Low Carbon Life

by Rational ecologist - None Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:58

I am 100% opposed to incineration, let me make that clear from the outset. However, to try to use the climate change angle regarding incineration is unlikely to convince the public of the worthiness of CHASE's position. A smart pro-incineration arguement would confuse and obfuscate the debate along the lines of a linear energy audit and probably-mischievously-come up with the conclusion that incineration is a better option and will in fact have less of a carbon impact.
There is a bit of naivety in positing this arguement. The health angle has to be stressed as CHASE's submissions at the two hearings were not addressed or countered.
We have to get people on the streets of Cork to highlight this issue and not preach to the converted on a forum such as Indymedia. Those who are in favour of incineration are delighted when we take action in this way.
There is an election coming up, it's an opportunity to look the politicians in the eye on this one.
I am supportive of the reasoning behind the arguement, however, before using such arguements it would be wise to see how the pro-incineration lobby would counter it.

by maire Thu Mar 22, 2007 17:28

The only way to convince the public of the worthiness of CHASE's position is to open the debate on all sides, economic as well as health.

Citizens and tax payers pay for incinerators' financial problems.

The net cost per ton to burn wastes is at least twice the cost of controlled landfilling, and many times the costs of recycling and composting strategies. Incineration is capital intensive versus labour intensive. For every 10,000 metric tons per year of capacity, one full-time job is created. whereas 11 jobs per 10,000 metric tons processed are sustained.
The reality of these facilities having benefits of waste to energy is offset by the amount of energy that could be saved by recycling and resource conservation.
If there is a bit of naivety in positing the economic arguement, it is because of the realisation of this particular government allowing this acquisitive company the control of a monopoly tolling waste industry, without the obligation of having health addressed or countered.

Proper costings of incinerator must take into account the costs to society of adverse health effects including cancer, respiratory disease, disruption of the endocrine system and congenital birth defects. Future probable litigation costs of risks, already alerted to the public, and the misinformation to the the public, on its government publication Race against Waste, about the health effects of emission from modern incineration are areas that must be addressed and debated.

You are correct there is an election coming up, and with it the opportunity to use our vote wisely and informed.

by Miriam Cotton Thu Mar 22, 2007 19:18

It 's naive to assume that only those who agree with us are reading this site - as any regular reader of the incineration threads will kow full well. They are targetted by pro-incinerator lobbyists virtually every day - and all of the obfuscating and disingenuous arguments that the poster above refers to are routinely deployed here so as to distract other contributors/users down all the usual blind alleys. But in doing so they lay themselves open to a form of challenge and accountability that is unavailable to us in any other forum. It's a pity you haven't been here to tackle the insidious and misleading arguments that Maire and I have been challenging, for example - you may have valuable information to add that would 'convert' people who are less familiar with the issue. Indymedia is in fact just about the only news forum where all of the issues about incinceration can be fully aired - the only place where the industray representatives are forced to discuss the issue on a level playing field. Mainstream media doesnt touch it, by comparison. The exchange of information and news here is still a million times better than anything the EPA, An Bord Pleanala etc etc have been able to come up with (stacked as most of those bodies are with industry reps - and corrupted by industry-biased objection processes). This site is read by far more people than actually comment here - people of every political hue are reading it for a variety of reasons. So, rather than setting up a false dichotomy, the appropriate response to your comment is surely that both public discussion AND direct action are needed.

Where CHASE are concerned, there has not been nearly enough of the latter. There appears to be some sort of conviction that stopping this industry can be achieved by obediently following a process that is specifically designed to tie us up in knots. Some people appear to think it's not 'respectable' or whatever to be seen picketing or involved in forms of peaceful direct action. They are weakening the possibility of success. Unless or until we stop pretending that drawing room diplomacy has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, the objection is likely doomed. Direct action is urgently needed - but not at the expense of abandoning the most valuable forum there is for airing the facts behind the arguments.

Also, it is hugely disappointing that CHASE have not come out more forcibly in support of the Shell to Sea Campaign - the issues are identical at heart - as they are in every other environmental protest throughout the country. With the general election looming surely -be- to- God these protest groups can abandon their myopia for a few months at least, and make a concerted effort to show the government the huge scale of the opposition to developmental and environmental degradation which they are forcing on us so a handful of industrialists can make vast profits - no doubt with all the customary kickbacks for those who ease the way for them. The real villains are the lamentable opposition parties - if a single one of them took up this issue as a guaranteed non-negotiable...but it's the same with every blasted issue - spinelessness and inertia at every turn.

by Anarchy Rules Thu Mar 22, 2007 21:06

I'm all for global awareness. And I'm all for keeping healthy.

However I'm not a member of any group who oppose climate change. Climate has always changed and it will always change regardless as to how we feel about it.

Are we responsible ultimately for climate change?

I honestly don't know. But I honestly doubt it. The argument that suggests we are, reminds me of the old argument that puts man as the centre and driving force of the universe. I feel there are far superior arguments to be had that argue effectively against incinerators, e.g. immediate health effects on those in near vicinity, long term health effects, long terms capabilities of incinerators. However, adding incinerators to the CO2 bandwaggon, particularly at a time when the said bandwaggon is going a bit wobbley, is a tactical error that will be regretted, in my opinion.

What about the best reason in the world for not having an incinerator?

"WE DON'T WANT IT!!"

