Ireland and Climate Chaos

by Eoin Sun Feb 11, 2007 22:29

Interesting article -- the only thing I wouldn't agree with you on is about energy efficiency. I think it could represent a large portion of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions around the world. True, where our energy comes from is an elementary question, but how wisely we use it is also up there too. So take light bulbs for example: Your normal non-energy-saving light bulb is 19th century technology wasting 90% of energy on heat.

by Jasper Mon Feb 12, 2007 09:08

Actually, with some changes to certain aspects of energy usage in an average household, i.e. proper insulation, energy efficient lighting etc, you can save up to 1.5 tonnes of CO2 emissions per annum. When you consider there are upwards of 80,000 bew houses being built every year, that can add up to a helluva lot.

With regard to other issues, studies have found that the most effective way of getting people to change practices is to hit them in the pocket. The plastic bag levy has seen a reduction in the use of tens of millions of bags ending up as waste. The congestion charges in London and the subsequent increase in charges for people driving SUVs will force them to reconsider their choice of vehicle or their use of it. I understand some people may have to but that's the nature of the beast.
Air travel only contributes about 1.6% of the emissions though that's a little misleading since that's twice what it was 10 years ago. Though blaming Ryanair above others is unfair since theirs is the most modern fleet and is less polluting than most others...in a similar manner to modern cars being less polluting than older ones.

To go back to levies....everyone responsible for the generation of waste packaging should be levied. This money, however, would have to be put back into environmantal initiatives and funding the growth of renewable energy. Biff labelled the budget a green one because of the amount of money being thrown at environmental issues. But most of that went on carbon credits. It's the ultimate in hedging your bets - commit a certain amount to making yourself greener but providing for the fact that you know improvements will be negligible.

Why, for example, had there been a limit on the amount of liquid biofuels being exempt from excise duty? Surely it would have been in evveryone's best interests to have more of it available because it means it's then viable for a company to sell it on more forecourts and thus it's more viable for the consumer to convert their car for bio-diesel or buy a flexi-fuel vehicle. VRT should'nt be an issue with them either.

by Pollytix Mon Feb 12, 2007 09:23

I remember quite well as a kid collecting lemonade bottles and getting 5p for returning them to the shop. How about rewarding people for recycling. Punishing individuals and blaming them for an economic system which is beyond our control is hardly a solution. In the Netherlands one receives money back for returning plastic bottles to shops who have developed an infrastructure for recycling. That is the key.

Why can't that happen here?
The is no reason but lack of political will.

IGB has been closed, it was the republic's only glass recycling plant, developers want to build apartments as it makes more money than making bottles. The state has to step in as the market will not develop socially necesary infrastructure to protect and develop a sustainable vision for the future.

Currently, in particular housing developments Dublin City Council are refusing to pay for energy efficiency design, ie solar panels to reduce a development's energy efficiency and ability to cut energy costs while having a sustainable energy system. Why is this- it costs too much money initially AND there's no impetus legally for them to implement.

Habits are not so fixed and can change.

by Jasper Mon Feb 12, 2007 09:38

Personally, I don't think people should have to have a financial incentive to be more environmentally friendly but I can see how if they're going to have to pay levies for practices that increase waste generation then there should be the converse.

Irish retailers won't be in favour of taking back bottles though...they already whinged about having to take back WEEE.

I'm not sure IGB was financially viable anymore and there was probably only room for one glass plant on the island and the Quinn group had the resources to take on that business. It's recycled anyway so for the time being that'll do.

Within 10 years, Ireland will be following the lead of England since they almost always do, in areas such as this: Gordon Brown has said that there will be no stamp duty on houses that reach a 'Level 6' (the highest standard) in their energy efficieny. It's in a new code that's coming out where houses get points according to various aspects of their energy efficiency (or lack thereof, as the case may be).

Finally, people need to be made aware of how much they could actually save and the payback time of energy efficient changes. It wasn't until I started doing energy audits that I realised it myself but I can dig out the website address and post it for anyone that's interested.

by Marlboro man Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:29

Jasper, do you live in a land where there are no poor?

A constant state of denial where individuals are the culprits in all this climate change malarky and Industry has absolutely nothing to do with it. To that end we will hit the individual where it hurts and leave Industry alone.

Cutting stamp duty on a level 6 efficient home. A house that will only be built if developers are motivated to build by ummm let me see...oh yeah PROFIT. These houses will cost a fortune. Any benefits of no Stamp duty will be lost to the higher price of the house.

Poor people will be left out in the cold (literally) again. Still being forced to pay flat rate charges while Industry trundles along generating all this waste, CO emissions happy in the knowledge that the Irish taxpayer will pay the carbon credits.

Jasper you are a bloody hack by any definition of the word.

by Jasper Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:40

Have you nothing constructive to say?

If people spend the extra money building an energy efficient house, that can be offset by no stamp duty. It's basic economics. How is there no benefit there? For every house that's built to that standard, there are fewer tonnes of CO2 being emitted. So why is that a problem to you?

If someone can't affort to spend the extra making their house more energy efficient then so be it. I was citing one example, not the only ecample of how a government can help. Social houseing schemes would have to reach a high standard as well.

Do you just whinge and point out any negatives or do you ever have anything constructive to say?

Seriously, you never offer a solution to anything...you seem to revel in just panning any solutions that are mooted. Or spouting more empty rhetoric.

You can reply to have a go at me and that's fine. I'd prefer if you at least had some realistic alternatives/solutions as well. For everyone's sake.

by Pollytix Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:11

In order for best and maximum recycling and reduction, industry which creates the packaging and the bulk of waste and the state have to create and develop the necessary infrastructure. Individuals and families don't have that capacity. This is an economy of scale and a social need.

"Social housing schemes would have to reach a high standard as well". The difficulty is that developers don't put those considerations in. Even Dublin City Council are refusing to implement basic energy sustainable systems in place.

by Marlboro man Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:11

Incentivise recycling as opposed to introducing a charge for waste and then having that charge reduced through filling the green bin. That only benefits those that have no problem affording it. Poor people get screwed. Net result, less recycled waste.
Instead, pay people for their recyclable waste. We used to have it with bottles, still do in Holland and Germany. But it was cheaper and more profitable to switch to Plastics which have a high carbon emission during its recycling process as opposed to glass.

Bring centres for recycling can become a business unto themselves, providing raw material (renewed, therefore green) back to industry.

Wallop industry with huge waste taxes for poor packaging. Hit them where it hurts for flooding the consumer market with toxic, non-biodegradable packaging, and cheap polystyrene padding’s.
Give them tax breaks where they are clearly demonstrating a progressive move to producing greener products. They managed it with CFC's without a massive increase in cost they can do it with packaging.

Remove plastic bags completely. Introduce paper bags made from sustainable sources.

Remove VRT on fuel efficient cars. Incentivise bio-fuel, both with massive tax breaks to farmers and to users.
Cut road freight by investing in the rail networks PROPERLY, not with the mickey mouse initiatives rolled out by this government. Make it cost effective for business to do so by introducing a Green Tax. Electrify the network.

This leads me to Nuclear power. I think in the medium term (until, renewable energy is given the massive investment it needs) Nuclear power should be looked at and we should bite the bullet on that.
NP stations have been around for decades and have through evolutionary engineering and research become safer and safer.
(You cannot apply the same logic to incinerators which have not been around in their present form to satisfy an exhaustive study into their safety. In any case they have a much bigger carbon foot-print than NP stations)

And so on and so on.

