Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Updated at 4.30pm
IF YOU’VE BEEN keeping up with the leadership race in the British Labour Party, you will know that the front-runner is Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn is from Labour’s leftest wing and has ridden a surge of support from young people and new Labour supporters to move from being a rank outsider to the frontrunner to succeed Ed Miliband, who resigned after losing May’s general election.
A recent YouGov poll showed Corbyn on 53% of support, 32 points ahead of nearest rival Andy Burnham. That was up ten points from the first poll, having seemingly come from nowhere to seize the race.
Yesterday, the last man to win an election as Labour leader had his say.
“The Labour party is in danger more mortal today than at any point in the over 100 years of its existence,” Tony Blair wrote in an article in the Guardian.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re on the left, right or centre of the party, whether you used to support me or hate me. But please understand the danger we are in.
“If Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader … It will mean rout, possibly annihilation.”
The piece angered a lot of people on Twitter, who saw the former Prime Minister as over-stepping his boundaries.
Whatever Blair’s intent, it has galvanised many in their support of Corbyn, who is seen as the antidote to Labour lurching to the centre in search of electoral gains.
Corbyn, 66, is a veteran campaigner who has repeatedly voted against the Labour party line over his 32 years in parliament, supports scrapping nuclear weapons, and has never held a frontline ministerial position.
But more centrist Labour lawmakers and voters have expressed fear his policies are out of sync with the wider British electorate.
With AFP reporting
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Ramon Ryan’s Data Centres will blow that percentage decrease into pieces, seems to be one rule for one & another for everyone else, with the Greens.
@SV3tN8M4: The newly elected roddy will sort it john, keep the faith puncher repair kit, and all ..
@SV3tN8M4: Data center can actually participate in decreasing it, we just don’t use them that way. In many other places, those data centres are used to heat houses or produce energy with the heat they produce. Too bad we don’t do that here. We can also easily install solar panels over their flat roof for production on electricity, I am surprised it’s not even mandatory at that point.
I am guessing it’s better to tax regular people than do the right thing for the Green Khmer.
@SV3tN8M4: Data centres are small compared to farming, Data Centres generate 2% to 3% of our annual CO2 emissions v 38.5% for farming.
Also, Dairy cow numbers increased by 50% or half a million dairy cows in the last 10 years, since the end of the EU milk quota. Last year, 1.5 million dairy cows produced 8.3 billion litres of milk, 94% was exported, generating a revenue of €6.3 billion.
That means the growing dairy sector (1 litre of milk generates 1.1 kg of CO2) increased our CO2 emissions by 4.84 million tonnes of CO2 per annum, about 3.5 times all data centres combined.
@SV3tN8M4: well we need data centres so we can see all the ranting in the Journal
@Alex: some datacenters use more electricity than whole towns. They also demand alot I’d water. At least 30% of our electricity is going to data centers. They even get it cheaper than the ordinary joe citizen. These places are very damaging to the environment. They are far from green.
@Alex: well actually there are schemes in place to use the water from data centres and I think one is up and running in Tallaght
@David Jordan: 30% of our entire electricity generation goes to data centers. Ships coming in here loaded with coal and gas just to power data centers. They do not absorb the carbon. Farmland draws carbon out of the air and grows stuff. Some farms in this country are carbon negative. Ie the Farmland takes more out than the farm produces. Why are google and Facebook mad to buy the carbon credits off the farmers.
@SV3tN8M4: Cant stand any good news that contradicts your “Greens bad” agenda. Brought to us straight from Exxon
@Peter Byrne: You’re the biggest smart arse on the journal, peter, aren’t you not?
@Washpenrebel: Done spreading misinformation? Because all you wrote is BS. We need data center, like it or not they actually participate to CO2 reduction even if they use quite some energy. Would you like to get all your data stored on paper and have it shipped every time you need something ? Because that’s what it will be and it will use a lot more CO2 since all the processes will take from 0.01sec to hours or days. They are also a massive source of employment.
@David Jordan: trust in David…its the cows fault. Nothing to do with the rape of our planet for a century by those telling us all to reform and cull the herd. Which herd is next to cull when the cows are gone?
