We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
2019 WILL SURELY be the year of climate action.
Recent scientific reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gave us just 12 years to make drastic cuts to the greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for climate change if we are to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
Human activities have altered the Earth’s living systems beyond recognition. We have left our mark on Planet Earth in seriously negative ways and climate change is the most visible and urgent threat that we humans have inflicted on the planet.
Ireland is among the poorest performers in Europe for tackling climate change. We cannot continue to hide behind the emissions of other countries and claim we have no duty to act. Individual action, no matter how well-intentioned, will have almost no effect without strong state leadership and multilateral cooperation.
That is why we must challenge our government in a historic high court case starting 22 January.
Human Activity
Once an insignificant speck, humans are now in a sense responsible for the whole planet’s future.
Of course, ‘humans’ are not a homogeneous group. There are huge inequalities and injustices behind the climate story. Colonialism, greed and ideology have all played a role in driving up both emissions and exploitation all over the world and throughout human history.
Yet most inconveniently, climate change presents itself as the challenge we all face together now, and on behalf of future generations, regardless of our degree of responsibility.
Governments are supposed to plan for the long-term, and in the common interest. But as the Swedish 15-year old activist Greta Thunberg reminded UN negotiators, all of the burden, including that of telling the truth about the real and systemic crises that face us, is being left to our children.
While the international climate negotiations have indeed been painfully slow, there is a growing body of scientific evidence and international law that should be guiding our response to climate change here in Ireland.
The Climate Case
Ireland’s performance on climate change so far has been very poor in comparison to the rest of the EU. Our government’s ongoing failure to bend the emissions curve has been repeatedly raised at national and EU level by both independent and state authorities.
The analysis produced by Climate Action Network Europe in June this year placed Ireland in second last in the EU for action and ambition on climate change. Just last month, the Climate Change Performance Index highlighted Ireland as being the worst performing country in Europe for action on climate change.
Citizens are no longer prepared to wait until the government wakes up to the challenge.
Friends of the Irish Environment under the banner ‘Climate Case Ireland’ is taking legal action against the Irish Government’s failure to take the required action to avert dangerous climate change.
Our case is inspired by global climate change litigation, including the 900 Dutch citizens of Urgenda who won their case against the Dutch Government in 2015. The District Court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch government must cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 (compared to 1990 levels).
That ruling required the government to immediately take more effective action on climate change.
We have asked the court to quash the existing climate plan and to require the government to produce an ambitious emissions reduction plan which helps to avert dangerous climate change.
While our case does not specify the means by which targets should be met, there is plenty of research showing that we will all benefit from the energy transition. Climate action demands a mobilisation of both citizens and government actions alike if we are to avert disaster.
Instead, in Ireland, we will face fines for not meeting EU targets – the Institute of International and European Affairs have estimated that Ireland could face fines between €3-6bn by 2030.
Why Ireland?
You might ask – but why Ireland? We are a tiny country, why should our emissions matter?
While China, the US and India are currently the world’s top emitters, the EU has contributed a much higher percentage of the total emissions released into the atmosphere.
And while US leadership would indeed make a big difference it should be noted that many US states are already taking decisive action to reduce emissions in spite of the federal government’s position.
Ireland’s emissions per capita are the third highest in the EU at 13.2 tCO2e per person.
Our energy, heating and transport systems, in particular, are highly dependent on polluting fossil fuels but government plans are not properly assessed for their climate and environmental impacts.
As the 64th largest emitter of emissions in the world, we can hardly expect the 130 countries that emit less than Ireland, to reduce their emissions if we don’t do likewise.
We are among the wealthiest countries in the world with high rates of economic growth and employment. It is vital that we contribute our fair share of the global effort in solidarity with developing countries who will bear the brunt of climate damage.
We cannot afford to wait until there is political consensus for strong policy measures.
The courts have a special role in ensuring that government decisions are compliant with national, EU and international law and in ensuring that human rights are protected. The Dutch case showed that citizens can access the courts to effect a change of direction.
Our case will be heard in the High Court from the 22nd of January and we are taking it on behalf of everyone in Ireland, young and old. We hope that it will inspire the public into supporting our call for greater climate ambition.
Please sign our petition here, or donate here to support this historic legal case.