Hit Industry, do not criminalise the poor.

by Jasper Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:51

Some points.

Recycling is incentivised, The more you recycle, the less you pay. The polluter pays principle should apply across the board.

Domestic energy use is responsible for more energy use than industry.

I'd be all for recycled waste being used as raw materials. In some cases though, the recycled material is seen as much less desirable than virgin material and industry is reluctant to use it. It would be cheaper for them but there's a perceived problem with the quality of recycled material so that needs to be overcome where possible.

Industry should definitely be hit for excessive packaging. 100%.

There's an issue with the rail network being electrified since the electricity has to be generated and we all know how the ESB burn anything that they get their hands on so there'd be carbon emissions related to that. Was at a talk last week where a top transport engineer from UCD actuallly talked about having an electricity infrastructure for road freight and the use of 'road-trains' though he conceded that the electricity needed would have its own inherent problems and the infrastructure required would be too costly.

I'm surprised that you've cited nuclear power. Not you, per se, but people who suggest it are few and far between. If there's a suitable set-up for managing the high-levelk waste at the end of it, I'd be all for it. Critics would suggest that the mining for uranium would create emissions etc.

To sum up, everyone who pollutes should be hit. I'm not looking to criminalise the poor or let industry have carte blanche to carry on regardless. Everyone needs to play their part but the reality is that they need to be forced to.

And, thank you, Marlboro Man. Your post made for interesting reading...a lot of which I agreed with.

by anon Mon Feb 12, 2007 15:42

As you well know the _building industry_ has been delaying and preverting the introduction of more energy efficient homes and regs so thank for that prime example of industrial scale climate sabotage.

by Marlboro man Mon Feb 12, 2007 16:06

Bin charges where not introduced too encourage recycling. They where introduced as a larger neo-liberal agenda to privatize essential services and thus cut public spending. (Extraordinary considering that Tax revenue is at record levels and is being ham-fistedly squandered instead of being pumped back into sustainable greener waste disposable initiatives.)
I also think the polluter pays principle has been hi-jacked by profiteers due to inherent shortsightedness and needs to be re-addressed to eliminate all scope for greed.
Many local authorities hive out/outsource their waste collection to 3rd party private collectors whose sole agenda is the generation of profit. They have no motivation to adopt green policies, have no interest in the greater good and have no responsibility to the public and are unanswerable to anyone bar whatever limited legislation they must operate within. There are champions of free enterprise who say that the legislation could be used to force these collectors to behave in an eco-friendly manner. But business is business. Cleaning up the environment is and will be an expensive endeavor and any profit reliant organization will try and cut what ever corners it can within (or without) the legislation-environment be damned .

In any case let’s agree to disagree on this.

We also have differences in what we view as incentives. I see an incentive as a tangible (monetary) reward for behaving responsibly. This is equally as hand-led as slapping a flat rate charge and diminishing the charge through acting accordingly I agree, but I guarantee my way produces more recycled waste and that it would seem is a goal we both share.

I do not share the view that domestic energy use outweighs industries.
I would like to see figures to back that up.
Industry generates the most waste because it produces it and passes it into the domestic arena which then becomes municipal waste. This does not alter its source.
In this regard Industry must be forced to adopt greener production methods as it is beyond the capacity of the domestic sector to impact on this in any way.

When I cited the electrification of Rail Networks I should have clarified that in the interim Nuclear power would be the primary source to accommodate this.
As they come on line, The ESB could in tandem decommission their fossil fuel stations.

On that note, the mining of Uranium (considering the weight to power output ratios) is significantly less in terms of CO emissions than the extraction methods for fossil fuels, never mind the tertiary impact post refinement as they are burned to generate power.
The carbon emission for Nuclear is a one off while fossil fuels hit the environment 3 times.
With Nuclear, spent Uranium Rods (which last 15 yrs btw) can be disposed of safely. (This is a huge issue and wont go in to it here. The permutations alone between linear ratios of fossil to nuclear in an accendancy require lenghty disscission and I don't have time)
It's scurrilous attempts at refining them (Sellafield) that causes the big problem.
In any case if/when nuclear fusion becomes feasible it will address fissions drawbacks in every way.

All this of course will be done with an expanded wave, geo-thermal, wind, solar-powered network and not to their detriment.

This should not be about Macro-economics. The project in France at the moment is predicted to yield a sustainable fusion reaction within a decade at a cost of several hundred billion euro. But what price the planet? Especially in light of the rewards.

by Jasper Mon Feb 12, 2007 16:49

While I agree that it may not necesarily have been introduced to incentivise recycling, it still does. Though maybe that's just for conscientious people, I'm not sure. I can see the point in paying people to recycle but I suppose I have an issue with people recycling for the wrong reasons, i.e. they should recycle because it's the right thing to do rather than because they'll get money. Though if companies/local authorities get it from REPAK, then the public should too. But those companies also have to put money in to get it out.

And the polluter pays principle needs to be applied appropriately. The WEEE Directive, for example, has seen the introduction of EMCs that you pay when you buy electrical goods, so essentially the customer is paying for the collection and treatment of WEEE. That does need to be addressed. I've made that point many a time.

If you go onto the SEI website, they have data as far back as 1990 in terms of energy consumption, given in kilo-tonnes oil equivalent. Domestic use comes in at 2874 ktoe while Industrial comes in at 2490 ktoe.

Agreed on industry creating the waste. But I do think there are ways in which the individual can reduce the waste that comes through them. But obviously pressure must be put on industry, in financiual terms, to reduce their packaging.

I know what you mean about the uranium mining etc. I just added that in case someone who was anti-nuclear weighed in with that. I just think that nuclear power won't be seen in my lifetime. It just has such a negative image. If you look at the hoo-hah over the Yucca Mountain situation in America, you'll know what I mean. That is an absolutely perfect site for the disposal of the high-level waste but still there is mucho dissent. And also, refinement and MOX and all that jazz shouldn't come into it.

In relation to renewables, there needs to be a network set up that brings in wind farms on the North Sea. It's the only way to cope with the peaks and troughs that are an inherent part of wind power. That way you get a normalised supply across the board and thus wind power is viable.

I'm not so sure the fusion reactor will yield any results for another 15-20 years and even then it may not be ready as a source of energy to be used. But nonetheless, it's an exciting project. Well, to me anyway. But that's just the physicist in me.

by Miriam Cotton - MediaBite Tue Feb 13, 2007 13:30 miriamcotton at mediabite dot org

The article refers to the fact that the media are finally waking up to the need to cover climate change more thoroughly. But it's interesting to note the dilemma that it puts them in when they are at the same time obliged to some of the worlds worst polluters for their advertising revenues. Media Lens have recently been engaged in a bit of a barney with the Independent on Sunday about their decision to publish an article by somebody called Marcus Fairs which basically advocated an orgy of last minute polluting tourism to some of the most vulnerable habitats and places in the world. ML have now produced an Alert which makes very interesting reading - it also illustrates the voraciousness of one Tony O' Reilly in this regard. Not that we don't already have ample evidence of that...:

Here's an excerpt from the Alert in which Media Lens address the editor of the Independent on Sunday, Tim Lewis, in response to his defence of what the newspaper did - link to the full text below:

We have struggled to access detailed information on the advertising that provides 75 per cent of the Independent and Independent on Sunday's revenues. However, in 2005, media insiders told us that between January 1 and October 7, 2005, Independent News and Media PLC received the following revenues from advertisers:

BP Plc
£11,769 (this figure has risen substantially since October 2005 as a result of the 'Beyond Petroleum' campaign)

Citroen UK Ltd
£418,779

Ford Motor Company Ltd
£247,506

Peugeot Motor Co Plc
£260,920

Renault UK Ltd
£427,097

Toyota (GB) Ltd
£715,050

Vauxhall Motors Ltd
£662,359

Volkswagen UK Ltd
£555,518

BMI British Midland
£60,847

Bmibaby Ltd
£12,810

British Airways Plc
£248,165

Easyjet Airline Co Ltd
£59,905

Monarch Airlines
£15,713

Ryanair Ltd
£28,543 (Email to Media Lens, December 12, 2005)

You write:

"Perhaps you are right to question where Fairs' article fits in within the context of the 'green' paper outlined above."

