# Climate Protests



## Purple (19 Sep 2019)

Tomorrow will see another day where children from all over the world take the day off school to protest against climate change or, more specifically, the fact that adults are doing next to nothing about stopping it.

Some commentators write really patronising opinion pieces about it telling them to leave it to the grown-ups to sort it out but given that the grown-ups have done nothing except make things worse what else should those children who want a future do?

Given the general level of apathy shown by most people, young and old, to just about everything (about a third of us don't even vote) is it not good to see people engaged in politics and protests?


----------



## Firefly (19 Sep 2019)

Sadly it will our children's generation who will begin to suffer from our recklessness but however it is they too who will take the largest steps in tackling the issue. So getting them on the street is a good thing - when they're older they'll be less easily swayed by the deniers...

Just wondering....has anyone here made any measurable changes to their day-to-day activities to reduce their footprint? More from a plastic-reduction perspective than CO2 I have recently ditched the showergel for soap. I find it cleans a lot better and costs a fraction too.


----------



## michaelm (19 Sep 2019)

It all seems a bit over-hyped to me.  AFAIK the world has warmed by somewhere between 0.5 and 1 degree over the last 100 years and sea levels have risen around 3mm per year on average over the last 20 years.  For sure there is change and we are having an impact.  I'm not sure there is a climate emergency, nor that what we are doing in the best way (or value for money) to mitigate any change.  I read that 100 years ago climate events killed over 100 people per million annually but today that figure is 4 per million.  I expect that climate change will affect poor peoples/countries disproportionately and that lifting them out of poverty is a more fixable problem.

Funnily enough I reckon I have quite a low carbon footprint.  I don't buy stuff/gadgets, walk to work, only use bars of soap (no hair), have a push mower, don't fly much, try to buy Irish or EU produce . . do like fillet steak though.


----------



## odyssey06 (19 Sep 2019)

Call me cynical, but why is a day off school needed? Why not a Saturday or Sunday?
Using kids in this manner is indoctrination and child abuse.
Down through the ages they are deployed like this by religions and totalitarian ideologies.
A ten year old knows nothing about this issue or any other. They could be marching to save the world or salute Stalin.


----------



## Thirsty (19 Sep 2019)

"Why not a Saturday"

Ah but then they'd miss football/GAA/hockey/pick-your-sport training or worse still wouldn't be hanging out with their mates in the local shopping centre...


----------



## Purple (20 Sep 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Call me cynical, but why is a day off school needed? Why not a Saturday or Sunday?


Same reason their teachers don't go on strike during their 17 weeks holidays; then it wouldn't be a strike.



odyssey06 said:


> Using kids in this manner is indoctrination and child abuse.


 Presenting them with facts which their parents selfishly choose to ignore is child abuse? Really?
I'd say that saddling them with our debts, providing them with very expensive but substandard health and education and screwing up the worldn't climate is closer to child abuse.



odyssey06 said:


> Down through the ages they are deployed like this by religions and totalitarian ideologies.


I was marched to mass from school. I prefer this sort of march. This march is optional and they won't be told they will go to hell if they don't participate.



odyssey06 said:


> A ten year old knows nothing about this issue or any other.


 They seem to know more than their parents, judging by some of the posts here so far.


----------



## Purple (20 Sep 2019)

Firefly said:


> Just wondering....has anyone here made any measurable changes to their day-to-day activities to reduce their footprint? More from a plastic-reduction perspective than CO2 I have recently ditched the showergel for soap. I find it cleans a lot better and costs a fraction too.


I avoid plastic packaging where possible. My green bin goes out once a month. My black bin once every 6 weeks. There are 4-5 people in the house. No wet-wipes, no clingfilm etc. 
What I am careful about is not buying food that has been flown here so no berries or fresh fruits from far flung places. The carbon miles ion those products are massive.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> Presenting them with facts which their parents selfishly choose to ignore is child abuse? Really?
> I'd say that saddling them with our debts, providing them with very expensive but substandard health and education and screwing up the worldn't climate is closer to child abuse.
> I was marched to mass from school. I prefer this sort of march. This march is optional and they won't be told they will go to hell if they don't participate.
> 
> They seem to know more than their parents, judging by some of the posts here so far.



Its meaningless nonsense. A strike? By schoolkids for schoolkids to bunk off.
The only fact they are interested in is how much dossing off they can do.

Very easy to be 'unselfish' when you arent the ones that havs to be responsible for paying bills, keeping house warm, getting kids to school and you to work.
But then thats what being a child is. Which is why they dont get to vote.

Will they be unselfish by not flying or getting lift to school or friends house?
Or wearing fleeces indoor so thermostat can go down a notch?
Are they going to take on a part time job to pay for house to be insulated?

They are kids. When I see them deployed as propaganda tools like this I know an agenda being peddled.


----------



## Purple (20 Sep 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Its meaningless nonsense. A strike? By schoolkids for schoolkids to bunk off.


Maybe for some but the ones that turn up at the protests aren't bunking off. 



odyssey06 said:


> The only fact they are interested in is how much dossing off they can do.


 How do you know?



odyssey06 said:


> Very easy to be 'unselfish' when you arent the ones that havs to be responsible for paying bills, keeping house warm, getting kids to school and you to work.


 Very easy to be selfish when someone else has to face to consequences of your actions. Very easy to be lazy and pretend that minor day to day changes are major issues.




odyssey06 said:


> Will they be unselfish by not flying or getting lift to school or friends house?
> Or wearing fleeces indoor so thermostat can go down a notch?
> Are they going to take on a part time job to pay for house to be insulated?


Maybe their parents could lead by example, you know, parent them. 




odyssey06 said:


> They are kids. When I see them deployed as propaganda tools like this I know an agenda being peddled.


 Oh, it's all a conspiracy is it?


----------



## michaelm (20 Sep 2019)

The cynic in me wants to say that many will attend to skip school, eat fast food and throw the wrappers on the ground . . keep breathing Purple, you don't want to turn blue .


----------



## Ceist Beag (20 Sep 2019)

If even a percentage of them get on board as a result of these protests then it can only be a good thing. Every and any inititiative that promotes the message should be encouraged and supported. I really don't understand this constant whinging and nay saying we get from adults - it's either denial or a lack of desire to accept the facts.
It's never going to be easy to change a culture but the more the drum is banged the more people will slowly start to hear it and some will even start to understand the message.


----------



## Ceist Beag (20 Sep 2019)

Firefly said:


> Just wondering....has anyone here made any measurable changes to their day-to-day activities to reduce their footprint? More from a plastic-reduction perspective than CO2 I have recently ditched the showergel for soap. I find it cleans a lot better and costs a fraction too.


We grow our own food, producing enough fruit to mean we never need to buy jams again, enough tomatoes to see us in soup for the winter, cooking apples to reduce how many we need to buy and also make chutneys with beetroot. Obviously we still need to buy fruit and veg but at least it's a reduction and hopefully we can add to it over the years.
Supervalu have biodegradable bags rather than plastic ones so we use those where necessary but like you we're trying to reduce plastic where possible. Soap is something we've been using for years now as well.


----------



## Leper (20 Sep 2019)

I'm delighted to see our school going youth protesting. Bear in mind the only cost is to themselves. No matter which way you look at their protests they have to make up the difference themselves. Furthermore, it gets our youth thinking ahead to their eventual working days where I reckon they are already inspired to join trade union. Good on our youth I say!


----------



## Leo (20 Sep 2019)

Leper said:


> where I reckon they are already inspired to join trade union.