Sadhbh O Neill is a spokesperson for Climate Case Ireland. She is a PhD candidate and part-time lecturer at the School of Politics and International Relations at UCD.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Oh behalf of the Irish citizens?
Don’t remember getting a memo on this.
@Trevor Hayden: that would include future citizens who are the ones who are going to be the worst affected by the inaction of this government and the selfishness of a parge percentage of present day citizens
@Marcus Briody: True, but in most court proceedings are you not asked wether you have legal representation or is legal representation required?
This appears to be quite an “entitled” article.
You poor people need to be represented by us without your concent, as if we are too stupid to make up our own minds.
@Trevor Hayden: Self importance is a real problem for these people.
@An_Fear_Liath: Arrogance is a real problem for people whose finances depend on f***ing up the planet for everyone
@Trevor Hayden: whereas, technically, you are correct, I dare say that in fact the vast majority of Irish people are in full support of this country doing everything it can to avert the climate catastrophe which seems to be in our future.
I didn’t “get the memo” either, but I can tell you that this action has my full support.
@Deirdre O’Byrne: I agree but i believe people’s consent should be taken into consideration.
Far too many times, especially with the current governmental regime we’ve been told what is needed rather than been given a choice which is what democracy is supposedly about.
It’s a very condesending article.
@Trevor Hayden: I missed the on about the financial crises.
Your appeal for more scam taxes don’t speak on my behalf. We pay enough scam taxes as it is. Jog on, cheers.
@Ronan Sexton: Some people have unbelievable arrogance. This case has zero merit, and I would say is supported by very few Irish people.Where do we get these idióts?
@Ronan Sexton: Agreed 100%
@CrabaRev: Actually over 10,000 people have added their name to support this case to be taken so more than a few people
@tofu for tea: in a country of over 4 million.
@Liam O’Conchubhair: That’s the amount of people who have signed it in person and online. In a country of over 4 million not everyone is an adult, has heard about this or maybe even cares. But enough people have. People who want to support this can add their name here: https://www.climatecaseireland.ie/become-a-supporter/
@tofu for tea: It is a completely anonymous petition. There are far less actual people “signing” it as their are “signatures”. I guarantee you there are people who have signed this multiple times with throwaway email addresses. It has no credibility as a petition.
@tofu for tea: Can show categorically where 10,000 unique individuals signed this?
This is a complete waste of the high court’s time and resources. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
@CrabaRev: the planet on which we all live affects everyone. How is it a waste of time to prevent its destruction? You don’t believe climate change is real? Just say so. The other 95% will try and steer away from catastrophe.
Pointless – the courts can’t interfere in taxation matters and it seems obvious that, in Ireland at least, climate action = tax.
Did you ever think that if you came up with a proper approach, rather than just stick your hands in peoples pockets, that people might actually be moved to act??
@Dara O’Brien: Only thing they did do was give grants for solar panels, grants for insulation and grants for wind technology can’t see anything else outside of that.
@Dara O’Brien: a tax and dividend appraoch like the green party are proposing would mean that poorer people would be affected least while the rich, who produce the most amount of greenhouse gases, would pay more. Do you think that we can make the transition to a fossil fuel free future without any negative impact on our lifetsyles? How are we going to pay for the huge investments required to make this transition?
the same free market forces which have created the poverty, which means that many people are afraid of any new taxes, are the same ones who are against any action on climate change because they know that this would affect the richest people the most.
FG are the most environmentally destructive party we have had in decades, instead of investing in public trrasnport they are more concerned with privatizing it. their economic model looks upon trains as not making a profit so are not any use. the green party and other left wing parties believe in the nordic model where you invest in public infrastructure and plan long term whereas fg only care about the short term and individuals with capital.
@Dara O’Brien: that’s way we are taken them to court so the government will invest in reducing our carbon emissions with the carbon tax they collect.
I’m not against action for climate change, however, I’d like to think the 15 year old in Sweden was less naive! Leaving aside the whole approach lacks originality, what exactly was the full impact in Sweden? Expecting similar results? What are these? I’m not familiar with the Swedish system but would imagine there are differences. Maybe Ireland is 64th on the list, but, in terms of actual impact and tonnes equivalent produced compared to the top ten, we are no where! If the fines don’t prompt the government to action, I’m sure they’ll find a to ignore this case too. Would the money you spend on your legal team be better used elsewhere? Assume its not free. Something more original and effective than a 15 years old plan perhaps. This action you take, is not on my behalf, leave me out.