In fact it fits perfectly with the reality that the Independent is a corporate shark, red in tooth and fin, with a green tinge around the gills.

by tom eile Tue Feb 13, 2007 19:07

Writng in the Science section of today's New York Times, John Tierney ( he's not a global warming denier ) argues that interuption of the flow of the Gulf Stream would not significantly affect temperatures in Western Europe:

"This theory, originated by a 19th-century oceanographer, is “the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend,” in the words of Richard Seager, a climate modeler at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. He and other researchers have calculated that the Gulf Stream’s influence typically raises land temperatures in the north by only five degrees Fahrenheit, hardly enough to explain England’s mild winters, much less its lack of glaciers.
Moreover, as the Gulf Stream meanders northward, it delivers just about as much heat to the eastern United States and Canada as to Europe, so it can’t account for the difference between New York and London. Dr. Seager gives the credit to the prevailing westerly winds — and the Rocky Mountains.
When these winds out of the west hit the Rockies, they’re diverted south, bringing air from the Arctic down on New York (as in last week’s cold spell). After their southern detour, the westerlies swing back north, carrying subtropical heat toward London. This Rocky Mountain detour accounts for about half the difference between New York and London weather, according to Dr. Seager.
The other half is caused by the simple fact that London sits on the east side of an ocean — just like Seattle, which has a much milder climate than Siberia, the parallel land across the Pacific. Since ocean water doesn’t cool as quickly as land in winter, or heat up as much in summer, the westerly winds blowing over the ocean moderate the winter and summer temperatures in both Seattle and London.
So unless the westerlies reverse direction or the Rockies crumble, London and the rest of Western Europe will remain relatively mild. The danger London faces isn’t an ice age but a long, inexorable warming that will keep the temperatures and sea levels gradually rising for centuries "

by buckbowski Wed Feb 14, 2007 00:55

Fair play folks. It is great to see such lively and intelligent debate on what is surely the most important issue facing us. It seems to me that both the individual and industry have to stand up to this challenge and meet it head on. To leave everything to Goverment and industry though will see nothing change. We the people must step up and play our part and try to influence others to follow suit. Keep up the good work.

What about setting minimum efficiency standards for appliances (at a very high level of efficiency) and banning the sale of any appliance that does not meet these standards.

by R. Isible Wed Feb 14, 2007 02:16

and that the government shouldn't be passing the buck to individuals (is there any point to having a government if it can't organise effective action around something as important as climate change?!).

But, taking for example the point about rampant property speculation driving people further and further out into the suburbs and thus forcing them to commute for longer distances, I still can't see how the mode of commuting isn't the onus of the commuter. The distances aren't that great anyway a recent Green Party policy paper which someone flagged to me says that the average commute distance has approximately doubled to 9 miles from 4.5 miles). Unless the commuters are sick, old or in some other way incapacitated it's not to hard to go 9 miles on a bicycle. If the weather is inclement then there are alternatives such as buses and the more people that use them then the less cars will be on the road and the quicker the buses will be. I suspect most people know this and most people are going to reply "feck off I like sitting on my arse listening to crap music and not having to interact with the smelly proles who are exactly like me but I'm different."

Waiting for the government to do anything useful is probably a waste of time. Waiting for people to cop the fuck on and start making achievable changes is probably a waste of time too. If global warming is all that it's promised to be then we're fucked because of massive levels of denial and inertia both in government and in our heads.

by Jasper Wed Feb 14, 2007 09:44

"What about setting minimum efficiency standards for appliances (at a very high level of efficiency) and banning the sale of any appliance that does not meet these standards."

I've been doing a little work on that in my spare time. There's an environmental standard, something like the ISO 9000,called the EU Eco-label (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/index_en.htm).

Basically it sets out limits for energy consumption and so on. At the minute, it's an optional tool as it stands.

What would be preferable is that it would be a minimum standard where companies were faced with penalties/levies for not having it.

There are inherent problems though since the eco-label criteria don't assess manufacturing processes and while a product might meet the eco-label criteria, it could be manufactured in a coal-burning factory in china.

It's pretty hard to enforce laws because of this. But maybe it's a start.

by Marlboro man Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:01

I cannot accept the musings of a NYT columnist (albeit cleverly presented) in the same vein as what is considered a scientific fact. The NAD and its influence is by no means an earth-science urban legend. To describe it as Tierney has is as bereft of credibility as claiming the moon landings where filmed in a Hollywood back lot.

While Tierney has not denied global warming par say, he has penned columns that are extremely inflammatory within the eco-friendly community, most notably his gem entitled 'Recycling is Garbage' which set new records in the NYT complaints dept. This has suggested a leaning in the Global Warming Denial direction.

Tierney is extremely RW in some of his views in particular his assertion that the individual has the right to do what ever he wants as long it does not impinge on anyone else’s rights. This puts him in the camp of the V8, Gas Guzzler, Hummer, private jet brigade. It is therefore in his interest to play down any climate impact these pursuits might have, in keeping with his political beliefs.

If the NAD shuts down the ramifications will be enormous. Heat dispersion from NAD is not as equally spread throughout the N Atlantic as Tierney’s column suggests. The N Eastern seaboard of the US is completely untouched by the NAD. That is influenced by much colder waters from the Arctic. To suggest otherwise is nonsense at best.

The NAD also acts as a barrier to this Artic drift which IS precisely why Ireland does not have as severe winters as everywhere else on the planet as the same latitude

The Brighter the Colour the Warmer the Current

by Dunk Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:52

In regard climate chaos and Ireland, it is an emergency and far more action needs to be taken. Criticising the state is one thing but offering practical solutions that are easy for people to also do or participate in and that are attractive to people not already aware of these "eco" methods makes sense.

In a previous post (1) I directed people to an excellent essay I read recently, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GLOBAL ECOVILLAGE MOVEMENT by Ted Trainer (2), which outlines what a future eco and sustainable society would/will look like: economics, less production, more decentralised self organisation, fixing stuff, less roads and more food production, permaculture.......

Its short enough, about 5 minutes to read and the main points are the following:

- I have no hesitation in claiming that the fate of the planet depends on those who are pioneering the transition to The Simpler Way.

- put most of our energy into developing and demonstrating alternative lifestyles, settlements and systems, so that when consumer society runs into really serious problems people will be able to see that there is another way, one that is more sane, workable, attractive, just and ecologically sustainable.

- We are too relaxed and we are too polite!