What have our wonderful trade unions ever done for the environment?

The only involvements I can think of are trying to protect their own interests like protesting the cutting back on peat extraction and burning for electricity generation.


----------



## Leper (20 Sep 2019)

Leo said:


> What have our wonderful trade unions ever done for the environment?
> 
> The only involvements I can think of are trying to protect their own interests like protesting the cutting back on peat extraction and burning for electricity generation.


Trade Unions represent their members, not the environment.


----------



## Purple (20 Sep 2019)

Leper said:


> Trade Unions represent their members, not the environment.


So why would they join vested interest groups which seek to damage the climate for their own selfish ends?
Those are the sort of organisations they are protesting against.


----------



## Leo (20 Sep 2019)

Leper said:


> Trade Unions represent their members, not the environment.



Ah OK, so unions will represent their members' short-term interests above all else, not really a surprise to anyone. 

These protesters are engaged in exactly the opposite kind of behaviour, and are seeking measures that would result in immediate pain in order to lessen a long term issue that may not even directly impact them any time soon. I really don't see how these people would be inspired to join a union unless it is to infiltrate from within and take them down.


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Sep 2019)

Leo said:


> What have our wonderful trade unions ever done for the environment?



Raise awareness?









						Trade unions around the world support global climate strike
					

Adults, businesses and trade unions asked to join youth climate campaign




					www.theguardian.com
				




[broken link removed]









						Public services must lead climate change response - Forsa
					

Fórsa leader tells #EPSUcongress19: “Only the public sector – at a national and international level – has the resources, the scale of organisation, the infrastructure and the legislative and regulatory heft to meet this challenge head on in the fast-declining time available.” Climate change is...




					www.forsa.ie


----------



## BilliamD75 (20 Sep 2019)

Maybe I should be out protesting about climate change, it is now become a religious cult and any objective view like mine is treated with distain without answering simple questions for a balanced point of view,


----------



## Leo (23 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Raise awareness?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, so hypocrisy. Makes sense.


----------



## Firefly (23 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Maybe I should be out protesting about climate change, it is now become a religious cult and any objective view like mine is treated with distain without answering simple questions for a balanced point of view,



Climate change a religious cult... seriously? Do you really consider that view _objective_?


----------



## BilliamD75 (23 Sep 2019)

Yes I do, humanity lives on about 2.5 % of the earth's surface, 70%water and of the 30% land mass nobody lives on Greenland, Antarctica, in any of the world's deserts or mountain ranges, in any of the world's forests and large areas of Canada and Russia, I could go on. Our climate is cyclical in nature and is never the same throughout history, my own opinion is volcanoes put more co2 (so2) into the earth's atmosphere than (krakatoa as an example) all the cars on the road today, its not a one way bet, that's just my opinion.


----------



## john luc (23 Sep 2019)

Since universal social charge tax was only a temporary  tax,then why does the body politic not suggest it be adapted as the carbon tax.


----------



## john luc (23 Sep 2019)

Eaten bread is soon forgotten


----------



## Ceist Beag (23 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Yes I do, humanity lives on about 2.5 % of the earth's surface, 70%water and of the 30% land mass nobody lives on Greenland, Antarctica, in any of the world's deserts or mountain ranges, in any of the world's forests and large areas of Canada and Russia, I could go on. Our climate is cyclical in nature and is never the same throughout history, my own opinion is volcanoes put more co2 (so2) into the earth's atmosphere than (krakatoa as an example) all the cars on the road today, its not a one way bet, that's just my opinion.


Do you think we're doing fine as we are then? Do you not think we could do a little bit better at minding our planet? I don't think anyone is saying it's a one way bet (whatever that means) but if you seriously think we don't need to be concerned or that we don't need to be changing our ways then I think you're mistaken.


----------



## BilliamD75 (23 Sep 2019)

No we are not doing fine with the planet, we are consuming the planets resources to quickly, pollution is a major problem for me with plastics (man made one way bet ) in our oceans our biggest issue, over fishing, deforestation and killing animals to extinction. If your worried about c02 levels in the atmosphere then plant more trees, thats what I mean by its not a one way bet as nature has a way for us to rebalance. That's my opinion


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Maybe I should be out protesting about climate change, *it is now become a religious cult* and any *objective view like mine is treated with distain* without answering simple questions for a balanced point of view,



That's right; objectively it's a cult.

Well done.


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> as nature has a way for us to rebalance. That's my opinion


Nature is not a sentient thing but in a way you are right; our planet will be fine, it just mightn't be suitable for us to live on. 
This isn't about nature, it is about the way in which people are changing the climate in a  way which makes it less suitable for us to live here. The people doing most of the changing will suffer the least of the results of those changes.

Do remember that a good chunk of the world's population lives within 3 meters of sea level and nearly all of the world's mega-cities are coastal, with most of those being in river delta's. Places like Bangladesh will be pretty much wiped out with reasonably modest sea level rises.

When children are telling their parents to listen to the science and be logical we  should be both ashamed and worried and then we should do what we are told.


----------



## Leo (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> my own opinion is volcanoes put more co2 (so2) into the earth's atmosphere than (krakatoa as an example) all the cars on the road today, its not a one way bet, that's just my opinion.



Bad news, your opinion is wrong, very wrong.


----------



## BilliamD75 (24 Sep 2019)

I have heard that before, see levels are going to rise, al gore the u.s vp said new York would be under water by 2012, with all the best scientists available to him how come he was so wrong, yes of course purple we should listen to the children they know more.


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> I have heard that before, see levels are going to rise, al gore the u.s vp said new York would be under water by 2012, with all the best scientists available to him how come he was so wrong, yes of course purple we should listen to the children they know more.


Well they know more than you, it seems.

NASA seem to be a member of the Cult as well...


----------



## BilliamD75 (24 Sep 2019)

Leo said:


> Bad news, your opinion is wrong, very wrong.


Yes Leo I can show you articles to say I am right, volcanos have put more co2 into the atmosphere in the earth's history that fossil fuels in the last 100 years, plant more trees to compensate for it


----------



## BilliamD75 (24 Sep 2019)

They no more than Al gore's scientists also


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

Scientific American, Nature Magazine, National Geographic, the UN, the OECD, even the CIA; they are all members of the Climate Change Cult!


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Yes Leo I can show you articles to say I am right, volcanos have put more co2 into the atmosphere in the earth's history that fossil fuels in the last 100 years, plant more trees to compensate for it


In Earth's history, really? Is that the level we are at?
Human's have been here for 200,000 years. We've been industrialised for 200.
The earth is 4.54 billion years old. 
Are you seriously putting that up as an argument against man made climate change?


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

Most of those massive volcanic eruptions happened before there were mammals or dinosaurs on the earth (they both evolved around 215 million years ago). The eruptions which did happen after that caused mass extinctions. The Earth is now more stable and we have far fewer eruptions.


----------



## Leo (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Yes Leo I can show you articles to say I am right, volcanos have put more co2 into the atmosphere in the earth's history that fossil fuels in the last 100 years, plant more trees to compensate for it



Making that claim it is clear you do not understand what you are talking about. You do understand that it is the increased levels that are the problem, right? And that current levels are significantly higher than they have ever been? 

How many trees do you think we would need to plant to fully compensate? What percentage of arable land would have to be given over to support this level of forestation and what impact would that have on food supplies and water tables?