Here's a recent documentary from Channel Four that shows that the old CO2 bandwaggon aint running as smoothly as it once did.
The Great Global Warming Swindle:- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-45206654748994...58831

I'm not saying I accept all the arguments this documentary makes (specially where the left in general are slagged off), but it is food for thought.

by maire Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:22

This is a time of global warming - fact.
This is a time of climate change - fact.
Carbon emissions are rising - fact.
Incineration adds to our CO2 emissions- fact.
A country that has not commercial incineration is in a win win situation. - fact
There have been missed opportunities already to plan to cut our emissions. - fact.
Commercial Incineration is a policy of our present government - fact.
Money from my and your pocket will be burned - fact.
Health aspects and their effects on populations living near large incinerators, have not been properly debated - fact.
Responsibility for personal safety rests with ourselves - fact

by Fiddler Fri Mar 23, 2007 15:45

The connection between CO2 and global warming is not what it seems. It appears that CO2 levels rise is response to global temperature increases and not the other way around.
Even if CO2 levels were causing global warming, the amount of C02 produced by humans is insignificant when you compare them with the amounts released by the world's oceans, volcanic eruptions and rotting vegetation.
In fact the most likely culprit for global warming is the greatest heat source in our solar system - the Sun.
It has been proven that recorded global temperatures - based on analysis of ice cores from Greenland and Antartica - directly correlate with periods of sunspot activity on the sun.
Global temperatures have not being rising in response to industrialisation - the period of intense industrialisation that we should be really focusing upon is the post war 1940's to the present - in fact from about the mid 1940's to about the early 1970's global temperatures actually DROPPED and at this time climatologists predicted that there may well be an ice age by the mid 21st century!
At many times in the past tens of millions of years indeed even within the past ten thousand years the levels of the oceans have risen and fallen, ice has advanced and shrunk again and temperatures have risen and fallen dramatically - in the absence (as far as we know) of advanced civilisation on this planet.
Weather forecasters are often unable to predict tomorrows weather reliably so I sincerely doubt that scientists are able to predict the world's climate 50 years from now.
Without a shred of evidence for their hysteria, green theologians are bent on establishing a totalitarian world religion in order to "save the planet." Anyone who questions them is considered a holocaust denier.
Green ideology stems from a sickness among Western intellectuals who are guilt ridden at the success they enjoy from the scientific and economic advances won by their ancestors who tamed the natural world. These people see themselves as an alien species as if the activities of homo sapiens who build cities town and villages and watch TV and use washing machines were less natural than rabbits who build burrows.
Proponents of green theology want to halt all technological advancement, halt population growth, halt economic growth and return to the dark ages when there were no factories, no roads, no cars or airplanes, no electricity and no civilisation.
They are neo-primitivists, anti-human idiots who would prefer the Third World to remain in poverty and see billions live in misery and stifle the human impulse to better his/her self and the world around them.

by maire Fri Mar 23, 2007 16:59

Human influence over climate change has been signalled by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It drew conclusions based on scientific evidence, and set limits to the degree of certainty - 90%, that the increase in average global temperatures over the past half century is due to human induced releases of greenhouse gases.
Nobody is claiming that the major climate changes ( ice ages) that have taken place in the last 8 million years had to do with CO2.
The increase in CO2 over the last 60 year period has increased from 315 parts per million (ppm) to 380 ppm while they never rose above 280 ppm during the interglacials periods in the past.You state that the amount of Co2 produced by humans is insignificant when you compare them with the amounts released by the world's oceans, however if the oceans had not absorbed more than 40% of the human induced co2 the levels would be much higher.
Nobody could expect weather forecasters to be able to predict weather in terms of years let alone months, however the EPA can show effects of weather change over long periods in Ireland which you can examine very easily.
If we do not control our greed to produce co2, we will condemn the Third World to more than poverty.
"Fiddling while the planet burns" is what incineration is.

by Rational Ecologist Fri Mar 23, 2007 17:00

Maybe Fiddler's anti-green rantings don't deserve a response, however, I feel I have to. The whole solar cycles and Global Warming theory is interesting and is no doubt a factor in so-called climate change. This does not disallow man made influences on the earth's climate. And is is not just CO2, it's other gases too as well as deforestaion and increased urban sprawl. It is of course a complex issue. There are no certainties in life, save death and taxes but on the balance of the evidence then the greens have it right. Climate is changing fast and it is very likely that human influence is the main-but not only-factor.
If we are wrong on climate change then great, because we should be doing all this stuff anyway. Not because the green agenda is a killjoy one but rather it is the only rational, sustainable one.
The reason people are poor in Africa cannot be laid at the door of so-called greens. Read your history books and look at the WTO. The greedy west has been bleeding these poor countries dry for centuries.
Your references to the so-called " dark ages" again betrays a simplistic knowledge of global history. There were other cultures outside of europe, in Africa and the Americas. Your frame of reference is too eurocentric and simplistic. What is your definition of civilisation?
If you want more information on the state of the planet, look at the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We are overpopulated!
I don't wan't to return to a pre-industrial existence, however, I do want my children and theirs to inhabit a living planet and not just see Lions, Elephants et cetera in illustrated history books.

by maire Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:36

Irish symptoms in the frame of planetary health show all the signs of an incurable disease.. Let’s hope that “doctors’” assessment differing, will not mean the patient dies.
The patient could be trained to take care of himself better, and not follow certain advice that includes a high carbon diet, as this would affect its whole system. The costs of this course in carbon credits would put him in hock for the rest of his life.