Also there I posted how in Ireland there was a eco project to attempt to move Dublin to being a more sustainable city with an 18 km eco corridor for Dublin city, food production gardens, bike ways and more...... (3)

Anyway the garden project is still on and will soon be creating a new garden in Dolphins Barn in Dublin 8, so if you would like to take some practical action and to help the collective that have been quietly making a small little bit of action to counter climate chaos, give them a shout dolphinsbarngarden@gmail.com

regards from Barcelona, where yesterday I finally got to do a bit of gardenig here

dunk

(1) Can we win? What sort of world will that look like?
http://indymedia.ie/article/80676#comment183032
from : Whatever Happened to Anti-Capitalism?

(2) THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GLOBAL ECOVILLAGE MOVEMENT
Ted Trainer, University of N.S.W., Australia.
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D09TheSigOfTheGE....html

(3) the botanic spine : dublin greenway
http://indymedia.ie/attachments/feb2007/botanic_spine.pdf
http://dublin.ie/botanicspine/
Dublin : first Greenway cycle of 2006
http://indymedia.ie/article/75672

Dolphins barn community garden
http://www.dolphinsbarngarden.org/
Dolphin's Barn community garden under threat
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75438
Audio:
-Ruth gives a history of the garden 8mins - http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/garden-tooth.wav
-Mixing the muck 7.5 mins - http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/garden.wav

by Jasper Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:35

Though I think that governmental intervention is an absolute necesssity, here's the link to the Power Of One website that has handy little tips that we can all put to use to reduce our energy consumption

www.powerofone.ie

by Terence Wed Feb 14, 2007 15:39

I would just like to add to the point raised much earlier about building standards.

Firstly energy use in society broadly breaks down as one third (or 33%) each for industry, commerical (-i.e. shops, offices etc) and domestic use.

Clearly then the building standards are a major part of curbing and reducing our emissions. However in a recent Prime Time programme on RTE a few months back it was revealed through a freedom of information request that a memo circulated in the Dept of Environment discussing the fact that by delaying the introduction of the new building regulations which cover insulation, heat loss, heating requirements of new buildings that they estimated more than 100,000 homes would be built. The Prime Time programme stated that in fact 200,000 homes were built to the old standards because of this delay. As I recall they were supposed to be implemented in 2001, but were delayed to 2005.

This has got to be the singular most important factor in recent times that could have made a difference to our emissions. It is quite clear that officials in the Dept of Env and other Govt. officials who agreed to the delay were aware of the signifance of the delay. We have to ask ourselves was there pressure applied by the building industry since afterall we know much of the recent tribunals basically revolve around them. We also know they pay and take out most of the adverts in the Fianna Fail manifesto booklet. We also know they have long and deep connections to this political party and other parties to be fair too. We also have to ask were people in government aware that more energy efficient homes means less natural gas used to heat them.

Indeed did Shell lobby government to delay the introduction of these standards, since afterall they were given Corrib Gas for free and would be selling it back to the Irish people. We have to be aware from an investors point of view it is better to get all your profit in a short space of time than over a long duration because it gives better returns. But this means there is an incentive to suck gas (and oil) fields dry as quick as possible rather than as long as possible and people with more energy efficient home translates into a not big enough market for at the extraction rates required for their returns.

This means that those 200,000 houses which will last probably 50+ years will have higher energy requirements into the future than could have been otherwise. This ought to be highlighted.

by Jasper Wed Feb 14, 2007 16:42

The building industry is considerably more powerful in Ireland than in most places which is why you see such things. In Britain, several measures are being put in place so that energy standards are improved. I'm not putting Britain forward as a model, per se, but the construction industry isn't as powerful over there and they can be bypassed with ease where it needs to be.

Even within it, the ICF wields considerable power, which is why they seem to get away with their "Concrete-built is better built" ad campaign.

by stickler Wed Feb 14, 2007 18:02

Story describes how 'corporate' media has gotten on warming story but then goes on to talk about Primetime and the Irish Times, neither of whom are corporations. They may be conservative and unreliable but they are not corporations. These terms lose all their meaning when bandied about carelessly. Accuracy first! I think the writer means 'elite' or 'establishment' media.

by anon Wed Feb 14, 2007 19:26

If people spend the extra money building an energy efficient house, that can be offset by no stamp duty. It's basic economics. How is there no benefit there? For every house that's built to that standard, there are fewer tonnes of CO2 being emitted. So why is that a problem to you?

'if people' what people you mean the building industry which actively lobbies to avoid and delay these regs? 'people' don't build 100,000 -200,000 houses developers do.

Thats what behind this whole powerofone idea, not genuine individual responsiblity but actively passing the buck and excusing the industry you jasper say above its people power the matters and then later you claim to have being saying all along, well what did you expect the building lobby is most powerful.

by Terry Wed Feb 14, 2007 21:51

Stickler I think you will find that it says 'corporate and state', Prime Time being part of the state television broadcasting company. The Irish Times is not owned by a company of some sort? If this is the case mea cupla (sort of ).

by Stickler Thu Feb 15, 2007 07:50

Terry, youre right about RTE. Times is a trust of some sort. Primetime is very sensitive to phone calls from Leinster house and is good at pointing out the rule breakers (Leas Cross/Human traffickers) but pretty shit at criticising the systematic abuses like the privatisation of the health service under Harney. Nevertheless the point stands.

by Jasper Thu Feb 15, 2007 08:56

"If people spend the extra money building an energy efficient house, that can be offset by no stamp duty. It's basic economics. How is there no benefit there? For every house that's built to that standard, there are fewer tonnes of CO2 being emitted. So why is that a problem to you?

'if people' what people you mean the building industry which actively lobbies to avoid and delay these regs? 'people' don't build 100,000 -200,000 houses developers do.

Thats what behind this whole powerofone idea, not genuine individual responsiblity but actively passing the buck and excusing the industry you jasper say above its people power the matters and then later you claim to have being saying all along, well what did you expect the building lobby is most powerful."

If you want a house built, you don't have to choose one that's already built as part of a development. If you have a site, you get a builder to build the house you want.

Anyway, you're guilty of a little kettle logic. My point was that if someone's house meets an environmental standard that means they pay no stamp duty, then the extra the house cost will be offset by the lack of stamp duty.

The point was quite simple and nothing to do with whether or not the building industry was lobbying to prevent regs or not.

by Terence Thu Feb 15, 2007 16:12

Here is some additional background info on the peat burning power stations mentioned in the article above.

It is worth knowing that the electrical generating capacity for Ireland is about 4,500 MW (or 4.5 GW). The two peat burning stations which have huge CO-2 emissions because of the lower calorific value of peat means they are less than ideal fuels.

The capacity of these power stations are:

West Offaly = 150 MW
Lough Ree = 100 MW ... making for a total capacity of 250 MW or about 5.5% of the total.

As far as I remember at least one of these power stations was to close a few years ago and locally there was a big issue about job losses in the area. And then despite as I recall it, going against advice specifically because peat stations are a poor source of power for the amount of emissions and environmental damage to the remainder of Ireland's peat lands, a Danish company either took over or built a new power plant. No doubt this was probably a swing constituency and that may have been the real reason it continued. However I do stand to be corrected on this local history aspect of it.

But more important, Ireland's wind power capacity at the end of 2006 now stands at 745 MW Data from European Wind Energy Association www.ewea.org and exactly 250 MW were added in 2006. It does have to be recognised that the utility factor for wind power is around 26% whilst I would guess for coal, oil, gas and peat the factor ranges from 70% to 90% which basically means you need at least 2 to 3 times the capacity of wind power to replace the same amount of capacity of the above energy sources.