----------



## BilliamD75 (24 Sep 2019)

Co2 levels have been higher before industrialised times the ice core samples taken from Antarctica prove this beyond doubt, I have studied this topic for years and have come to my conclusion in a balanced way,we could be here for years debating this issue, a lot of people do not agree with me and that's fine I have no problem with that, I clearly never said to you that you do not know what you are talking about. Anybody with a different opinion is treated with distain, I will stick to economics.


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

Leo said:


> ed to plant to fully compensate?


A forest the size of the USA (2.2 billion acres) would tackle about two thirds of the carbon problem. It's actually quite doable when spread over the planet but it would take decades to mature.


----------



## Leo (24 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> A forest the size of the USA (2.2 billion acres) would tackle about two thirds of the carbon problem. It's actually quite doable when spread over the planet but it would take decades to mature.



Aw, I wanted Billiam to do the sums 

We'd need to hope we didn't see an increase in forest fires negating some of that affect too


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Co2 levels have been higher before industrialised times the ice core samples taken from Antarctica prove this beyond doubt


I think you are referring to the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 which was written about in 1997. That has been shown to be incorrect (to say the least). The science deniers have used it many times since but it remains incorrect. Details here.


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> I have studied this topic for years and have come to my conclusion in a balanced way


I see no evidence of that.


----------



## Purple (24 Sep 2019)

Leo said:


> Aw, I wanted Billiam to do the sums



I'm waiting for some "alternative facts".


----------



## BilliamD75 (24 Sep 2019)

You have to do your research on all the facts. Here is one source, Armstrong economics /climate change - volcanoes part 2 December 2017 or just look at his whole blog on climate change. If you need more sources let me know as it's important to get all the information for a balanced view, I hope this helps


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Sep 2019)

I do have some sympathy with the skeptics insofar as I dont believe the science can be anyway accurate to the extent of human activity contributing to climate change, as distinct from measuring the carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere from human activity.
It is not beyond reason, in my opinion, that the effects may be exaggerated. But if its not possible to accurately measure the extent of human activity contributing to climate change then its also quite possible that the effects are being underestimated.
So my sympathy only goes so far and stops abruptly when I hear people denying it or dismissive of it altogether.

It is hard for some to take the global perspective, that is not a fault, just a trait. But it shouldn't be hard for the same people to look at themselves individually and see what they can do themselves to reduce carbon footprint.
Im a slow learner with this admittedly, with the exception of water. Thanks to the water charges debacle I studiously observed mine, and my households, water usage. It transpired we were wasting very little, if any at all. We washed and showered as we required, flushed toilets, cooked food. We set our dishwasher and washing machine to 'eco' levels. After that, some watering in the garden during summer (which isnt waste, just a relocating of a natural substance from one area back to mother nature).
And if any of us heard a tap running, we did what I guess 99.999% of the population would do - turn it off.
After that we have improved lots on food wastage, using leftovers for next day lunches, compost etc. We still have a way to go to reduce plastic and packaging overall.

But regardless of the true extent of climate change, or human activity contributing to it, its a bit of a no-brainer to not realise that the planet is being heavily polluted and that that is wholly unsustainable long-term. The bare minimum anyone can do is to become more aware of their own activity.

If it takes Greta, or school kids or whoever to raise the awareness, then im all for it. Good on them.


----------



## joe sod (24 Sep 2019)

Surely the biggest mistake is to use Greta Thornburg as a sort of "This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ" figure, repent repent for your sins or you will spend eternity in damnation. There is a definite hysteria and religious fervour about the whole thing.
She is just a child and does not really understand , if there is going to be climate change, then there is going to be climate change. 
So our forefathers started the industrial revolution , brought into existence the modern world powered from fossil fuels. Maybe Greta Thornburg should focus her ire at the fathers of the industrial revolution, people like Isaac Newton, George Stevenson, Nicholas Tesla, James watt. After all if those people were not born there would be no industrial revolution, low life expectancy, low global population, and of course little human produced co2 in the atmosphere. Those are the guys she needs to blame. Then when she has done all that possibly another meteor hits the earth like what wiped out the dinosaurs so we all get killed off anyways.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Sep 2019)

joe sod said:


> Surely the biggest mistake is to use Greta Thornburg



I think it is a mistake to focus unduly on the individual that is Greta Thornburg. Or any emotive reaction that she may be trying to invoke in her campaign. 
Instead, the underlying message needs to be heard. We produce more waste and pollution than we can effectively deal with in a manner that is shown to release carbon emissions, that are scientifically linked to changing the climate. 
Either we change the way we do things or we risk severe environmental damage, the consequences of which are probably incalculable.


----------



## Purple (25 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I think it is a mistake to focus unduly on the individual that is Greta Thornburg. Or any emotive reaction that she may be trying to invoke in her campaign.


All she keeps saying is "listen to the science". That's as far from a religion as you can get.


----------



## Purple (25 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I dont believe the science can be anyway accurate to the extent of human activity contributing to climate change, as distinct from measuring the carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere from human activity.


You'll have to explain that to me.


----------



## BoscoTalking (25 Sep 2019)

Thirsty said:


> "Why not a Saturday"
> 
> Ah but then they'd miss football/GAA/hockey/pick-your-sport training or worse still wouldn't be hanging out with their mates in the local shopping centre...



Or work - kids in secondary from 15 years old onwards are now working on weekends - they always were  . My family all have p/t jobs to fund clothing etc from 4th yr onwards... believe it if you like!! 

I think it’s superb that the children recognise and mobilise for change that is badly needed.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> You'll have to explain that to me.



Some people get skin cancer. The rays of the sun are known contributory factor in causing skin cancer. It is hard to quantify however, exactly to what extent the sun contributed to someones skin cancer without considering other factors eg did the person smoke, work with hazardous chemicals etc.


----------



## Purple (25 Sep 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Some people get skin cancer. The rays of the sun are known contributory factor in causing skin cancer. It is hard to quantify however, exactly to what extent the sun contributed to someones skin cancer without considering other factors eg did the person smoke, work with hazardous chemicals etc.


Yea, not really the same thing though. We know how much CO2 human activity produces and we know how much CO2 contributes to climate change.


----------



## Leo (26 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> You have to do your research on all the facts. Here is one source, Armstrong economics /climate change - volcanoes part 2 December 2017



So a random collection of unproven theories is more compelling than science?

The problem with trying to link climate change with volcanic activity is that there is no evidence that volcanic activity is increasing. The crackpot theorists are using increased reporting to suggest that there is an increase without any scientific evidence to back it up, but guess what, there was no internet where everything was logged back in the 1400s!


----------



## Purple (26 Sep 2019)

pennypitstop said:


> Or work - kids in secondary from 15 years old onwards are now working on weekends - they always were  . My family all have p/t jobs to fund clothing etc from 4th yr onwards... believe it if you like!!
> 
> I think it’s superb that the children recognise and mobilise for change that is badly needed.


Yep, my 21 year son old has a part time job. So does by 15 year old daughter.


----------



## michaelm (26 Sep 2019)

Despite the chastisement of the climate change poster child, IPCC reports of planetary doom, and the lauded Paris Agreement I expect the response from governments, rich and poor, will be superficial. 

For sure we should reduce, re-use & recycle but people aren't going to drastically change their lifestyles.  We cannot tell poor countries not to develop. Methinks answer lies with raising living standards in poorer countries so they may better cope with climate change and a myriad of mostly technological solutions to remove carbon from the atmosphere.