@ThatLJD: “unoriginal” wow what a way to miss the point
@ThatLJD: “unoriginal” wow what a way to miss the point
@ThatLJD: valiantly sitting there with your keyboard while the world warms…
@ThatLJD: Obviously we’re ‘nowhere near the top 10’ when it comes to total emissions, we’re a country of 5ish million people, why would we be?
The important consideration when it comes to climate change impact is per capita emissions, because every country needs to address its own contribution to the problem. We’re doing very badly.
@ThatLJD: Sweden is ahead of its 2020 targets, and is aiming for more ambitious targets than the EU, with a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 and Zero emissions by 2045-50. The Swedish government is investing €1.3 billion per year in promoting renewable energy and energy efficient transportation (2017-2020). Sweden aims to have 49% of its energy production derived from renewables by 2020. Sweden emits 4.54 tons of CO2 per person per year (2016 figures).
On the other hand, Ireland is the third highest emitter of CO2 per capita in Europe, at 13.6 tons per person per year. Our transport, agriculture and energy sectors are particularly polluting. We also didn’t join the EU member states aming or more ambitious targets, but repeatedly tried to insert loopholes into EU legislation in order to allows us to continue pollute. We have 3 peat burning power plants and only 8.4% of our energy needs are met with renewables (2014) and we’re likely to miss the modest 16% goal by 2020. Between 200 MW and 250 MW if wind power needs to be installed per year to meet that 2020 target, but were averaging 170 MW per year of new wind farms. It looks very likely that we will be fined €500 million per year by 2020 for missing our targets.
@Jack Leahy: yes, wow, and your own comment is so brimming with acuity! What was the point so then which i so desperately missed than you had to mention it twice? This is the comments section, I’m entitled to an opinion as is everyone else, happy to entertain your explanation, I’m sure it will be valid.
@Kev: the irony in your comment is brilliant. I’ve no issue in listening to your contrasting opinion if you’ve time to put down your Starbucks coffee cup and tell me how you’re ‘valiantly’ saving the world.
@ihcalaM: yes, no where near per capita or otherwise. Yes countries need to do more, however I don’t think nature recognises man’s borders.
@David Jordan: thanks for the info, I understand your point. My point was this just the case brought by a 15 year old which forced their hand on this or was this more or less the intention and the case just highlighted the need further? Thanks again for your point and information. Appreciate the feedback.
@ThatLJD: Wait what? Are you arguing that because we’re not in the top ten worst countries per capita for emissions (if you look at Europe we’re nearly the worst) we shouldn’t be seriously concerned?
What kind of thinking is that? How would the world look if every country outside the top ten worst offenders decided to do absolutely nothing about the environment because some countries were worse than them?
Pure narrow-mindedness.
@ThatLJD: I’m supporting the court case. I cycle. I recycle. I even have a metal coffee flask. Eco warriors > keyboard warriors
@ihcalaM: no sorry, got the wrong end of the stick, yes there are international agreements on all this, yes Ireland is not meeting its targets but is the point of the article we do all what we should and that’s it or do we actually to pontificate to others then from some sort of morale high ground. Not arguing with your point per se, more to do with the narrow minded approach of let’s sort Ireland, as that’s not going to matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s a wider issue than just here.
@Kev: tone doesn’t come across so well in this so I’ll say this and you pick up the tone. Good for you. If more people were like you then would be a better place.
@ThatLJD: we are 3rd worst in Europe per capita, so it’s more our lifestyle, our diet, our economy, our modes of transport, our energy sources, etc. Collectively, if we all were to alter or reduce one or more of these, we would fall in the list. Policy and social changes are the only real means we have at doing so that we each individually reduce our carbon footprint. Agriculture and transport are the main sources in Ireland and do date we have done essentially sweet F all to tackle it.
Can you take your action against China, India, Brazil, USA and other major polluters first before wasting taxpayers time and money over our cattle farting too much.