@Alex: data centres are bad, all they do is store your private information,, cows good, they keep you alive
@David Jordan: you’re 100%right
We need to get rid of farmers and go on a strict diet of data instead of food
@Alex: Data Centers do NOT contribute to CO2 reduction.
They increase it.
*We* do not need Data Centers located in Ireland. the way the Internet works Data Centers can be located anywhere.
All the energy consumed by Data Centers located here is generated from fossil fuels, and is the single major consumer of the fossil fuels used to generate electricity, and the single largest contributor of CO2 from the electricity generation sector.
Those Data Centers are also the cause of the majority, if not all, of any fines we will incur as a result of not meeting our CO2 targets from the electricity sector.
@Alex: when there is a shortage of food. You can’t eat a hard drive. You do know the irish electricity grid is at capacity and the solution is more data centers… they are also building a water pipeline to Dublin to feed water to these data centers.
@SV3tN8M4: data centres will inevitably be powered by green energy, more coming on stream every year. If in the mean time, we have to import more electricity to keep things ticking over, then so be it – they do pay for their power after all.. if this is the best place for them, then keep them here I say. Great construction jobs in it also.
@Washpenrebel: your some man for misinformation
@Eoghan: We are far from having all our electricity generated from renewable energy sources.
Not least because of these Data Centers.
And each additional Data Center pushes that time further away.
In the meantime, they consume electricity from fossil fuels. Soon, they will be the sole consumer of fossil-fuel sourced energy.
@David Jordan: There are the same number of cows in Ireland now as 1980s, meantime population has grown by over a million. There must be double the amount of cars on the road, and the amount of flights has gone through the roof
@Washpenrebel: Data Centres will help with the transition to renewables, it is part of the plan, I now realise.
All new data centres, since 2022, must be built with 100% renewable generation capacity. If a new Facebook data centre requires 20 megawatts of electricity, then Facebook must build 20 megawatts of renewable generation capacity.
“There are conditions attached to planning permissions. Sometimes those conditions are based on the data centre policy, as issued in 2022, which requires, for example, that all new data centres are provided and are matched with additional renewable energy generation capacity” – Data Centres Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday – 28 September 2023
Also, they can sell excess electricity and heat to consumers. Data Centres also install battery back-up storage, to store their renewable generation (when the wind does not blow). This can be used to store energy for all of Ireland
So this is why the government is encouraging data centres. The companies building them are at the forefront of renewable electricity generation. Google, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft etc. are building their own renewable generation capacity and massive battery backups. IBM now claims its data centres in the US are running on 74% renewables.
This is the reason why the government is encouraging data centres, the plan is to use Data Centres as an integral part of Ireland’s transition to renewable electricity generation (we need more electricity, domestic use will skyrocket soon, more electric vehicle and heat pumps). We’re getting a distributed green energy generation and storage upgrade off the backs of IT companies.
As for some of your other points:
“Farmland draws carbon out of the air…”
You might think that since animals are turning the carbon in food into meat and milk
However, Pig, Sheep, Poultry, Dairy and Beef farms generate methane, a greenhouse gas 30 times stronger than CO2, and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) a gas 273 times stronger than CO2 (from animal waste and fertilizer use). So they are very polluting overall. The most polluting are dairy and beef farms. They also pollute rivers, 47% of Irish rivers have excess nitrate and phosphorus, mainly due to agriculture.
“Some farms in this country are carbon negative. ie the Farmland takes more out than the farm produces.”
Yes, while a few farms many be carbon negative, such as forestry or leaving a bog untouched, most farms today generate more greenhouse gasses than they sequester. That said, perhaps in the future, e.g. tillage farms might use new techniques to enhance soil sequestration:
Madigan, A.P., Zimmermann, J., Krol, D.J., Williams, M. and Jones, M.B., 2022. Full Inversion Tillage (FIT) during pasture renewal as a potential management strategy for enhanced carbon sequestration and storage in Irish grassland soils. Science of the Total Environment, 805, p.150342.
However, if Ireland’s agricultural sector was to reduce GHG emissions using soil sequestration, that would mean transitioning dairy and meat farms to tillage, not easy. Farms are businesses, they need to make a living. They are not going to switch if it affects profits.