----------



## Purple (26 Sep 2019)

michaelm said:


> Despite the chastisement of the climate change poster child, IPCC reports of planetary doom, and the lauded Paris Agreement I expect the response from governments, rich and poor, will be superficial.
> 
> For sure we should reduce, re-use & recycle but people aren't going to drastically change their lifestyles.  We cannot tell poor countries no to develop. Methinks answer lies with rasing living standards in poorer countries so they may better cope with climate change and a myriad of technical solutions to remove carbon for the atmosphere.


Unfortunately higher living standards are built on the back of higher energy usage and so more carbon. I agree with you though; nothing much will change.


----------



## Peanuts20 (26 Sep 2019)

Firstly on the climate change deniers and the stuff about volcanos and CO2 etc, the attached gives a very different view


			https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=6&t=301&&a=28
		


Sadly I am one of those people who have a long commute daily but have tried to do my bit by moving from diesal to hybrid. Cost is largely neutral as well due to reduced insurance costs and higher resale value. We've also tried to reduce the volume of plastics bought, are avid recyclers and have really focused on reducing food waste. My kids are very tuned in on waste and recycling as well and to be honest, regardless of climate change, we are probably saving money as a result.  

What I find sad is the amount of rubbish thrown around the place. If people actually binned their rubbish it would be a start


----------



## joe sod (26 Sep 2019)

michaelm said:


> Methinks answer lies with raising living standards in poorer countries so they may better cope with climate change and a myriad of mostly technological solutions to remove carbon from the atmosphere.


 
If only it were that simple, it would have been done decades ago. There are no easy technological solutions to decarbonising and resource depletion, I will go further there are no technological solutions, once living standards increase the use of resources and carbon production increase. That is the primary reason why it has increased so much since 1990 because China and India have globalised. 
The advance in technology actually increases energy consumption and carbon production. All those data centres are monumental consumers of energy.


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Sep 2019)

I'm also trying to do my bit.

However it is difficult to source products that don't contain palm oil or at least contain sustainable palm oil.

Because it's cheap it seems to be in everything from soaps, shampoos, toothpaste, cosmetics, cereals, pizzas, chocolate, ice cream, butter substitutes, bread, etc.

It can also be disguised in the ingredients list under a confusing number of names such as vegetable oil, stearic acid, sodium kernelate, etc.


----------



## Firefly (26 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> Yep, my 21 year son old has a part time job. So does by 15 year old daughter.


It must be nice having them nearly off the payroll!!!


----------



## BilliamD75 (26 Sep 2019)

Leo said:


> So a random collection of unproven theories is more compelling than science?
> 
> The problem with trying to link climate change with volcanic activity is that there is no evidence that volcanic activity is increasing. The crackpot theorists are using increased reporting to suggest that there is an increase without any scientific evidence to back it up, but guess what, there was no internet where everything was logged back in the 1400s!


Unproven therioes, did you actually look at the information available on his website, the answer is simply no as there was not enough time since my last post, as I have said before Al gore the u.s vp with all the best scientists available said new York would be under water by 2012, or maybe their fake scientists, o that's right we should believe the science. I have said that volcanoes have emitted more co2 than cars, did you actually research the amount of active volcanoes around the earth in the last 100 years?I have said anybody with a different opinion is treated with distain, you have proved my point on that. O that's right your a scientist we need a forest the size of America to compensate for increasing co2 levels, its the same with economists, its hard to know who to believe thats my opinion.


----------



## michaelm (26 Sep 2019)

You're on a hiding to nothing here Bill.  Even if you turn out to be right you will be told you are right for the wrong reasons and those who are wrong will be wrong for the right reasons.  When you're labelled a denier it does give off a whiff of the ideological.  Surely those who are in denial are those who think that everyone else will drastically change their lifestyle and that poorer countries will curtail efforts to develop.  The changes we are actually willing to make may dampen the affects but otherwise we will just have to adapt to whatever version of climate change transpires.


----------



## BilliamD75 (26 Sep 2019)

michaelm said:


> You're on a hiding to nothing here Bill.  Even if you turn out to be right you will be told you are right for the wrong reasons and those who are wrong will be wrong for the right reasons.  When you're labelled a denier it does give off a whiff of the ideological.  Surely those who are in denial are those who think that everyone else will drastically change their lifestyle and that poorer countries will curtail efforts to develop.  The changes we are actually willing to make may dampen the affects but otherwise we will just have to adapt to whatever version of climate change transpires.


It's not about being right, heaven knows I am wrong on a lot of things, I do believe in climate change as its cyclical in nature, I feel its been ramed down our throats, when the likes of Al gore make statements with the support of the best scientists available who do we believe, were are the real scientists contradictoing there conclusions. they make projections about what's going to happen by 2050 and yet they cannot tell the weather in a months time. That's why I am skeptical.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2019)

Firefly said:


> It must be nice having them nearly off the payroll!!!


Ah no, don't be thinking that! They get more expensive.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> I have said that volcanoes have emitted more co2 than cars


Every link posted so far refutes your "opinion". Can you offer any scientific evidence to back up your opinion?
Can you also link to where Al Gore said that New York would be under water by 2012?


BilliamD75 said:


> they make projections about what's going to happen by 2050 and yet they cannot tell the weather in a months time. That's why I am skeptical.


Ah, okay; you are sceptical because you don't know the difference between weather and climate.


BilliamD75 said:


> I do believe in climate change as its cyclical in nature


 Yes, it does. The issue here is the additional change caused by human activity.


----------



## Leo (27 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Unproven therioes, did you actually look at the information available on his website, the answer is simply no as there was not enough time since my last post,



Of course I didn't read it all, once I read enough to know he was talking rubbish, why would I keep going? It really is crackpot nonsense with no evidence whatsoever.  If volcanic activity isn't increasing, why try to claim it is such a factor in recent climate change?

He says 'What I can confirm is that volcanic eruptions play a tremendous part in creating* Global Cooling'. *It's well understood that some of the larger ones certainly can result in cooling events. It's believed that a super volcano around Greenland caused crop failure around the world, but the effects were short lived. That volcano was estimated to have released around 45 cubic miles of rock. Nothing even approaching that scale has occurred in recent history, but he conveniently ignores that.

What is the major global significance of the Irish potato famine that it plays holds such a significant place on that page? It's more than a bit tenuous to try to link that to a volcano *30 years* earlier!


----------



## BilliamD75 (27 Sep 2019)

It's not about Armstrong and his ilk Leo, it's about the information and is it science fiction or science fact or weather  what Al gore's boys and girls are saying is an inconvenient truth. Nor is about showing links to disprove others opinions, people will believe what they want too believe like me. Nor is it about the active volcanoes above and below sea level emitting co2 levels v emissions from cars or weather what produces more and who can tell  or weather co2 being nature's building blocks for trees and plants or weather we need a forest the size of the US to compensate or weather stopping deforestation is a good place to start, or weather science can make predictions for 2050 accounting for unknowns and the complexity that brings or weather giving an example that predictions for the next months weather is unpredictable and knowing the difference however just to give an example. 
I am a citizen of humanity also and want to leave the earth in a better place for my family than I got it in, we recycle everything and plastics are a big no no for us as we can see them in our oceans and on our streets. At this moment in time I am skeptical of the science provided by the public sector paid scientists, thats my opinion and its the opposite of the majority which is fine by me.