@Chewey Bacca: China now produces more solar, wind and hydro power than the US and EU combined. The target for solar (105 Gigawatts) was reached 3 years ahead of schedule. It’s also building 13 nuclear power stations right now and it wants to double the proportion of energy provided by nuclear power by 2020. China’s 2020 carbon reduction target ahead of schedule (Ireland is behind schedule). Almost 1/4 of China’s energy needs are now provided by energy sources that do not emit CO2 – 20% renewables and 3% nuclear and it will grow to 50% or more by 2040.
Our government can’t run our country in any meaningful or effective way for it’s citizens, it has always been “Reactive” just putting out fires around it. For your action on climate change to work you would need a “Proactive” government which we don’t have. Go somewhere else please, the last thing we need is more TAX
Irish government’s see tax as the only measure of climate action. All the carbon tax in China won’t provide me with an alternative to burning diesel in my car, oil in my heating. I did look into heat exchange pump but i just dont have a handy €10,000 lying around. Gov’t should heavily subsidise electric cars and heat pumps. They’ll be paying it out in EU fines anyway!
This is fake news. The real problem is overpopulation of our planet – there simply too many humans.
Taking Ireland to court will not stop the 3rd world from procreating like rabbits.
Until this is issue tackled everything else will have the same effect as p!ssing against the wind.
@Termaz Fx: your right but unfortunately a lot of sheep here won’t agree
@Termaz Fx: Population in Europe, Japan, China and others are at a flat or dropping rate. It is Africa that population growth will come from in the next decades. Per capita Africans, Indians etc have a way lower carbon footprint than someone in the western world. So the issue here is consumption and economies that call for endless growth. It’s just not possible to continue on as we are.
@Termaz Fx: there is an inverse relationship between average income and fertility. In other words, the best way of controlling human population is to create a financially equal world.
Interesting that she said she was taking a case on behalf of ALL citizens, not a few or many. I don’t remember being asked and certainly do not support this case being taken. I would hazard a guess that I’m not the only Irish Citizen fed up to the back teeth of the ‘stick’ approach to green issues.
@John: oh i am very sure that there are plenty of selfish people like you who dont care that hundreds of thousands of people in the third wrold are already dying annually from droughts caused by climate change and that the children of today will be facing food shortages. this group of selfish, superficial people are called Fine Gael voters
@Marcus Briody: Marcus your self righteous smugness is so total I’m surprised you haven’t eaten yourself by now
@Marcus Briody: Putting up the price of petrol and home fuel with more scam taxes, without offering any alternative, will do absolutely nothing for the people in the third world that you are so concerned about. Fake concern about climate change = Scam taxes.
@Marcus Briody: Just so I can put you in context I have one question. Do you consider yourself more Green than Socialist or vice versa? It is difficult to read with your flip-flopping.
@Ronan Sexton: The concept of carbon taxing does not mean increased taxation so your term “scam taxing” is fake news. In Canada there is a commitment to return the carbon tax to taxpayers at the end of each year in the form of a government cheque. The idea is not to raise taxes but to make people think twice about their increasing use of carbon fuels and thus prompt green energy solutions so that our grandchildren will not die from the effects of climate change cursing our ignorant abuse of the planet.
Simple solution, less humans means less emissions by humans, but that kind of population control is the elephant in the room that politicians and activists will completely ignore.
@Brian McDonnell: Agreed.
Firstly, look at the oppobrium suffered by the Chinese for attempting population control. More virtue signalling by the Trotskettes. The problem with Green Socialism, is that it is a true oxymoron.
The problem with judging Ireland on a per capita basis against GDP, is that we are effectively a tax haven for larger corporations that makes our GDP very large compared to our GNP. As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Finally, if Ireland were to unilaterally to address “climate change”, how long would it be before all the FDI, on which we rely, were to disappear. It is great to be between the rock and the hard place (the proverbial elephant in the room). We are the poster boys for globalism, let us not forget our place.
@Tom McHugh: wow mentioning the Chinese, GPD, trotskyists, tax havens and blaming our foreign cooperations are at odd to reality when our Industrial/commercial sector only contributes ~16%. Whereas agricultural contributes ~33% of our national CO2, and energy and transport both ~19.5%. So those three comprise 75% of national emmisons.
@Derek: You are correct. Just my what aboutery musings…forgive me.