“Why are Google and Facebook mad to buy the carbon credits off the farmers.”
Good idea. The farms that are sequestering carbon can sell carbon credits. That may encourage e.g. dairy and beef farmers to move to tillage, orchards, agroforestry, become carbon negative and sell their carbon credits to Ryanair.
@Max: “There are the same number of cows in Ireland now as 1980s, meantime population has grown by over a million”
I read people say this before, but it does not make sense, really. All it shows is, we have the ability to squeeze in 1.5 million dairy cows into Ireland, but it doesn’t make it environmentally acceptable.
Also, do you remember what happened in the 1970-80s? Short-sighted EU policies resulted in massive overproduction of dairy products, we ended up with butter mountains and milk lakes. A lot of food was wasted and not eaten. So it does not make sense to compare us to the 1980s when we were overproducing, when there was a market failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_mountain
The difference now is we can sell our produce abroad, outside the EU. This is how we can produce 8.8 billion litres of milk and not drown in the stuff.
That said, consider the environmental effects of selling to countries thousands of miles away rather than encouraging local production that cuts down of transport emissions.
This is why, as a logical kind of guy, I absolutely don’t get it why people complain about Taylor Swift jetting around the world, but ignore the 35,000 tonnes of dairy we flew to China last year. It doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, get angry about the pollution that 1 Taylor Swift caused, but I don’t understand why 35,000 tones of dairy gets a pass.
We sold 35,000 tonnes of dairy to China in 2022, worth €722 million. Now, as I explained earlier, the carbon footprint of a Chinese dairy farm is the same as an Irish dairy farm, so there’s no net saving there. Also, factor in transport, shipping thousands of tonnes of dairy products to China. It’s 1,000 Taylor Swifts.
@David Jordan: Ireland are the greenest dairy producers though, so we should be ramping up and exporting more and have the factory farms shut down. Ireland emmisions would increase but global ones would reduce.
@Noel McGivern:
re ” Ireland are the greenest dairy producers though … ”
Scientific evidence?
@David Jordan: Data centres aren’t responsible for feeding a population, agriculture is required for a functioning society.
@David Jordan: but we can’t eat data and they don’t create jobs like farming. Every 1 farm 6 jobs created. Emissions down in farming by 4.5 %
@David Jordan: you’re some spoon
I wish they would increase grants for working people or give tax relief on spending of upgrades for improvements. I can’t afford 9k for solar panels or 12k for heat pump plus all the additional works I would need. I work for a living, pay a mortgage and support 2 kids by myself. Where do they think I’m going to get the money. No point giving me a low rate loan when I still can’t afford the repayments!
@S Os:
Would be a waste of time.
My brother got a solar system just before the Ukrainian war, €8k, so let’s say €4k parts and €4k labour
12 months later I priced the same system, cheapest was €16k.
Now I know the materials went up but it would have taken the same amount of time.
If the grants go up the costs I’ll go up by the same amount.
@S Os: Try Kellihers electrical supply.A standard 440W panel with 20 or 30 years of manufacturer warranty should not cost more than € 100.- anywhere in Ireland.
@P. J.: You are believing the tooth fairy … grants :)
Since the French atom power park collapsed in Winter 2021/22 (the so called “energy crisis” – https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/economy/arid-40767462.html ) the prices for PV equipment have fallen to less than 50%
PS
Prices statistics for PV panels here:
http://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/22/solar-module-prices-hovering-at-all-time-lows/
The prices are still falling.
@Juri Hertel: And the cost of the mounting system?
And the cabling.
And the controllers, inverters, monitoring systems?
And the cost of installation?
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: ALL prices fell:
http://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/07/02/pv-market-eyes-recovery-amid-falling-module-prices/
And what difference to global warning will that do ?. The cost of this in taxes is too high. I’m all for helping if it would stip China, Germany, US, Russia, India, do what they are doing.
@did you every wonder: Germany is ahead of us in terms of reduction. USA comparable to us. Russia, China and India are growing their emissions though Russia emits less now than it did in 1990. And reductions has not been achieved by taxes. Carbon taxes are a small part of the picture. Investment in alternatives that benefit everyone is the main cause. I hope it accelerates and we can meet our 2030 targets.