----------



## joe sod (27 Sep 2019)

Whatever about whether people believe in climate change or not, there should be a better discussion on how to tackle it. Many scientists and engineers do not believe that it is realistic to do this with renewables. In fact renewables will cause more problems than they solve simply because the energy that they seek to exploit is dilute and spread over the surface of the earth. It is relatively easy to decommision a conventional power station and many have been decommissioned successfully, this is because they are in a single location usually urban. 
It's a completely different story to try and decommision a wind farm in the sea or tidal contraptions, of course nobody is thinking about this . Even on land windfarms are located in isolated usually very scenic locations, they are spread over large areas, it will be a huge task and cost to dismantle them and take them down. What about the thousands of tons of concrete in the ground, how do you take that back up again if you want to grow trees or crops again. As the global population continues to increase growing food might be a much bigger priority than wind energy. Windfarms consume a lot of resources especially land and materials.


----------



## Purple (27 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> It's not about Armstrong and his ilk Leo, it's about the information and is it science fiction or science fact or weather what Al gore's boys and girls are saying is an inconvenient truth. Nor is about showing links to disprove others opinions, people will believe what they want too believe like me. Nor is it about the active volcanoes above and below sea level emitting co2 levels v emissions from cars or weather what produces more and who can tell or weather co2 being nature's building blocks for trees and plants or weather we need a forest the size of the US to compensate or weather stopping deforestation is a good place to start, or weather science can make predictions for 2050 accounting for unknowns and the complexity that brings or weather giving an example that predictions for the next months weather is unpredictable and knowing the difference


Okay, it's not about facts or data or science. What's it about so?

Facts cannot be countered with an "I just think"


----------



## Leo (27 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Nor is about showing links to disprove others opinions,



So you just don't want us showing links that prove your opinions are incorrect?

Fair enough.


----------



## BilliamD75 (27 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> Okay, it's not about facts or data or science. What's it about so?
> 
> Facts cannot be countered with an "I just think"


Can you say as a matter of fact or scientific fact what the climate will be in 2050, the answer is simply no you cannot. You have your scientific opinion and I have mine, we will never agree and that's fine by me


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Can you say as a matter of fact or scientific fact what the climate will be in 2050,



Has anyone said what the climate will be, as a matter of fact, in 2050?


----------



## Peanuts20 (30 Sep 2019)

No one knows what climate will be like in 2050 but surely this is about risk management??. The bulk of scientists believe the world is warming and that it is going to accelerate, especially as the tundra melts and releases it's long stored carbon. This may be a natural phenomona, it may be man made or it may be a combination of both. If it doesn't happen, what have we lost out on.?? In reality not a lot. But what if it does.?? Then what do we stand to lose?. It's like insuring your house, you hope you never have to claim but you still do it just in case and in the meantime, you fix the roof so it doesn't blow off. 

And if the impact of what people are starting to do now is less garbage on the street, a change to our throw away disposable culture over time and cleaner seas and better air, then I'm all in favour of that.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Can you say as a matter of fact or scientific fact what the climate will be in 2050, the answer is simply no you cannot. You have your scientific opinion and I have mine, we will never agree and that's fine by me


Nobody can say what the climate will be like in 2050 and nobody says they can. What the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do agree on, as a matter of fact, not opinion, is that human activity is fundamentally changing the climate and the consequences will be negative for our species and many others.

This is not an opinion. There is no parity of evidence here; there is fact and science on one side and conjecture, hyperbole, personal agendas and willful ignorance on the other.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Sep 2019)

Peanuts20 said:


> No one knows what climate will be like in 2050 but surely this is about risk management??. The bulk of scientists believe the world is warming and that it is going to accelerate, especially as the tundra melts and releases it's long stored carbon. This may be a natural phenomona, it may be man made or it may be a combination of both. If it doesn't happen, what have we lost out on.?? In reality not a lot. But what if it does.?? Then what do we stand to lose?. It's like insuring your house, you hope you never have to claim but you still do it just in case and in the meantime, you fix the roof so it doesn't blow off.
> 
> And if the impact of what people are starting to do now is less garbage on the street, a change to our throw away disposable culture over time and cleaner seas and better air, then I'm all in favour of that.


That's where I am at.  Question of risk management.  Maybe they are right.  I wouldn't totally give up driving cars or air travel, that would be too high an insurance premium.
Having said that, the human condition seems to crave impending Armageddon theories - remember Y2K?  One thing's for sure we were never going to hear a chorus of "keep it up lads this global warming is going to bring heaven on earth", even though _prima facie_ we in Irealnd at least might have looked forward to a bit of GW.
How dare I?


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> even though _prima facie_ we in Irealnd at least might have looked forward to a bit of GW.
> How dare I?


High water and air temperatures mean more moisture in the air in the Gulf Stream. That means wetter winters and more storms and flooding as heat = energy. We aren't going to turn into the South of France.
With decreased salt levels in the oceans we may see a significant change in global currents. That would mean less gulfstream and colder weather in the winter as our temperate maritime climate becomes closer to a continental climate.


----------



## BilliamD75 (30 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> Nobody can say what the climate will be like in 2050 and nobody says they can. What the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do agree on, as a matter of fact, not opinion, is that human activity is fundamentally changing the climate and the consequences will be negative for our species and many others.
> 
> This is not an opinion. There is no parity of evidence here; there is fact and science on one side and conjecture, hyperbole, personal agendas and willful ignorance on the other.


Hyperbole and ignorance really,consequences for our species wow, is it hyperbole that the best scientists available to Al gore stating that new York will be under water or is the stuff of science fiction, clearly beyond all doubt they were wrong. You clearly side stepped a response to that. 
I provided a source to the opposite side of your opinion which is clearly crackpot stuff and all the data provided by that source is there for all to see, I do not agree with it as in my opinion its science fiction also or hyperbole as you say. 
Should I believe a sixteen year old last week who is clearly on the edge saying I and my generation are to blame and she will never forgive us. She will have plenty of time to reflect on her long walk home to reduce her carbon footprint. There are forces at work here that we do not comprend, the worst of human traits is we believe we have it all figured out  and know it all when we do not, I am skeptical of all the so called data to climate change being pushed from all sides, thats my opinion and it is time for me to move on from this.


----------



## Leo (30 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> and all the data provided by that source is there for all to see



You never explained how that volcano caused the famine here 30 years later. That site provides no data or evidence to support the hypothesis, perhaps you could explain?


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Al gore stating that new York will be under water


Under water by 2012 you say. I didn't sidestep it; I asked you for a link to it.  Can you supply one please?


BilliamD75 said:


> I provided a source to the opposite side of your opinion


 No you didn't, you referenced one crackpot who, if he knows as much about climate change as he does about the Irish Famine, knows next to nothing about anything. 


BilliamD75 said:


> I provided a source to the opposite side of your opinion which is clearly crackpot stuff and all the data provided by that source is there for all to see, I do not agree with it as in my opinion its science fiction also or hyperbole as you say.


Are you saying that the source you provided is science fiction also or hyperbole?


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Should I believe a sixteen year old last week who is clearly on the edge saying I and my generation are to blame and she will never forgive us


 She asked that we listen to the science. That's all. 
One blog about global cooling doesn't weigh up against NASA, The US Geological Survey (their volcano guys), Scientific American, [broken link removed] the EU, the World Bank, the OECD, the CIA, NSA and FBI... maybe it is just willful ignorance.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2019)

Al Gore has been guilty of exaggerating but the accusation that he predicted the North Pole will be ice free by 2014 is false. He did predict that there would be no summer ice by 2014 and that was false (or certainly not the scientific consensus) .  
I can't see any evidence that he predicted that New York would be underwater by 2012 but I stand to be corrected. It's also worth noting that he isn't a climate scientist.


