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


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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 

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
 
daveirl said:
Big deal the environment changes, human beings have survived large changes in our environment before and will again.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
 
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...
Click to expand...

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?
 

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
 
darex said:
...yes you probably are indirectly a George Bush dupe with your views as stated....
Click to expand...
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...
Click to expand...

Not in my Bible School, yet...

darex said:
..., the vast majority of scientists ...
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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"
Click to expand...

'Nuff said, methinks.
 
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.
 
Glenbhoy said:
And how and why did it start?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
darex said:
individuals with reactionary biases will tend to favour appropriate outlets and progressives will favour appropriate outlets and articles.
Click to expand...

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?
 

Funny that I was served a Land Rover overlay ad when I visited that article
 
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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.
Click to expand...
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?

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)
 

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register