Never a word about green House gases in 1990
@John Kenny: there was. That’s when they banned the aerosol cans that were creating holes in the ozone layer
@Michael o Dwyer: not a word about the ozone layer now
@John Kenny: that’s because the CFCs (in the aerosol cans) were banned and replaced with usable alternatives, and the hole is repairing itself. Likewise, the Y2K date problem only turned out ok because loads of work was put in to fix the affected machines. It shows that we can fix things if it’s easy, but cutting CO2 is harder because there is a lack of comparable alternatives to energy-dense fossil fuels (but if we don’t try, we’re screwed).
@Stephen Wallis: The hole repaired itself because of a ban on a few aerosols, that’s a laugh. What about all the space exploration, war, satellites being launched into space, I suppose the ozone layer ignores these events.
@Seanie: The hole in the ozone layer was primarily caused by CFCs. Any impact that space exploration, war and satellites being launched have is minimal. This is clear from the fact that the hole is closing and we have more satellites than ever. War was in decline globally but I think is now on the rise again.
@John Kenny:
re ” Never a word about green House gases in 1990 ”
But you weren’t there?
@N M: the ozone hole is back baby!
We import 30% of electricity? Whatever happened to hydroelectric? We have many flowing rivers. In the last century various mills and some factories had water wheels to generate power to operate their equipment. Why not update this concept and built something similar for domestic and possibly business/industrial use throughout the country
@Paul1st: There’s a few pldams already but don’t have the large rivers and strong flows required. Our hydroelectric capacity is maxed out.
@Paul1st: Eh,no.
Read the article again:
” … 12-fold increase in imported electricity, which made up 9.5% of electricity supply in 2023″
The article does not mention exports of electricity,this might have to be balanced versus the imports.Check this out.
‘Supply’ and ‘consumption’ are two different things.The article does not highlight the difference.
- ‘supply’ is fed into the grid (also for export)
- ‘consumption’ is the overall usage in Ireland incl. home generated PV for example(zero emissions).But then this home made solar electricity consumed at the premise is not balanced anywhere in emission report.
ESB/Eirgrid does not even report the PV power to the relevant statistical bodies incl. ENTSOE,see
https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&defaultValue=false&viewType=GRAPH&areaType=BZN&atch=false&datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&dateTime.dateTime=09.07.2024+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&dateTime.endDateTime=09.07.2024+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&area.values=CTY|10YIE-1001A00010!BZN|10Y1001A1001A59C&productionType.values=B01&productionType.values=B02&productionType.values=B03&productionType.values=B04&productionType.values=B05&productionType.values=B06&productionType.values=B07&productionType.values=B08&productionType.values=B09&productionType.values=B10&productionType.values=B11&productionType.values=B12&productionType.values=B13&productionType.values=B14&productionType.values=B20&productionType.values=B15&productionType.values=B16&productionType.values=B17&productionType.values=B18&productionType.values=B19&dateTime.timezone=CET_CEST&dateTime.timezone_input=CET+(UTC+1)+/+CEST+(UTC+2)
We can assume (due to inconsistency with international standards) that the EPA statistics are faked.
PS
The direct link to the Irish Entsoe reported statistics doesn’t work.Here the front page:
https://transparency.entsoe.eu/
Click on ” Actual Generation per Production Type – Spain “,in the new window click on Ireland.No verfied PV power production in Ireland.
If they just introduce more taxes it’ll come down and it’ll stop raining aswel sun will cone out.
That’s Gas
Straight to the comments without reading the article!
Sleepy Ryan…China…it’s just weather…copy and paste BS…etc, etc.
Sorry, have to post this separately before the empirical defence crowd showed up.
One of my greatest achievements has been to resolve an issue that once caused the Church to jettison its astronomical heritage, as the genuine argument was whether a Sun-centred system could be demonstrated using the predictive Ptolemaic framework beyond a hypothesis.
It can be done using a satellite tracking along with the Earth.
Galileo saw Jupiter’s moons run back and forth around their parent planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcrBAuLBXag
We can now see the faster-moving Venus and Mercury closer to the Sun, running back and forth around our parent star.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg
This is for those who are considerate as it represents a historical juncture today.