@Tom McHugh: selfish old man doesnt care about future generations is how i sum up your comment. hey lets do nothing, blame other people, who cares that the planet is dying, you will be long gone by the time the real damage is being felt and thats all that matters isnt it Tom
@Marcus Briody: Just pointing out that there is a lot more to it than virtue signalling in a comment section on The Journal. I doubt any of the people commenting here have the stomach for what it will really take to address the short comings of mankind. You just keep on signalling and I will call you out anytime you wan to get real…
Result is extra carbon taxes boosted by this action.
That’s it
Anyone taking this case replace a TV or computer in the last 10 years?Its in Nigeria with thousands others being melted for its metals in open fires .
@Quentin Moriarty: lets do nothing then, if we balanced our greenhouse gases now the seas would still rise by 20 metres but who cares about the hundreds of thousands of people dying in the Third world or future generations you and the people who liked your comment sure don’t. selfishness is killing this planet and people like you only confirm my belief that humanity is doomed.
@Marcus Briody: the west should carry the can for all third world nations who pollute on a biblical scale and will continue to do so for the next generation if we don’t lead by example ?
No one is proposing to do nothing ,we already are being hammered with carbon taxes since the Greens were in power and yet we are high polluters so a differs approach is needed.
“on behalf of all Irish citizens”
Sorry I must have missed that Call ?… but perfer to just ignored the problem until the water comes up to the door.. thanks
Rather than add more taxes, Leo and crew should drop the whole Project 2040 nonsense (they can’t even roll out broadband, what makes them think they’ll be able to commit to larger infrastructure projects?) and spend any allocated budget for that on giving the seai proper grants to homeowners to move away from fossil fuels e.g. replace oil/gas central heating systems with air or ground source, and also increase pv panel grants to offset the increased electricity costs. In addition they should be doing more to popularise electric vehicles, Norway for example has 20% update in evs and will be over 30% soon. Not bad given it was 5% a short time ago.
@John Somers: the 2040 nonsense doesnt have a budget, i agree with your proposals but how are we going to pay for them? do you think that we can make this transition without any negative impact on our lifestyles. the green party are proposing a tax and dividend approach which would mean that everyone gets a cheque annually that would cover the fuel use increase of an average person and the rich, who use the most fossil fuels, would pay far more. the money raised should then be ring fenced to invest in the transition for a fossil fuel free future. fg originally saw the carbon tax as a revenue raising measure. the greens had used the first carbon tax to pay for grants to insulate homes but fg cut the grants and put the rest of the carbon tax into the general taxation. fg created this mess and are looking for a quick fix for the problem their ideology created
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php 31000 scientists have signed this
@George O Neill: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/
Literally took 10 seconds to find this.
@George O Neill: This is no longer about science, it’s about politics, so unfortunately the 310000 signatories of the petition will be ignored by the hysterical green agenda, including the author of this article.
Irish Agriculture is a classic example. Despite several scientific papers showing that Irish grassland absorbs carbon at a rate of 2T per hectare per annum, it’s not permitted in the calculations. Indeed if it were (and it has to be in time) it will put Ireland at the top of the league, producing as it does now the most carbon efficient food in Europe.
Green hysteria is a religion, a bid to control people’s lives through fear and financial penalty
@Seamus Hughes: “This is no longer about science, it’s about politics,”
Yes, the 1998 petition was a political gesture…
“What’s True
A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming.”
“What’s False
The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.”
@Dave Byrne: i wouldn’t call Donald trump’s associates scientists
@Dave Byrne: Snopes is a guy and his wife sitting in their house in the US with no qualifications what so ever supposedly debunking facts that they no nothing about simply by putting out their opinions but sure you already know that don’t you
@Nikas Peckeliunas: Neither would I it’s a complete nonsense website
@George O Neill: https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/
@George O Neill: Internet petitions aren’t peer reviewed science, they are meaningless garbage. What matters is not the personal opinions of random people in who signed a website in 1998, who claim to hold a science degree (degrees could be anything from veterinary science to sports nutrition science).
What matters is the peer reviewed science of climate scientists and the factual observation that they report.
Research has found that 97% of peer reviewed science agrees that humans are causing global warming. Subsequent investigation bu Cook et al. (2016) found that is true. The vast majority of climate scientists agree humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Cook, et al., 2016. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), p.048002.
