop growth, global warming, water etc), there is a constraint. It may not be imminent (less than 50 years) but its there and, unless we want to do an “Easter Island” for our children, we should react to it in plenty of time.

While we all like to mock the Ireland of the 50’s and 60’s, back then we did play an important part in the biggest global issue of the day --- non proliferation of nuclear weapons. The big global issues today are the environment, energy and world poverty.

Ireland could contribute significantly to brokering change on a global scale. We should at least have an energy policy, and stop obsessing about property


----------



## sunrock

I agree with a lot of what you say,but not the gaii theory.
The gaii theory assumes that the earth is self regulating,assuming a kind of inbuilt control.That may seem to be the case,with our abundant planet.
But if earth ends up like mars or venus it won t look very smart.
I m not 100% au fait with the gaii theory ,so I stand to be corrected.
Climate change is a worry with would be winners and losers  _possibly many more losers with low lying cities getting flooded with rising sea levels.
Nevertheless sydney wasn t much 200 years ago, so I imagine cities can be rebuilt on higher ground,and of course keeps house prices high 
So everyone in the world is using finite fossil fuels according to their means and needs.
At an individual level very few are willing to reduce their use, and our politicians know this, and anyway why should one individual make a sacrifice ,or even an individual country when they look at others  enjoying their fossilfuel fired lifestyles.
Despite all the platitudes and alternatives and concerns,world use of fossil fuels is at an all time high.
Imagine if a government or groups of governments decided to double the price of fossil fuels in an attempt to prevent climate changes etc.
I d imagine there would be riots in the streets.
No one however riots for austerity,even to leave fossil fuels to our grandchildren.
All this is human nature playing out,with peoples present concerns  more important than any concern about the future.
Coal will be burned till its used up.Nuclear and renewables will be utilised.
But we do really need a new energy soucre for humanity in about 100 years time.
In the meantime everyone should use energy sensibly.
Some one mentioned nanotechnology_can this generate energy or maybe nuclear fusion?


----------



## sonnyikea

sunrock said:


> Some one mentioned nanotechnology_can this generate energy or maybe nuclear fusion?


 
If CO2 is a by product of burning fuel then nanotechnology, by definition, has the ability to separate the carbon from the oxygen. Could it mix the Carbon with another element to make fuel and only release oxygen into the atmosphere? The theory would say it could. Think about what a plant does.


----------



## joe sod

imogen said:


> I think I must be getting very old. I just realised it is now 21 years since I was involved in editing a short briefing document about the evidence for climate change prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme to brief decision makers in governments on the arguments for and against.
> 
> In the interim the only thing I think I've changed my opinion on is that I feel more pessimistic and less optimistic that human beings are capable of sufficient foresight, altruism or even comprehension of the concept of deferred benefit to do anything about this issue.
> 
> One of the fantastic advantages Ireland has is that as a small country with a particularly well-educated civil service, it can bring about much more radical change over a much shorter timescale than almost any other OECD country when it chooses, despite being at the mercy of global fluctuations due to its open economy. I don't see any sign that the country's brains and power brokers are focussed on this issue. I wish they were.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Imogen


 
How do you know the irish civil service is "particularly well-educated". Id say particularly well insulated and unaccountable and unfireable would be the descriptions I would use. Ive never heard of any country trumpeting their civil service as some sort of national resource not even Russia at the height of communism where everyone worked for the state would have made such a claim. I think it proves that the civil service lives in a world of its own far removed from reality.


----------



## imogen

Hello Joe sod (?)

It's based on my personal experience and I also have personal experience of the Commission and the UK. I think that when civil servants in Ireland want to move and have the requisite political backup, they are creative and swift. I've dealt with lots of civil servants in the 15 years I've been here and I can only think of one or two who were less than excellent. That's a pretty good hit rate.

All the best

Imogen


----------



## sunrock

One of the fantastic advantages Ireland has is that as a small country with a particularly well-educated civil service, it can bring about much more radical change over a much shorter timescale than almost any other OECD country when it chooses, despite being at the mercy of global fluctuations due to its open economy. I don't see any sign that the country's brains and power brokers are focussed on this issue. I wish they were.

Our well educated and indeed insulated civil service,I would have thought would resist change.
Their high salaries,benchmarking,generous govenment pensions,and unfireable positions even in the 80s recession betray what they are really about_A PAMPERED elite looking out for its own interests and getting the government to kowtow to their ever increasing demands!
What radical change do you suggest they embrace?
THEY DO NOT CREATE WEALTH_they just make sure they get a very big slice of the cake.
I m sure they re all very agreable gents and ladies in the civil service,especially in the higher levels, and probably doing a good job administering the country, but risk takers or boat rockers they are not!


----------



## MadPad

sunrock said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say,but not the gaii theory.
> The gaii theory assumes that the earth is self regulating,assuming a kind of inbuilt control.That may seem to be the case,with our abundant planet.
> But if earth ends up like mars or venus it won t look very smart.
> ..........


 
I know very little about it but I think the gist of it is that its self regulating i.e. will try to regulate at a certain 'steady state' up to a point. When that gets exceeded, the 'steady state' shifts and it will try to regulate on the new state....

e.g.; if a little (a few million tons) extra CO2 is dumped in the air, it increases warming, but this increases plant activity which works on the Co2 to use the extra up and bring the system back to steady state. These negative feedback loops stop "small" events (volcanoes etc) that happen every so often from having a cumulative effect....as the system recovers provided it gets some recovery time...

But if too much is released, too quickly, then there are positive feedback loops which upset the system. Too much greenhouse gases, too quickly means more/quicker warming, ice melts... then that area of ground no longer reflects out the suns heat ==> more warming ==> tundra defrosts ==> releases more greenhouse gases..
At some point it stabalizes again at a new level (thats the theory) but its a sudden jump to a new temperature... and when it stabalizes, the feedback loops then kick in to stop it cooling...

the temperature example is the only one i have read about but i think there are many others...

Agree 100% with your other points.. not sure which is the more difficult problem, beating the law of conservation of energy, or human nature


----------



## extopia

There is lots of evidence that these feedback loops are occurring, regardless of whether you believe the Gaia theory.

For example, the melting of the icecaps means less of the earth's surface is white, meaning less heat reflected back into space, leading to further warming of the oceans, leading to more melting of the icecaps, etc...


----------



## pat127

This is interesting!

[broken link removed]


----------