So in summary we can do without these peat stations not only because of their large CO-2 emissions considering the small amount of power we get from them, but that existing and future wind power installations should be able to make up the loss.

And for reference, the current pilot offshore wind park on Arklow Bank off Wicklow with 7 turbines at 3.6 MW each for a total of 25 MW is projected to be increased to a total capacity of 520 MW

Picture at: http://www.minds.nuim.ie/~voyager/linkStore/blog/windpo...k.jpg

Ref to EWEA Wind Power installations for Europe in 2006 can be found at:

by dunk Thu Feb 15, 2007 16:40 fuspey at yahoo dot co dot uk

Quick link to the exploration of a problem and offering of solutions to irelands urban sprawl that happened this year at the venice bienalle, the main architecture event / exhibition in the world.

http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/vb06/index.html
is the site

and heres a summary
SubUrban to SuperRural, Venice Architecture Biennale
http://www.irish-architecture.com/tesserae/000019.html

other summarys found on the http://www.venicesuperblog.net/
which includes one "expert" stating about the irish exhibtion

"SubUrban to SuperRural showed the responses of nine Irish architectural practices to Ireland’s growing urban and suburban sprawl. Some of the presentations were sensible, some fantastical, some extremely clever and some thought-provoking. So where was my sense of disgust at the Irish Government? Their historical corruption, which has led to a blighted countryside, and appalling problems for suburban commuter families, is currently being investigated by a Tribunal of Enquiry."

by Renton Thu Feb 15, 2007 19:23

I'm by nature very skeptical and I abhor the latest media scrum about Global Warming. I do not deny that there has been a recent trend in temperature increases, etc. But I find it hard to accept that something as complex as the earths climate, taking into account all the subtle interdependant relationships between the various factors that affect our climate, that we can conveniently sum up the reason the whole planet is going belly up is because of one single chemical - C02.

Questions arise:

1. How many other gases are there is our atmosphere? and what percentage do they represent of total atmospheric gases?

2. Why is C02s UV absorption property so infinitely better than all other atmospheric gases? Or is it?

3. Why are climate change predictions based on computer models? How reliable are these models? Who is overseeing any sort of accurate empirical data examination? Can there be empirical oversight in something that purports to predict the future?

4. What is a primary necessity to all plants on this planet? C02 - so it should stand that increasing C02, should result in greater crop yields no? It is common practise amongst gardeners who might be hothousing specific plants species to buy readily available cannisters of pressurised C02 in order increase growth rates/ yields.

5. Why do ice cores taken from the antarctic icecaps, when analysed, show historical temperature trends that seem to bear no relation to the ones being predicted for our future? The average temperatures around Europe rose steadily from 1870 to 1940 but no one seemed to soil themselves. Why did temperatures go down subsequent to that? Why is the most consistently hottest year on record still in the 1970s?

6. Mediawise - what happened to SARS? That was the next pandemic once - I have found information that out of 6 billion people on the planet 160-200 may have died from this. Avian bird Flu is back on our screens now, how many people have even contracted a human form of that? you will not find the answer in mainstream media. This trend for commoditised infotainment provides as reliable a news source as Celebrity Big Brother - I was watching sky news the other day and there was a 5 minutes segment on how one of the newscasters got on on Celebrity Ice Skating the previous week! Fer gods sake!

What about the recent IPCC report I hear you all scream? (well maybe not.) The IPCC report is a summary of the work done by scientists investigating large amounts of data on climate change - strangely, none of that data was actually published with the summary of the report - that comes later in May or June! The conspiracists among you are already thinking that they data will now have to be "massaged" to fit a summary thats already been written. Traditionally I'm told, summaries of scientific papers were published in conjunction with the necessary empirical data to support the conclusions.

I would love it if C02 was the one an only Holy Grail answer to global warming but like I said at the outset I'm skeptical. I agree that we live on a planet of finite resources and that these should be conserved. I do not advocate the do whatever you like because some legal document written 200 years ago says I have a whole bunch of rights which no one can deny me.

For further reading for the skeptics among you ( and even those of you who are greener than green) I recommend the following website:

http://www.junkscience.com

I know, its an inflammatory title alright, but give some the articles it contains a read - it is NOT all right-wing polemicism.

I especially think the following helps group together the science behind things with a good level of detail to satisfy most people.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

I would like to say that I have nothing to do with the creation of the content on this site, rather it gave me a central resource to explore things further - too much of what we receive from TV news has been rehashed by journalists without the time or inclination to delve into a story in any great detail, it is far easier to re-affirm what we already think we know.

by Jasper Fri Feb 16, 2007 09:48

CO2 isn't the sole contributor to global warming or climate change. There's a full suite of gases, collectively known as greenhouse gases.

I don't mean to sound facetious...I'm just too short on time at the moment to give a longer piece.

by Gibbo Fri Feb 16, 2007 15:02

things like nitrogen, water vapour, methane, carbon monoxide ( Acid Rain, how '90s!)

by Terence Fri Feb 16, 2007 16:23

Renton,
You clearly have no science background whatsoever. Why don't you go and make an effort to actually learn something.

Addressing some of your points:

1) How many gases. There's quite a few. And some of them are also 'greenhouse' gases too.. What matters is the quantity and where they reside. There is less methane, but is it 21 times stronger at trapping heat.

2) Why is C02s UV absorption .... It's nothing to do with UV. You are confused, perhaps with the separate and slightly related ozone problem. It is that C02 is a strong absorber of some infra-red wavelengths. Light comes in as visible from the sun, heats the ground & ocean and air and these emit infra-red by virtue of the fact they are at a temperature above absolute zero. (Look this up if you don't understand it). This property has to do with the inherent physical and chemical properties of the CO-2 molecule. Lots of other elements and molecule absorb at various wavelengths.

3) Why use climate models. Well if we were to listen to people like you, right wingers, neo liberals and economists, they would probably suggest we just economic market models to model the climate.

3b) Who is overseeing empirical data examination? Now you are sounding like you know something.... well there are 1000s' of scientists involved. The IPCC represents about 4,000 climate & weather scientists which is most of them in the world. The skeptics who would be a tiny minority represent the interests (and are usually it is later found out to be paid by) the coal industry, oil industry and motor industry and other destructive groups.

4) Ah the old plants and CO-2 argument. Completely simplistic stuff thrown out here. Plants use and expire CO-2. It has long ago been proved they won't pick up the increases. Critical factors limiting this are water availability and nutrients. Indeed recent surges in CO2 emissions suggest this CO2 sink is now saturated.

5) Ice core bear no relation with future.... That is a straight lie. They do. When CO2 went up, so did temperature.

6) Media & SARS -Largely off topic. Yep SARS is part of the distraction of big media. Talk about everything but the important issues.

7) IPCC Summary. That is a rehash of an argument by some right winger recently on the TV. The summary is a result of a tremendous amount of scientific work with various data, observations and models. It is a comprise in that it will then to underestimate everything. The data will arrive later because there is masses of it. It is that simple. Again you try to sow the seeds of doubt in the public mind. Scientific papers can cover a wide range of things. They don't all have empirical data.

I like your last paragraph. Basically you are admitting between the lines that in fact you are a right-wing denier.