@David Jordan: 97% of published peer reviewed papers, but unfortunately in today’s world if you don’t agree with the climate change narrative you have very little chance of getting published and virtually no chance of getting job in the sector ever again if you do publish a conflicting narrative
@Dave Byrne: Primarily another opinion piece with some small follow up involved
@David Jordan: ‘97% agree humans are contributing to global warming’
Of course they do, green house gas emissions due to human activity will have some effect on the climate. The only question that needs answering is how much of an effect are humans having and the evidence to date suggests it’s very little. The 97% stat is a nonsense and has no meaning or relevance in the debate.
0.03% of the Atmosphere is CO2 and yet it’s now we’ll and truly branded as a pollutant.
As long as the public continue to be lied to by the hysterical green agenda and rely on fear rather than science to bully us into submission it’s thankfully doomed to failure.
@Seamus Hughes: I have heard claims that Irish grassland sequesters CO2, but that was published in a pamphlet not a peer reviewed scientific article. It don’t know how reliable that claim is. The problem with publishing a claim like that means that other scientists can not investigate it’s reliability.
Regardless, the Irish agriculture sector is net emitter of greenhouse gas, responsible for 37% of our greenhouse gas emissions, particularly due to methane and nitrogen dioxide pollution. Both are exteremly potent greenhouses gasses, methane is approx 70 times stronger than CO2 and nitrogen dioxide has 265-298 times the greenhouse warming potential of CO2.
For example, we apply 200,000 tons of nitrate fertiliser per year, some of which literally evaporitates into nitrogen dioxide, so does not promote plant growth. Nitrogen dioxide also creates harmful tropospheric ozone pollution on hot sunny days (which can kill sensitive people via asthma attacks).
While grassland may sequester some CO2 and changes in farming practices may increase CO2 sequestration, it remains that the Irish agricultural sector is a net pollutor of greenhouse gasses.
I was involved in a research project that investigated if changing farm practices and locations of certain farms might reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
@George O Neill: No, not true at all.
As a scientist who has published several peer reviewed papers, I can guarantee that if your paper contains reliable evidence that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas, you will get published and you will be awarded a Nobel prize, as you have just upended over 100 years of science, that started with Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
Arrhenius, S., 1896. XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41(251), pp.237-276.
@Seamus Hughes: “0.03% of the Atmosphere is CO2 and yet it’s now we’ll and truly branded as a pollutant.”
It’s now 0.04%, it’s going up. See:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png
Also, don’t forget that this increase is causing ocean acidification. Worryingly, global phytoplankton has decreased by 40% since 1950, this is the base of the marine food chain. This is another hazard of increasing atmospheric CO2, independent of the debate over the proportion humans have on climate.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/
@David Jordan: I have no doubt at all that CO2 is a greenhouse gas my issues start with whole man made thing, Ice core drilling has shown that the world has been at equal temperatures and higher in the past, now perhaps the planet is heating up faster or perhaps its not; due to man’s contribution but even if it is the planet has its own way of correcting its self as more co2 means more plant life therefore more oxygen is produced but destroying the forests around the world is certainly not helping so we need to stop this for a start but now we also have Geo-engineering occurring which is blocking sunlight and the plants cant grow without it so man’s solutions are not giving me a lot of confidence at present and as far as co2 is concerned all the studies are lab based not real world and they discount all other gasses in the atmosphere another problem with the lab results is that they all show that when co2 hits a certain saturation the the temperatures stop rising, and none of this even starts to take into account the political and monetary reasons for pushing this doomsday narrative
@David Jordan: The problem with climate is that it is not a simple system that can be closed and boundary limits clearly defined. It relies on many assumptions based on axioms that are taken as given. This fact allows scientists to selectively define their boundary limits so tha the results match their intent. There is no such thing as “pure science” and the level of corruption in the world of academia knows no bounds.
That said, I do believe that mankind will eventually consume all the resources on the globe and die off. The world will then continue to survive. This is the problem in that the climate change warriors conflate the idea of hman extinction with the end of the world. Ironic isn’t it…from the anti-religious core…
@George O Neill:
1. The Earth is warmer than any point in the last 120,000 years.
2. The increase in temperature, of 1.5 Celsius over the last 250 years, is faster than any point in the last 20,000 years. Fast temperature rises in the past wren’t benign and caused mass extinctions e.g. the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna.