----------



## michaelm (30 Sep 2019)

This, more composed less dramatic, twelve year old made a similar plea to the UN 27 years ago . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f17Tc1IwWuQ


----------



## joe sod (30 Sep 2019)

All the attention was on Greta Thornburg, at the un last week and the "climate emergency" but maybe we should be paying more attention to the Iranian leader rouhani's speech , after all this is a guy with power and potentially nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them. In other words nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the real emergency, at least we have some control potentially over nuclear weapons and they would cause an emergency immediately if they were used. The climate we don't have control over and even if we spent all that money and effort on it, it might still come to nothing or be futile if somebody decides to use nuclear weapons. 
Warren buffet has said that nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind today


----------



## BilliamD75 (30 Sep 2019)

Leo said:


> You never explained how that volcano caused the famine here 30 years later. That site provides no data or evidence to support the hypothesis, perhaps you could explain?


Let's get something straight I never mentioned anything about the famine, I supplied a link to a source for an alternative view. The source made the connection not me. I showed a link to volcanic activity, if you are interested in the alternative view to get a balanced opinion I suggest spending 30 mins looking at the blog on climate change with links to nasa and other scientific bodies and then you can contradict there conclusions, I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have, do you really need a link to prove this.


----------



## BilliamD75 (30 Sep 2019)

Purple said:


> She asked that we listen to the science. That's all.
> One blog about global cooling doesn't weigh up against NASA, The US Geological Survey (their volcano guys), Scientific American, [broken link removed] the EU, the World Bank, the OECD, the CIA, NSA and FBI... maybe it is just willful ignorance.


The CIA and the FBI really, you forgot Jessica fletcher, she was into climate change as she cycled everywhere.


----------



## Ceist Beag (1 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have, do you really need a link to prove this.


Except that of course volcanoes have been around for just a little bit longer than cars. Do you really need anyone to point out the fallacy of comparing the two?


----------



## Leo (1 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> I supplied a link to a source for an alternative view. The source made the connection not me.



You provided that link as evidence to support your viewpoint, in fact you have provided it multiple times at this stage. One of the main theories on that site is that a volcano 30 years earlier was responsible for the famine. Do you now acknowledge that the material posted on that site is complete nonsense, or can you back up the claim with any evidence?



BilliamD75 said:


> I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have



Do you honestly think that is a surprise to anyone? Do you understand how meaningless that statistic is in terms of recent climate change?  Unless you're one of those who also believe the earth is only 6000 years old, surely you understand that the emissions of a volcano 4 billion years ago isn't of any significance?

Seeing as you seem to like volcanoes, you might like this article.


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> Let's get something straight I never mentioned anything about the famine, I supplied a link to a source for an alternative view. The source made the connection not me. I showed a link to volcanic activity, if you are interested in the alternative view to get a balanced opinion I suggest spending 30 mins looking at the blog on climate change with links to nasa and other scientific bodies and then you can contradict there conclusions, I simply said that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars have, do you really need a link to prove this.


So in order to support your views you linked to a source which supports your views but you don't agree with the source. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2019)

Ceist Beag said:


> Except that of course volcanoes have been around for just a little bit longer than cars. Do you really need anyone to point out the fallacy of comparing the two?


I already pointed it out to him. So did Leo.


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> The CIA and the FBI really, you forgot Jessica fletcher, she was into climate change as she cycled everywhere.


Is that the best you can do?

Why not just admit that there is no scientific evidence supporting your views but they are like, your views?


----------



## Leo (1 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> I already pointed it out to him. So did Leo.



I think we need to keep saying it, penny might drop at some point...


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> I think we need to keep saying it, penny might drop at some point...


At this stage I doubt it. This is like discussing evolution with a creationist.


----------



## BilliamD75 (1 Oct 2019)

I have giving my point of view, I do not believe any of the information provided by both sides. I have stated many times you have to research all the information to get a balanced point of view, I do not supply links to prove or disprove facts or opinions, however here is a link against climate change (abc net 2009 29320), the question is the information creditable,.I do not believe any of it. I am simply pointing out a opposite view.
I have simply stated that volcanoes have emitted more c02 that cars (fossil fuels), for the avoidance of any doubt over the last 100 years, yes fossil fuels have emmited more co2 than volcanoes, over 500 years or even with the expansive nature of this what I said is more credible, over the next 100 years who knows, what I do know is volcanoes will still be emmiting c02 and the fossil fuel cycle will be over as we are running out of its primary source, to me climate change catastrophe is a fallacy as there are more important issues facing us as excellently pointed out by Joe sod earlier in this thread.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> is it hyperbole that the best scientists available to Al gore stating that new York will be under water or is the stuff of science fiction, clearly beyond all doubt they were wrong.



I can understand somewhat the scepticism when outlandish predictions of pending Armageddon are peddled, and then dont come true  (there is probably a better way of saying that, but I hope the point isnt lost).

But reasonable people should be able to take a step back and assess the underlying message. 
Perhaps start with the mundane, the obvious and work up to the big picture rather than relying on the sensationalists. 
For instance there is are very good, obvious reasons why we dispose of our waste in bins. And very good reasons why in recent decades have moved to separate our waste into different bins. 
Growing up in Dublin in the 1980's there were very good and obvious reasons why smoky coal was banned. There are very good reasons why the petroleum and motor industry moved to take lead out of the fumes of vehicles, and very good reasons why the motor industry is moving from petroleum to electric powered vehicles. 
When you consider the moves to invest more and more in green, renewable energies, it doesn't take a scientist to figure that there are very good, obvious, reasons for it. 

And as for Al Gore, there were probably very good reasons why, in 2006 aged 58 (nearing retirement and probably unlikely to ever hold a position anywhere as prestigious as vice president of the United States) decided that in order to maximize publicity and raise awareness of an issue close to his heart, his documentary would need to contain some outlandish predictions - to raise funding to make his documentary and to ensure a $$ return for his investors.

Bums on seats! 

But that shouldn't take away from the very good, obvious reasons, why the way we operate globally in the production of goods and services needs to be radically overhauled.


----------



## Leo (1 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> I do not supply links to prove or disprove facts or opinions, however here is a link against climate change (abc net 2009 29320), the question is the information creditable,.I do not believe any of it.



So try to provide a link with peer reviewed science, not the ramblings of a nut job. 

97%-99.9% of peer reviewed science backs climate change. It really would be a conspiracy greater than that of the faked moon landing to influence that many scientists.


----------



## Firefly (1 Oct 2019)

I have a feeling mosquitos could do a lot more damage to us in the short term than rising sea levels and air pollution..... For anyone with a few minutes to spare I would highly recommend reading the following article from The Guardian.









						People v mosquitos: what to do about our biggest killer
					

The long read: These tiny pests adapt so successfully to changing conditions that they have become humankind’s deadliest predator. We might soon be able to eradicate them – but should we?




					www.theguardian.com
				




Then note this:

_The West Nile virus has been found in Germany for the first time, after years of a warming climate that scientists believe encouraged the mosquitoes which carry the deadly disease to move further north._









						West Nile virus reaches Germany in 'sign of climate change'
					

Unusually warm summers mean mosquitos carrying deadly infection moving further north




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> All the attention was on Greta Thornburg, at the un last week and the "climate emergency" but maybe we should be paying more attention to the Iranian leader rouhani's speech , after all this is a guy with power and potentially nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them. In other words nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the real emergency, at least we have some control potentially over nuclear weapons and they would cause an emergency immediately if they were used. The climate we don't have control over and even if we spent all that money and effort on it, it might still come to nothing or be futile if somebody decides to use nuclear weapons.
> Warren buffet has said that nuclear proliferation and not climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind today


Climate change is a bigger problem. Though the fact that it will displace hundreds of millions of people will certainly add to geopolitical uncertainty around the more unstable parts of the world. 