Big pro-ruin-the-planet business has run an extremely successful campaign over the last 20 years to confuse the public about global chaos and deny it. They have funded a handful of people in the same way as was done with the tobacco industry to inject all sorts of spurious arguments. Using their symbiotic relationship with the mass media they have been able to give the impression scientists have not been in agreement and are in doubt. This is completely bogus. They has been widespread agreement for many many years. Through their actions they have allowed pro-ruin-the-planet businesses to continue making money, have delayed urgent action and have placed the humanity in much greater peril than othewise would be the case, whilst simultaneously helping to accelerate the 6th mass extinction that is already under way. For their crimes they should of course be locked up but unfortunately it won't fix anything.

Anyone taken in by these spurious arguments above should take a look at:

The Smoke Behind The Deniers's Fire
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/19/the-smoke-be...re-3/

or: Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00....html

by Renton Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25

Ok. I never said I didnt need to do more work on this, but ad hominem arguments do not strengthen any valid points you make. I am trying to get a balanced picture of the whole, as opposed to what I'm fed by the media. My issues with media coverage of this topic were not meant to be off topic but part of my whole problem in understanding whats going on here. (Anyone else feel that journalism has gone down the toilet? come to think of it, not sure it was ever out of it.)

1. UV does not equal IR. Obviously. My mistake there. I meant to say IR.

2. I was led to believe that C02 absorbed IR on a logarithmic scale, i.e. law of diminishing returns? Might have been misled here.

3. My essential beef is that I am trying to find an unbiased online source of scientific information with regard to climate change. I appreciate the links you posted but what I'm getting at is that I'm looking for cold hard facts. By the way, I also dont appreciate professional people taking money to form/skew opinions - see below.

4. Re: junkscience.com. Some further investigation as to the publisher shows him to be a bit of shill to large US corporate interests namely the dreaded Phillip Morris amongst others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy. Again this goes to illustrate the point that every single assertion by one person has to be researched into in order to find the core information. This is what I am trying to get at. It is very difficult to find any information that is objective in its delivery.

One use I have found for this website is that it has published the full technical draft IPCC report (even though it was told not to).

http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/

Interesting stuff. But not quite as definitive as expressed in my beloved media. Yes, temperatures are higher and there are is large amount of directly observed evidence to support this.

(It is easier to link to the below images than go through the whole report which would require me to extensively quote notation. Also its in pdf format and wont allow easy copy and paste.)

short term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_temperature_record

long term http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature...s.png

Basically, there is a high confidence placed by scientists in the the fact that global temperature are going to rise by 4 degrees in the next century. I just wish that there wasnt this reliance on computer modelling and computers, I work in IT and maybe I'm biased here but I hate the bloody things. Hardware-wise they are limited and power hungry, and software-wise they are mostly rubbish. Don't get me wrong. We have come a long, long way with regards to the sophistication of computers, in recent years hardware advancements have been outstripping those of software (although some resource-hungry MS products would convince you otherwise!). But there is a distinct if not crisis, then uneasiness, in the programming and software consumer communities about the general quality of software and its ability to handle taks we need it to do now, never mind predicting the future of the planet. Ok, rant over.

While the IPCC report proclaims a strong confidence in the correlation between C02, methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions and temperature increases, I think it is important to note that it also expresses a significant amount of uncertainty about a lot of other climate processes which it outlines on pages 14 and 15 of the summary document and also at various notation points in the document itself.

I dont see anywhere in this document the much-reported 90% certainty that its all our fault. I'm not denying the correlations it exposes, but absolutely, positively, bet-my-childrens-life-on-it convinced? Hmmm.

Also interesting follow on from the link you posted Terence:

http://www.turnuptheheat.org/?page_id=16

Chris Martin of Coldplay as Eco-Criminal - nice. (monbiot publishes this website btw - excitable fellow isnt he?.)

by mary Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:44

like on Mayday- to celebrate 'our holiday' and let people know that
effective change can happen through education and awareness.

Its only a small thing.

by dunk Sat Feb 17, 2007 17:22

On the celtic feast of imbolc, or la na bride as it turned into in ireland, or Thursday, 1. February 2007, or the start of spring there was an attempt at a 5 minute electricity turnoff around europe, and perhaps further a field?

The callout came from eco activist groups, im not exactly sure who kicked it all off but i think greenpeace had a lot to do with it.

Here in Barcelona the lights were turned off by the city council or government at the main tourist site la sagreda familia, the eifel tower was also turned off, as were other main focul points in cities. Along with this most people did their little bit, turning off lights, computers and televisions and going out into the local placa with neighbours. Here in Placa del sol in the Gracia Barrio, Infoespai (a local social centre with free internet amongst other things) switched off. All in all it was a very nice 5 minutes. Anyway I asked my family what had happened in Dublin and Ireland for this: nothing. Did anything happen, were people aware of it...?

I know it is only a token 5 minutes, but it was a start. And participating in that 5 minutes was a strange thing in its own right.. it got me thinking that perhaps we (humans on earth) are entering a grander imbolc, that after the near-death of the dark hours, weeks, months, (years) that we are returning to warmer healthier times. Working in harmony with nature, enjoying it and celebrating it..... and on and on it goes......
who knows?

I put a post up about it here: http://easa.antville.org/stories/1563907/

this was the original global call out:

URGENT: Action against climate change :

Various environmental organizations are asking the peoples of this planet to hold 5 minutes of silence: Everyone should turn off all lights, electricity etc. between 7:45 until 8 p.m. to bring attention to other inhabitants, the media and politicians about the daily waste of energy. An act which takes only 5 minutes, which cost nothing, but shows the governments that climate change should be on the top agenda of world
politics.

http://blog.green.tv/2007/01/29/direct-action/

Imbolc´s 5 minutes electricity switch off...

by Terence Sun Feb 18, 2007 23:52

Renton,
I am not too sure what you are saying in your reply other than you don't trust computer models and this seems to have to do with your experience of them.

Climate models are less software models as such are a more mathemathical-physical models. General Circulation Models (GCM) principally use mathemathical descriptions of fluid flow and would normally include some modeling for radiative transfer. These are far removed from anything you might normally encountered in your daily interaction with computers. What's more many decades ago, because the CPU and memory resources were less, scientists tended to run less simulations. The trend with increasing power is to make many simulations each with slightly different initial conditions, so that the result could now be described as a probabilistic analysis. While the uncertainty of models gets lots of press coverage courtsey of the agents of pro-ruin-the-planet right wing types, there are many types of tests and validations that can be applied to these models. And one that can be used in weather forecasting for example is to do backforecasting of the forecast backwards in time and comparing it with known conditions. With GCMs and other model types, it is possible to make sure numerous physical constraints are met and various scenarios tested.

In summary though, using relatively simple models you can determine what the gross features of the climate will be, like major wind systems, approximate temperatures and various energy flows. As the models become more sophisticated and include many more variables and phyiscal parameters, you can get more detail. Similar types of models can and have been used to model the climate on other planets like Venus and Mars and have been very good at enabling us to understand the pecularities of those particular systems.

I don't have a problem with the climate models used in our attempt to understand and predict the climate. Without them, we would be at a huge loss and would be incredibly ignorant. And these models are being continously improved and take on board continuing basic research in physics, climatology, oceanograhpy and other related fields. Needless to say right wing regimes like the current Bush criminal cabal and especially the Reagan cabal in the past have made strident efforts to underfund, cut and undermine these essential organisations and institutes carrying out this work.