“Geo-engineering occurring”
Chemtrails?
What confuses me is the belief a Chemtrails, geoengineering a cooling Earth, the UN attempting to murder half the worlds population to meet Agenda 21, and all this fringe lunacy is accepted, whereas, when conspiracy theorists gaze as a Coal fired power station all you see exiting the smoke stack is plant food. OMG.
Yes, I watch Adapt 2020, Suspicious0bservers, Oppenheimer Ranch Project, BPEarthWatch etc. not because I believe the rubbish the publish, but I am interested to see people in Bethlem.
@David Jordan: 120,000 years is more like weather that climate considering the earth is 4.500000000 years old using 120,000 years is like asking the planet how’s the weather today, Chemtrails? all you have to do is look up and you can see the geo-engineering that is occurring and they have only started to admit it because a consensus is growing which they can no longer ignore or put down to conspiracy theories https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-geoengineering/scientists-dim-sunlight-suck-up-carbon-dioxide-to-cool-planet-idUSKBN1AB0J3 so they change the narrative slightly and admit that this is going to happen while they have been doing it all along and denying it because people who can’t think for themselves need to be spoon fed slowly so they don’t get alarmed and start asking questions; which they are perfectly entitled to ask but don’t because they believe everything they are told and so the agenda continues
@Dave Byrne: There is no better source of pure, unadulterated fake news on the internet than Snopes. Whatever they say, just reverse it to get the truth.
Bravo! Great move! Thank you.
I think it is a *Bad Idea* to follow Germany’s “Energiewende” example (Wind / Solar).
Besides costing a fortune, German CO2 emmissions are actually INCREASING as a result.
@Martin Lintzgy: That is because Germany closed 8 nuclear power plants immediately after the Fukushima disaster, closed 1 nuclear power plant in 2015, in at the end of 2018 and they plan to close their remaining 8 nuclear power plants by 2022. They increased the burning of dirty brown coal to fill the gap left by the closure of the nuclear plants.
On the otherhand – “The share of renewable electricity rose from just 3.4% of gross electricity consumption in 1990 to exceed 10% by 2005, 20% by 2011 and 30% by 2015, reaching 36.2% of consumption by year end 2017.”
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-germanys-nuclear-phase-out
Here they go again, the KKK (Klimate Kontrol Kult). Totalitarian arrogance in assuming the right to speak for ALL Ireland. And the end result will be increased taxes, greater global control, and lower living standards.
@Alan Fahy: ‘greater global control’ wha?
@Alan Fahy: https://www.thejournal.ie/2016-hottest-year-3081457-Nov2016/ Better that than the end to most life on this planet.
@thesaltyurchin: Climate is obviously global and no respecter of borders. For example, Northern Poland and Northern Germany have the same climate. Climate concern is therefore a good pretext with which to overrule the sovereignty of these two states. Instead, Poland and Germany could and should work in conjunction on environmental issues without having to give up their sovereignty to power-crazed globalists. Make sense?
@TamuMassif2019: Quoting a speculative and shoddily written article from over two years ago, and regurgitating the fear-mongering phrase “the end to most life on this planet” is tedious and trite.
Ultimately just walking all of us into another tax. It’s a ruse. The tax is actually to pay for the out of control welfare and pension cost to the state
Do you think that we can make the transition to a fossil fuel free future without any negative impact on our lifetsyles? How are we going to pay for the huge investments required to make this transition? everyone is giving out about a carbon tax but a tax and dividend appraoch like the green party are proposing would mean that poorer people would be affected least while the rich, who produce the most amount of greenhouse gases, would pay more. taxation should only be a part of a bigger picture of massive investments in public transport and incentives like grid feed in rates for domestic renewable energy but because FG have been so destructive and useless on all environmental issues they are now looking for a quick fix for the mess that they have created
the same free market forces which have created the poverty, which means that many people are afraid of any new taxes, are the same ones who are against any action on climate change because they know that this would affect the richest people the most.
FG are the most environmentally destructive party we have had in decades, instead of investing in public trasnport they are more concerned with privatizing the bus service. their economic model looks upon trains as not making a profit so they are not any use. the green party and other left wing parties believe in the nordic model where you invest in public infrastructure and plan long term whereas fg only care about the short term and individuals with capital.