As for Iran; the Americans are the ones causing the problem there.


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2019)

Firefly said:


> I have a feeling mosquitos could do a lot more damage to us in the short term than rising sea levels and air pollution..... For anyone with a few minutes to spare I would highly recommend reading the following article from The Guardian.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, mosquitos may have killed half of the people who ever lived.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> Climate change is a bigger problem.


Trying to figure that one.  If you mean bigger than proliferation i.e. the mad mullahs getting their hands on one, well maybe.
But in both terms of likelihood and impact a global nuclear holocaust is surely the much greater risk to mankind.
And yet if I was given the choice of a nuclear free world or a carbon neutral world I would choose the latter.  For nuclear weapons have at least for the last 74 years prevented WWIII.  Will it prevent it for the next 700 years? 70 years?  7 years?  It's coming, just a matter of when.


----------



## Purple (1 Oct 2019)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Trying to figure that one.  If you mean bigger than proliferation i.e. the mad mullahs getting their hands on one, well maybe.
> But in both terms of likelihood and impact a global nuclear holocaust is surely the much greater risk to mankind.
> And yet if I was given the choice of a nuclear free world or a carbon neutral world I would choose the latter.  For nuclear weapons have at least for the last 74 years prevented WWIII.  Will it prevent it for the next 700 years? 70 years?  7 years?  It's coming, just a matter of when.


Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2019)

Interesting nuclear technology from Bill Gates TerraPower  which uses existing depleted uranium (the waste product from current nuclear power stations) to generate power in a much safer reactor.


----------



## Firefly (7 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> I have stated many times you have to research all the information to get a balanced point of view



Could you post references to this research, otherwise, as per above, your point of view is not balanced????


----------



## BilliamD75 (7 Oct 2019)

I have given my personal point of view which I got slated for, however we have heard from the media regarding the un climate summit in New York recently. I did not here about the 500 climate scientists and professionals with  15 from Ireland (I could be wrong) (CLINTEL) sending a letter to the un secretary General regarding climate change, draw your own conclusions for a balanced opinion, I have made mine.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Oct 2019)

I get that we can measure CO2 at a global level, but specifically for Ireland, how reliable is our estimate of 'carbon emissions'?
I'm sure there are statistics available for energy produced through National Grid, consumption of fuel.

What about people who burn wood and peat sourced from their own land, that's unlikely to show up on any stats.
Is any attempt made to balance output against what is absorbed by trees, bogs etc on our landmass and I dunno, seaweed in our seas?

What about planes and shipping?

If we say we're going to cut emissions by X, or be fined for not doing so, seems like we need to be have a decent idea about what is being produced.


----------



## joe sod (7 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> Interesting nuclear technology from Bill Gates TerraPower  which uses existing depleted uranium (the waste product from current nuclear power stations) to generate power in a much safer reactor.


 
yes bill gates being a technologist is not a believer in renewables it just cannot deliver. The only way for highly populated countries like china and india to decarbonise is with nuclear energy of some sort. 
It would be a bit silly for countries like ireland to proceed at very high cost with renewables when they simply cannot deliver for countries like india and china.


----------



## odyssey06 (7 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> yes bill gates being a technologist is not a believer in renewables it just cannot deliver. The only way for highly populated countries like china and india to decarbonise is with nuclear energy of some sort.
> It would be a bit silly for countries like ireland to proceed at very high cost with renewables when they simply cannot deliver for countries like india and china.



Haven't we just hooked up an energy line to fond-of-nuclear-energy France?








						European bank to help fund electricity cable linking Ireland and France in light of Brexit
					

The €1 billion underwater electricity cable linking Ireland and France is expected be finished by 2025/2026.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## joe sod (7 Oct 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Haven't we just hooked up an energy line to fond-of-nuclear-energy France?


 
which begs the question why dont we just buy a small reactor for ourselves, it could be installed in moneypoint where all the cables and pylons are already in situ. The interconnector to france will probably require high voltage pylons and power lines to wexford from central ireland. 
I know France is a friendly country but we should not be depending on third countries to balance our grid when we have too much wind, what if there is a problem in france and they are short of power themselves?


----------



## Leo (8 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> It would be a bit silly for countries like ireland to proceed at very high cost with renewables when they simply cannot deliver for countries like india and china.



Your data may be a couple of years out of date there.


----------



## Leo (8 Oct 2019)

BilliamD75 said:


> draw your own conclusions for a balanced opinion, I have made mine.



Choosing to discount 99+% of scientists isn't really what most people would call balanced.


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Oct 2019)

From the budget...
_Additional measures, Donohoe says, will include €5 million for peat land rehabilitation to support reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and enhance biodiversity. _

€5 million? When you add up the money coming in from carbon taxes this should be at least 10 times that much!


----------



## joe sod (8 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> Your data may be a couple of years out of date there.



From a quick glance at some of those articles , they are not comparing like with like, firstly the cost of the massive amount of extra infrastructure that is needed to facilitate renewables like gas power stations (when the wind not blowing) ,pylons and thousands of  km of extra high voltage power lines are not levied on the wind or solar farms.

I wont believe alot of this data on renewables until I see renewables actually making a big dent on the proportion of total energy consumed globally and they have still barely made a dent. Here is a graph from 2017 of global energy consumption. Hydro is the only renewable energy source that is at the races with fossil fuels.









						Reality Check: 85% Of Global Energy Consumption Based On Fossil Fuels
					

By Paul Homewood   More on the BP Energy Review. Despite a small drop in coal consumption, fossil fuels remain dominant, with a share of 85%. Wind and solar in contrast contribute only a tiny …



					www.climatedepot.com
				




Oil consumption is still rising and it doesnt take much to panic the oil markets like the attack on the saudi oil refineries recently, even with the carbon taxes oil demand will not go down .


----------



## Leo (9 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> From a quick glance at some of those articles , they are not comparing like with like, firstly the cost of the massive amount of extra infrastructure that is needed to facilitate renewables like gas power stations (when the wind not blowing) ,pylons and thousands of  km of extra high voltage power lines are not levied on the wind or solar farms.



All costs are factored in on a like for like basis, levelised costs are starting to shift in favour of renewables. Renewables are generally on a smaller scale than gas or coal fired stations, so they can require less in terms of additional infrastructure. Unit costs from onshore wind have dropped ~90% in 10 years. 



joe sod said:


> I wont believe alot of this data on renewables until I see renewables actually making a big dent on the proportion of total energy consumed globally and they have still barely made a dent. Here is a graph from 2017 of global energy consumption. Hydro is the only renewable energy source that is at the races with fossil fuels.



I was sceptical myself, but data from the last year or so is making me question that. Sweden generate 54% of all electricity from renewable sources. Uruguay went from almost complete reliance on imported oil to almost 95% clean energy in less than 20 years, lowering the costs to consumers without any subsidies. Germany runs at 35% and up to ~80%, etc.. None of these include the rapid rise of small scale micro-generation, I believe it'll be another few years yet before they start to make sense on a financial basis. 



joe sod said:


> Oil consumption is still rising and it doesnt take much to panic the oil markets like the attack on the saudi oil refineries recently, even with the carbon taxes oil demand will not go down .



I believe oil only makes up a very small amount of global electricity generation, so the electricity market won't have a significant influence on overall oil demand. Gas is used way more, and wholesale gas prices are falling due to displacement by renewables.