For example back in the late 1980s, there was a planned joint NASA-ESA project called Mission to Planet Earth that was to consist of an array of about 8 to 10 satelllites measuring globally and continously all aspects of the Earth, from clouds, ocean circulation, ozone, methane and various other trace gases, aersols, biomass (forest, landcover), ice-cover, rain, net energy flows over a broad range of wavelenghs from the IR through the Visile to the UV. It was to include profile of these gases and water vapor and temperature vertically over a range of heights in the atmosphere. And of course it would run for decades too. It was basically going to be a Earth climate biosphere management monitoring system for mankind. And what happened? The criminal-terrorists Reagan administration -which by the way has many of the exact same people in power now as the regime -made sure the program never got off the ground. And the reason? If you can't see what is wrong, then you won't know anything is wrong and then there is no problem. No doubt it was cancelled at the behest of the usual suspects. The cancellation of this program was a major wrong turn for humanity. Sure bits and pieces of all the above have been done here and there for various timeframes, but nothing as comprehensive and as broad has been done or is planned. The program name was kept and a very much watered down version and it eventually mutated into something else, but it was nowhere anything like the original plan. By doing it this way, it can be claimed it was never cancelled, but in fact it was. The current single European satellite Envisat is probably a mutated relic of this plan, except it's just one satellite in one orbit.

We lost a huge opportunity and probably at the key moment, when the climate system really changed. There is a lot of rubbish spouted about things like: We still have time or we have 10 years to make the change. This is just plain wrong. Yes we can lessen the worst of the impact by making deep changes, but deep underlying changes have already been set in motion and are happening and whether we like to admit it or decide to deny it, the climate system is and will respond fully in time to the modification of its input parameters courtsey of our changes.

But to try get back to your response, what exactly are you trying to say about your doubts of the climate models? Is it that you doubt them, therefore they can't be 100% right, therefore the worst can't happen and maybe nothing will happen and therefore we shouldn't spend any more doing anything about it? I suppose you believe in the precautionary principle? I doubt you will say you don't?

Look I think the problem you have and a lot of other people is basically a crisis of faith in the myth of progress and the myth of the infallibility of humans. -i.e we can solve anything and this is so big it can't really happen to us. Perhaps (us all) been subjected to a lifetime of Hollywood movies where there is always a good ending and humans always prevail has created the mental block. And the result, you and many others don't take this issue serious.

If we want to prevail, then there is only one possible action that is open to us all and that is to drastically cut emissions and as rapidly as possible and using every resource at our disposal to place human society on a sustainable path. And by sustainable that means for 1000s and 1000s of years and includes all other life on the planet. There are simply no other alternatives. And does that have political implications? You bet it does.

by eoin Mon Feb 19, 2007 08:28

To put all the blame on industry is a cop out, some of the problem is caused purely by individuals activity - such as havin the heating on all day, driving around needlessly, choosing a 2L car, leaving electronics switched on, using a tumble dryier, not recycling their rubbish, etc - all these are purely in the hands of the individual. But more importantly - RESPONSIBILITY , responsibility for knowing how the products you consume are produced, limiting individual comsumption, buying green, not having a constant stream of useless consumer items coming in your front door and out the back, not buying a new phone/TV/computer/etc every time the technology / trends move on. producers ARE ultimately responsible for damage done producing their product but the comsumers can choose not to be part of it. if there is a billion people willilng to buy something then someone somewhere will sell it to them - no matter what.

by Lara Hill Mon Feb 19, 2007 19:41

Interesting article and comments. I have to agree with Eoin about individual responsibility. That's the immediate area where I could make a difference. I mean if I had any influence over the construction industry or big business I could try and take some action there, but I feel next to powerless faced with the construction industry ih Ireland.

I think Terry you said about air travel being mainly for business and not leisure. Really? I reckon the majority of working people fly at least three or four times a year between their main holidays and city breaks. To my mind this should be challenged and can't be discounted as a big contributing cause to global warming.

There was a lot of talk of recycling and bin charges. I think though the most important thing is reduction. For example, there were comments on recycling plastic bottles. But we really shouldn't be buying plastic bottles in the first place. I haven't bought one for a very long time - nasty things made from oil that lie on beaches and verges for years and years. To the comment: "What about setting minimum efficiency standards for appliance (at a very high level of efficiency)" I'd say what about buying less appliances or no more appliances at all? A few months ago my hair dryer blew. ( I brought it to electronic recycling place in the Jamestown Industrial Estate) Instead of buying a new one, I decided to towel dry my hair. It' s fine. I never really needed a hair dryer. It's just one of the many appliances we think we need. I'm working on cutting my plug in appliances right down... Like there's lots of kitchen appliances that we could do by hand - squeeze citrus fruit, mix bread in a bowl with a wooden spoon. Good exercize for arm muscles too. It'd be good fun to see who had the least in their household.

On the scientific debate about global warming, I have to admit I've never studied science not even in school. I read 'An Introduction to Environmental Science' which was written in cartoons and that's about the extent of the text book study. Still, I know what I see around me. I've seen the pictures of polar bears drowning. I've seen slides of the coastlines of Bangladesh and pictures in the National Geographic of glaciers retreating or disappearing. I just find it incredible that anyone would want to distract from the effort to stop global warming or environmental destruction in general. Anyone who has cycled behind an SUV has an intuition that what's coming out of the exhaust ain't no good for the air whether it contributes to global warming or not. Of course, I definitely believe it does, but I suppose I'm trying to say that I think anyone who would deny global warming must be blind.

On the powerdown and if anything happened in Ireland. I got a couple of e-mails and I know I turned everything off and lit candles, but I didn't see a black out in Finglas... A friend of mine on the SCR made a big banner about it. I didn't see any media coverage so I'm afraid it probably passed off unoticed.

Finally with reference to the establishment media jumping on the bandwagon of environmentalism / global warming, I have to say I'm over the moon. At long last I feel less of a freak telling people I'm getting the ferry/cycling for political reasons/growing my own food/darning my jumpers etc etc Anyway thanks for the article and comments

by R. Isible Mon Feb 19, 2007 21:21

Like there's lots of kitchen appliances that we could do by hand - squeeze citrus fruit, mix bread in a bowl with a wooden spoon. Good exercize for arm muscles too.

As someone that makes yeast-risen bread a couple of times a week, I'm thinking about adding to my kitchen appliances: specifically a bread-maker. My wrists are completely knackered every time I knead the bread and it takes up too much time. Add to that that baking it in the oven probably uses a wasteful amount of energy (the oven does heat the kitchen nicely in the winter, but it'll be horrible in the summer and I'd rather have the energy delivered when needed for either heating or cooling).

Which is all a way of saying that I agree with individual responsibility and I try to take it, but that the solution isn't always to go low-tech.

As further examples (and I know you didn't mention organic farming, but other more practical things like bicycling and not using air-travel)

The Economist (Dec 7th or thereabouts) had an article which argued that organic farming, fairtrade etc were actually bad in some ways ( you need a login) http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaySto...80592

Nature in 2004 had a special series on organic farming
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/organicfarming/index....html
and one of the linked papers questions again whether or not organic food is better for the environment (The Economist essentially warms over this material and does a Malthusian extrapolation to argue that the hungry hordes can't be fed)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/full/42....html

by Terence Tue Feb 20, 2007 00:26

And meanwhile the debate continues here and around the world and as I pointed out earlier, this rubbish of we still have time... is increasingly been proved wrong. We are in fact already way further into this that people realize and in this latest report in the Guardian today partially quoted here.