@Marcus Briody:
“free market forces which have created the poverty” What planet are you on?
We have never been wealthier or healthier!
“FG are the most environmentally destructive party we have had in decades” Really? So different than FF?
The Greens are the most environmentally destructive political party, responsible for spreading fear and misinformation about the one source of energy capable of delivering massive power, on demand with almost zero pollution.
@Toby Fish: And a lot of the layabouts are the ones with the time on their hands to be talking the climate change myth
The Climate Action lobby is a watermelon: Green on the outside, red on the inside.
For 150 years they’ve told us capitalism hurts the poor, yet day after day it makes us all richer. “Climate Change” is a new (ish) departure, and one that can be used as a wedge to ram legislation into every area of our lives: what we eat, how we get to work, how and when we wash ourselves or when we put on the kettle. (The author gives us a taste of her left-revisionist world view when she blandly states: “Colonialism, greed and ideology have all played a role in driving up both emissions and exploitation all over the world and throughout human history”).
None of this is to say that human activities and carbon emissions aren’t having the effect of increasing temperatures, but the politics are such that we would have to convince the Saudi’s and the Venezuelans to stop pumping oil, we’ve have to tell the irish to stop breeding cattle etc and we’ve have to tell the poor people all over the world that they can never have air conditioning or the independent mobility and commercial opporunities made possible by cars
The only alternative course of action is more (private) investment in clean energy alternatives. If we are to save the planet it will be achieved with human ingenuity, not authoritarian politics and more taxes.
Irish Politicians will only pay lip service to the issue and slap a tax on it if they can. No affordable alternatives have been put on the table. Even where train lines have been reopened you can’t get to work on them. First train into sligo arrives at 10.15am not much use no local trains from surrounding towns.
Electric vehicles are in the 40k mark the moment and what happens in the used market when you need a battery replacement.
Following the Dutch model. This case is not about winning it’s about awareness and as usual the right wing Irish need to be dragged through their own mud kicking and screaming.
So taking the Irish government to court is going to stop global warming!
How stupid is this.
These people are making a nice handy lazy living out of climate change nonsense
the oil industry opec is a trillion dollar a year turnover they will not be held accountable but the poor tac payer will foot the bill!
Communist Claptrap!
Are these tree hugging environmentalists that stupid to think that putting a carbon tax on the average person is going to have one bit off difference? The only way to get people onboard is to provide CHEAPER and more efficient ALTERNATIVES first and not hit them in the pocket. Sadly these alternatives do not exist in Ireland!
Locus standi?
Are these tree hugging environmentalists that stupid to think that putting a carbon tax on the average person is going to have one bit off difference? The only way to get people onboard is to provide CHEAPER and more efficient ALTERNATIVES first and hit them in the pocket. Sadly these alternatives do not exist in Ireland!
The comment line on https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/simon-coveney-un-4260463-Sep2018 says it all?
Climate change will be a trigger that will effect everything, it is like a series of dominoes where one line of dominoes falling over will cause 10 other series of dominoes to fall over then and so on and so on. Climate change will lead to wetter years, warmer summers and colder winters due to SSW (Sudden stratospheric warming). The ph / acidity will increase in the oceans effecting sea life and plankton as most oxygen is made from plankton on this planet. Then melting ice will effect the Thermohaline circulation and that bring warmth to us in the winter and it brings nutrients for the plankton to feed on. Also as the ice melts at the poles the Jet Stream will be effected and with SSW’s it will become weaker and go further south in the winter exposing us to sub zero temperatures.
Also as the air warms up it can absorb more water vapour and according to NASA “Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.” So that’s one end but another not talked about is a rise in seas temperatures, oceans cool themselves by creating storms but what is missing in global warming talk is the oceanic deposits of Methane clathrate at the bottom of the oceans, I believe methane is according to Scientific America states that “methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” And that’s before I say anything about permafrost trapping deposits of methane. So Global Warming isn’t an event but a run away process when it kicks off, having many effects and many layers to it that many don’t understand yet with others not caring…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_stratospheric_warming
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
Well if the IPCC say so….it must be true. Because ‘all scientists’ back their views. This is worth a watch: https://youtu.be/oYhCQv5tNsQ
have your say