----------



## Purple (9 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> I believe oil only makes up a very small amount of global electricity generation, so the electricity market won't have a significant influence on overall oil demand. Gas is used way more, and wholesale gas prices are falling due to displacement by renewables.


Industry is the highest global consumer of energy, accounting for about 30-35%. Transport (mainly passenger road vehicles) use about 25% of global energy. We seem to think of domestic energy consumption when we talk about renewables but if we move to electric vehicles we'll need a massive increase in output. In my opinion the low hanging fruit, from an infrastructure matching perspective, should be large industrial consumers; if you build a Data Centre then build a green power source beside it.


----------



## joe sod (9 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> Sweden generate 54% of all electricity from renewable sources. Uruguay went from almost complete reliance on imported oil to almost 95% clean energy in less than 20 years, lowering the costs to consumers without any subsidies. Germany runs at 35% and up to ~80%, etc.



Sweden is always thrown out there in these sort of surveys, its a fairly big not particularly densely populated country with plenty of forests mountains and rivers for hydro, in any case it probably imports hydro from norway which is abundant in it. As was shown in the graph I posted earlier hydro is the only renewable that can fight its corner with fossil fuels.
As for Germany yes it has gone headlong into renewables in the last decade, the cost of electricity has increased dramatically. Therefore what German industry has actually done is outsourced the heavy industrial, energy hungry parts of its industry to eastern european countries like Poland and Hungary and further afield. We know that Poland is still a heavy user of coal. 
This is why it is very important to look at what energy is being consumed globally because while germany and sweden might look like the best puplils in the class , they are really handing their dirty homework to other countries to do for them. That is why renewables still barely register on the global energy chart.


----------



## Leo (10 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> in any case it probably imports hydro from norway which is abundant



The numbers are for local generation. 



joe sod said:


> hydro is the only renewable that can fight its corner with fossil fuels.



What do you mean when you say fight its corner? Are you talking about current production ratios or total cost per unit? If the latter it's pretty clear that on-shore wind in particular is now cheaper in many cases than the fossil alternatives.


----------



## joe sod (10 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> What do you mean when you say fight its corner? Are you talking about current production ratios or total cost per unit? If the latter it's pretty clear that on-shore wind in particular is now cheaper in many cases than the fossil alternatives.


 
On that chart I posted of global energy consumption, hydro is at 7percent, wind and solar at only 2 percent, that's what I mean, hydro has a meaningful impact on the global energy chart, hydro was also the first renewable source to be harvested a century ago, because it is the only source of concentrated renewable energy. Wind and solar cannot be concentrated they are dilute, no advances in technology can change that simple fact.
As for costs of renewables approaching fossil fuels, I don't trust those figures as they are heavily manipulated , what is really happening is that governments are increasing the costs on fossil fuels and subsidizing renewables, in other words it is financial engineering. The whole carbon tax trading system is a financial charade. 
The developed countries are then outsourcing the heavy dirty  energy hungry parts of their industries to third countries. This gets captured only in the global charts like I have posted not in country specific statistics like Sweden and Germany. This explains why Germany is actually not over shooting its 1990 carbon figures.
Energy hungry industries like smelting steel cannot be powered with windmills,( and the majority of steel even for electric cars is smelted using dirty old coal ) they have simply moved to developing countries.


----------



## Leo (10 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> On that chart I posted of global energy consumption, hydro is at 7percent, wind and solar at only 2 percent, that's what I mean,



OK, so little to no bearing on where we should look at sourcing current and future energy needs.



joe sod said:


> Energy hungry industries like smelting steel cannot be powered with windmills



Who's talking about smelting? That's a pretty small use case.


----------



## joe sod (10 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> OK, so little to no bearing on where we should look at sourcing current and future energy in needs.



That's like the famous quote about Brazil, "Brazil is the country of the future and always will be"
It never came close to fulfilling the prophecies of its destiny, just like renewables have long been touted as the energy of the future but the future keeps getting moved forward.

I mentioned steel smelting  because it is the basis of everything and is highly energy intensive, if you as a country can move that off your books and onto a third country's books then on the face of it you are reducing considerably your energy usage and carbon emissions. Third countries then do this with coal and are allowed to because they are developing under the Paris agreement. It doesn't make any difference to overall carbon emissions globally it's just that the emissions have shifted off Germany's books and onto the third countries books.
Also with regard to the 1990s , cars were a lot smaller with less steel and plastic than today's cars. Every second car now is a huge suv, have you ever seen them beside a classic car from the 80s or 90s, they are at least 50percent bigger.


----------



## Leo (10 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> That's like the famous quote about Brazil, "Brazil is the country of the future and always will be"
> It never came close to fulfilling the prophecies of its destiny, just like renewables have long been touted as the energy of the future but the future keeps getting moved forward.



Not really sure what point you're trying to make there. I'm pointing out that the links provided show the current unsubsidised cost of electricity generation for renewables is competitive with fossil fuels. You point out the current worldwide consumption, they're two very different things.



joe sod said:


> I mentioned steel smelting because it is the basis of everything and is highly energy intensive,



It really isn't. Smelting is a tiny use case compared to home heating, data centers, and many others, even crypto mining.


----------



## joe sod (12 Oct 2019)

Leo said:


> It really isn't. Smelting is a tiny use case compared to home heating, data centers, and many others, even crypto mining.



here is a chart showing the energy required to produce a kg of iron, steel, silicon etc from base materials..




__





						How much energy does it take (on average) to produce 1 kilogram of the following materials?
					

Wood (from standing timber): 3-7MJ (830 to 1,950 watt-hours). Steel (from recycled steel): 6-15MJ (1,665 to 4,170 watt-hours). Aluminum (from 100 % recycled aluminum): 11.35-17MJ (3,150 to 4,750 watt-hours) Iron (from iron ore): 20-25MJ (5,550 to 6,950 watt-hours) Glass (from sand, etcetera)...



					www.lowtechmagazine.com
				




In fairness steel is not the worst of them, plastic, aluminium and silicon require horrendous amounts of energy to produce from raw ores or even from recycled.
Therefore to create a new car including electric, computer or smart phone requires enormous amounts of energy.
It would be better for the environment as a whole to slow this all down, therefore hold onto the diesel car dont buy a brand new electric, dont dump your phone or computer.
To all those dermot bannon fans dont rip out your kitchen and interior , basically slow down the whole consumer cycle.
Thats why I am highly suspicious of this drive for a "green economy" because essentially it involves dumping more cars ,building materials etc at enormous cost for no benefit because more CO2 gets dumped into atmosphere and more junk gets dumped in landfills, maybe not in europe but in asia and africa.


----------



## Leo (14 Oct 2019)

joe sod said:


> here is a chart showing the energy required to produce a kg of iron, steel, silicon etc from base materials..



I still don't get why that means we shouldn't be bothering with renewables for electricity generation...


----------



## Purple (14 Oct 2019)

Given that women make 70-80% of all spending decisions and massively out spend men on really environmentally damaging sectors such as fast fashion is climate change being driven primarily by women and is fear of accusations of sexism stymying that discussion? Is there a link between equality of the sexes, the growth of consumerism and climate change?

The people who will be most impacted by climate change will be women in the poorest countries on earth. Maybe a bit of #MeToo'ing is required?


----------



## michaelm (14 Oct 2019)

Purple said:


> is fear of accusations of sexism stymying that discussion?


Fear of accusations of -ism or -phobia are stymying many discussions, to the detriment of us all.


----------