A critical meltdown of ice sheets and severe sea level rise could be inevitable because of global warming, the world's scientists are preparing to warn their governments. New studies of Greenland and Antarctica have forced a UN expert panel to conclude there is a 50% chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided" because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere...

And who said it was all down to the individual.....

The revelation comes as a new report points out that greenhouse gas emissions running into hundreds of millions of tonnes have not been disclosed by Britain's biggest businesses, masking the full extent of the UK's contribution to global warming...

by Lara Hill Tue Feb 20, 2007 14:13

thanks R. Isible for comments on organic farming and links. I don't want to subscribe to the Economist so can't read that, but I checked out the 'Nature' articles.

The arguments against organic growning are really very weak - like the one where cows which are fed hormones produce more milk so we need less cows, less methane. And the other one was organic farming can't satisfy our meat-rich diets... eh the problem is the North's diet not organic farming. I'm vegetarian so it doesn't dissuade me of the importance of organic growing. I think the LOAF organisation in UK have it right where they stress all these criteria 1) LOCAL 2) ORGANIC 3) ANIMAL WELFARE 4) FAIRTRADE. I don't know if you can prioritise one over the other. I think we need them all and it's silly and selfish to buy organic kiwi fruit in plastic packaging from new zealand or organic green beans from kenya. Ideally the answer seems to me to grow some of your own food: it fulfills all of the 4 above criteria and I don't think any of them are dispensable.

I also think you can't discuss organic vs. conventional farming without facing up to the population issue.

On the breadmaker, yeah I take your point about waste energy in the oven....But I try to do a couple of things at a time and of course use the oven heat to dry out eggshells to put around plants to stop slugs in the organic communal garden I'm involved in - right on!

by R. Isible Tue Feb 20, 2007 17:49

The Australian govt has announced that it will no longer be possible to sell incandescent light bulbs, but only CF (compact fluorescent) bulbs by the end of 3 years.

by R. Isible Tue Feb 20, 2007 18:17

I think we need them all and it's silly and selfish to buy organic kiwi fruit in plastic packaging from new zealand or organic green beans from kenya. Ideally the answer seems to me to grow some of your own food: it fulfills all of the 4 above criteria and I don't think any of them are dispensable.

I'd find it hard to disagree with any of that. But Terry seems to be arguing that modifying our behaviour to reduce these inputs to global warming are either: not enough (we need some unspecified government action); too late.

Any of those arguments seem to raise the question as to what are the actual contributions in terms of greenhouse gas footprint. The Nature paper above suggests that there isn't really that much to be shaved off of conventional agriculture (in terms of energy savings which probably can be projected to mean greenhouse gas emissions):

A typical study at Washington State University in Pullman totted up the energy consumed by labour, machinery, electricity, fertilizer, pesticides and weed control to grow apples in organic and conventional orchards, and found the organic orchard to be 7% more energy efficient


W.r.t. the arguments that in some ways organic farming may not be good for the environment I take your point that not drinking milk bypasses the methane emissions from dairy-cows argument. But given that most people aren't going to give up milk [*] it would be better if their milk was producing less methane (by being produced from fewer cows being dosed with more BST, or even rBST).

Again it's probably trying to go for achievable goals. Unless Terry is correct and we should just give up because it's too late. (There's some weird psychology around this stuff and it's not that there's now a sudden shock about anthropogenic climate change. I remember a friend's mother 20 years ago observing to my friend and me, in response to a radio item on climate change, that it didn't matter to her because she wouldn't be around by the time it happened. I understood what she was saying but wondered what her hopes for her son and grandchildren were. I just heard the exact same thing from a young mother of two a month ago.)

* I actually prefer the taste of the soymilk products produced by convicted monopolists/price-fixers and GM soybean users ArcherDanielsMidland and find that milk tastes slightly nasty now. Alpro seems OK, but still not as good as "Silk" which isn't apparently sold in Ireland.

by Terence Tue Feb 27, 2007 15:14

Adding further to the debate here, I present some figures for the total number of kilometres travelled by 3 classes of vehicles in Ireland for 2001. The results are in the first graph. From that we can see the total is 33.5 billion miles of which Heavy Goods Vehices make up 7%, LGVs 10% and travel by car accounts for the huge majority at 82%.

At first sight this can be interpretated to support the notion that individuals are responsible for much of our CO2 emissions. However we have to start thinking about the structure of our built environment to help determine if this is really the case. Therefore as an execise a reasonable assumption was made that 70% of all car drivers drive 10km each way to work for 220 days a year in order to see how much of this is 'essential' driving. Apparently the average commute distance is 9 miles (~15km), so these figures may be an underestimate. From the calculations we can see that driving to work alone appears to make up about 1/8th or 12% of the total (or 15% of the car total). This immediately tells us that the availability of public transport and location of work have quite an effect.

The car figure also does not separate out the portion of car driving that is for business use and unfortunately I don't have figures for the total number of km travelled by sales people and others. However many sales people clock up at least double the mileage of the average car user -which from the NRA figures for 2001 is 19,864 km/year/car.

As a further exercise to tease out how much more driving is imposed on the public I have presented the results in graph 2 of how the relationship between the distance to your local shop where you do your weekly shopping and the average number of kms driven. Bear in mind that about 30+ years ago, most people walked to their nearest shop(s) to do their weekly shopping and so mileage would have been very low.

What I have done is to assume in a given 1/2 (0.5) square km that 1000 people drive the 0.5 km to their shop to give a total of 500 km mileage for them. I have also attempted to capture the mileage of the truck deliveries -although as foods have changed this is harder to control. But again I make the wide assumption that the suppliers are 50km away and there are 200 of them, giving them a total mileage of 10,000 km.

Now as we close down (smaller) shops and replace them with bigger supermarkets, they basically take over the customers of all those in the former squares they occupied. So by moving to a 1 square km grid, that eats up 4 x 0.5km square and the average distance goes up to 1 km and the total number of customers goes up to 4000. Likewise for 2km grid for a shop with now 16,000 km.

Now remember these are only estimates, in that the actuall number of customers is probably higher, but what it has shown is that as we have more and more big-box stores and move towards the American urban model and which has happened dramatically in the last 30 years, it obviously becomes impractical to walk further and further with a load of shopping/grocieries and we are forced to drive with the effect that the total mileage by all the shoppers (i.e. the public) begins to soar. The figure at the end of the table hints that as there are less shops to deliver to, the total mileage for the deliveries may gone down a bit, but any drop here is going to be completely swamped by the shopper's mileage. Another way of looking at this is a certain burden of the cost of transport has been passed onto the public.

And finally in the last graph, we can that all this driving has affected our total oil imports very significantly with the total now up around 9 millions tonnes per year. As far as I know this corresponds to about 180,000 barrels per day. It is worth noting the dip in the long term growth trend from the 1960s due to the oil crisis and recession in the 1980s.

Clearly something has to be done.

Estimated total mileage for all vehicel types in Ireland for 2001

As the shops get further away the total mileage goes up.

Graph of our ever climbing oil imports

by Martin Sun Mar 11, 2007 03:53

In my view, individuals do have a shared responsibility for the carbon emissions embodied in the products they buy. If a product is transported in an inefficient system in order to be sold at a supermarket, they have the choice (hopefully) to buy from a farmer's market or a locally owned store.

The alternative to assuming responsibility at this level is to hand the reins of power to big business by lobbying them to change their practices instead of (rather than in addition to) applying consumer power for a better outcome.