So many here are victims of unresolved astronomical issues and the decisions of the Catholic Church centuries ago.
“When the ordinary man hears that the Church told Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis which saved all the celestial phenomena satisfactorily, but “not as being the truth,” he laughs. But this was really how Ptolemaic astronomy had been taught! In its actual place in history, it was not a casuistic quibble; it was the refusal to allow the introduction of a new and momentous doctrine. It was not simply a new theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory, namely, that if a hypothesis saves all the appearances. It is identical with truth.” Barfield 1957
Few can discuss what is being said.
Within the manifesto of experimental theorists is a belief that an experimental hypothesis/prediction scales up to an astronomical hypothesis/prediction.
“Rule III. The qualities of bodies that are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments are to be esteemed as the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.” Isaac Newton
The universal theory of gravity was based on the belief that the attraction of the apple to the Earth scales up to the attraction of the Earth to the Sun. The modellers use it today to assert that conditions in a greenhouse ( experiment) scale up to the Earth’s atmosphere (universal qualities).
I believe there are people who are more considerate in these matters in order to deal with a subculture through the misadventures of theorists.
@Gerald Kelleher: Can we see your brain working on U-tube?
So Green policies have an effect. Keep up the good work. Thanks Eamo, f the begrudge!
@Padraig O’Brien:
:)
@Padraig O’Brien:
Being naive is not a crime, but neither does it present an encouraging snapshot of society outside academic/political circles.
The taxpayer funded academic community supplies politicians with the help of journalists, to dump hysteria and taxes on people. A 21st-century version of Papal indulgences.
The real victim is the research of climate as the lucrative modelling community with their dire predictions have made it toxic for years to come.
Irish society has found itself inside a subculture, while in the era of Galileo and Copernicus, that subculture was outside mainstream research. Newton’s scientific method Modelling sent that subculture mainstream through clockwork solar system modelling.
“In the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they either missed out on something essential or brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles. If the hypotheses they assumed were not fallacies, everything following them could be independently verified.” Copernicus
An experimental hypothesis is not the same thing as an astronomical hypothesis, and an experimental prediction is not the same as an astronomical prediction.
Copernicus had to propose a Sun-centred system and a moving Earth as a hypothesis as he was obligated to use Ptolemy’s framework, which provided astronomers at the time with accurate predictions of the positions of objects relative to each other, including the position of the Moon relative to the Sun, which creates solar eclipses.
An experimental hypothesis is a guess; in this case, a garden greenhouse equates to the Earth’s atmosphere, while carbon dioxide is a thermostat. Introduce cunning human-related terms like carbon footprint, and people might not notice that these modellers are convinced humanity controls the weather through a carbon dioxide thermostat.
Ireland has a wonderful maritime climate that will not change apart from in the minds of those list to a subculture.
One of my greatest achievements has been to resolve an issue that once caused the Church to jettison its astronomical heritage, as the genuine argument was whether a Sun-centred system could be demonstrated using the predictive Ptolemaic framework beyond a hypothesis.
It can be done using satellite tracking along with the Earth.
Galileo saw Jupiter’s moons run back and forth around their parent planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcrBAuLBXag
We can now see the faster-moving Venus and Mercury closer to the Sun, running back and forth around our parent star.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg
It is that simple and enjoyable, and no scientific method needed. It is a product of 21st century technology (satellite) and the barest perceptive effort to connect the time-lapse.
@Gerald Kelleher: daily dose of inane drivel from you
Really? I think there’s an election coming up and we are all supposed to feel good about the government. I call bull on this.
re.
“However, when land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) are included, the overall reduction was actually lower at 3.8%.”
As far as I know the natural die-back of our broad leafed trees ash and elm due to diseases is not included in the LULUFC statistics.
These two types of trees present about 10% of our mature trees here in the South.
Excluding reality from carbon emission statistics is as well seen with aviation and shipping fuel.
So de-facto Ireland’s emissions from decaying biomass (timber) and from international wars on the environment and on people (refueling war planes at Shannon airport!) have been excluded from the picture shown to the dumb public.
have your say