Should We Drop Environment Targets Because of the Recession?

I remember hearing on the radio some well intentioned eejit on from Friends of the Earth bleating about spending money on reducing carbon emissions especially in recessionary times.

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

secondly, a recession will reduce carbon emissions due to slowdown in economy activity.

thirdly, i'm sure joe public who's job is under threat will not be happy with more tax money being spent on pissing into the wind (ireland cannot make anything other than a token impact on global carbon emissions) especially when he/she has a family to rear and feed.

fourthy, call me a cynic but i've noticed a whole load of peripheral quangos coming out with pre-budget statements trying to prevent their little organisation from being axed by inflating their own importance.

zakalwe wrote:

I remember hearing on the radio some well intentioned eejit on from Friends of the Earth bleating about spending money on reducing carbon emissions especially in recessionary times.

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

secondly, a recession will reduce carbon emissions due to slowdown in economy activity.

thirdly, i'm sure joe public who's job is under threat will not be happy with more tax money being spent on pissing into the wind (ireland cannot make anything other than a token impact on global carbon emissions) especially when he/she has a family to rear and feed.

fourthy, call me a cynic but i've noticed a whole load of peripheral quangos coming out with pre-budget statements trying to prevent their little organisation from being axed by inflating their own importance.

No. We're currently up shit creek as a result of ignoring a growing problem. Suggesting that we should now ignore an even more serious growing problem because we have to deal with the fallout from previous decisions to ignore problems is arrant stupidity. Sorry to be rude, but what do you think will happen if we decide to step out of Kyoto because it's 'bad for our economy'?

Zakalwe - would you mind if this was made into a separate thread on whether environmental targets should or should not be dropped because of the economic crisis? It is a good question in its own right.

ibis wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

I remember hearing on the radio some well intentioned eejit on from Friends of the Earth bleating about spending money on reducing carbon emissions especially in recessionary times.

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

secondly, a recession will reduce carbon emissions due to slowdown in economy activity.

thirdly, i'm sure joe public who's job is under threat will not be happy with more tax money being spent on pissing into the wind (ireland cannot make anything other than a token impact on global carbon emissions) especially when he/she has a family to rear and feed.

fourthy, call me a cynic but i've noticed a whole load of peripheral quangos coming out with pre-budget statements trying to prevent their little organisation from being axed by inflating their own importance.

No. We're currently up shit creek as a result of ignoring a growing problem. Suggesting that we should now ignore an even more serious growing problem because we have to deal with the fallout from previous decisions to ignore problems is arrant stupidity. Sorry to be rude, but what do you think will happen if we decide to step out of Kyoto because it's 'bad for our economy'?

let me answer your question with a question:
what would the impact on global carbon emissions of 100% of irish gdp being spent on irish reduction of carbon emissions?
what would the impact on global carbon emissions of 0% of irish gdp being spent on irish reduction of carbon emissions?
thats what the fiends of the earth were calling for, spending of irish taxpayers money on a nebulous goal.

as far as i recall, the irish commitment to kyoto was to bring carbon emissions to 1992 levels. well, thats bleedin great for mature western industrialised countries that needed to clean up its 1970's heavy industry, but terrible for developing countries like ireland china and india where the indirect effect of the agreement is to roll back the greatest period of development our countries have had.

its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

cactus flower wrote:

Zakalwe - would you mind if this was made into a separate thread on whether environmental targets should or should not be dropped because of the economic crisis? It is a good question in its own right.

absolutely, tho haven't a clue how to do that!

I can split it off for you - What shall I call the thread?

zakalwe wrote:

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

....its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

George Soros mentions this in the PBS piece that rockyraccoon linked on the "Economics is Dead" thread. Soros reckons that the USA is dead as the economic engine of the world. He believes that fighting global warmng can be the new economic engine of the world if Governments act together. He reckons it will be painful to implement but "at least we won't cook". George and I are in agreement.

cactus flower wrote:

I can split it off for you - What shall I call the thread?

"Are environmental concerns a luxury we can't afford?"

I doubt anyone will go with my alternative suggestion of "Just how f**in' stupid are we?".

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I can split it off for you - What shall I call the thread?

"Are environmental concerns a luxury we can't afford?"

I doubt anyone will go with my alternative suggestion of "Just how f**in' stupid are we?".

i like it!!!

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

....its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

George Soros mentions this in the PBS piece that rockyraccoon linked on the "Economics is Dead" thread. Soros reckons that the USA is dead as the economic engine of the world. He believes that fighting global warmng can be the new economic engine of the world if Governments act together. He reckons it will be painful to implement but "at least we won't cook". George and I are in agreement.

how can reducing economic output be a "new economic engine of the world"?

zakalwe wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

....its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

George Soros mentions this in the PBS piece that rockyraccoon linked on the "Economics is Dead" thread. Soros reckons that the USA is dead as the economic engine of the world. He believes that fighting global warmng can be the new economic engine of the world if Governments act together. He reckons it will be painful to implement but "at least we won't cook". George and I are in agreement.

how can reducing economic output be a "new economic engine of the world"?

I'm inclined to agree with you on this aspect. Just as financiers looked for nostrums and potions to dig themselves out of the dot.com burst, now they are looking around for some magical new economic miracle to dig themselves out of this one. Switching from cheap oil that gushes out of the ground to expensive new wind, solar and tidal technology will be an increased cost on the whole economy, just as higher oil prices would be.

I also agree that recession will lead to a slackening off of carbon emissions from some sources.

However I agree with George about the desirability of not cooking. We lost all our big old trees (horse chestnuts) this weekend to disease, consequent on increased rainfall and raised water table. They had big canopies and were doing a lot of good work. Now they are releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere and it will take years to replace them.

This thing has the potential to go into a rapid spiral, if it hasn't already started to do that. Did you read Nicholas Stern's report for the UK government which spells out the horrendous economic costs of letting this drift? I don't think we have any option, its a matter of survival.

The good news for Ireland is that we are well placed geographically for wind and tidal energy, and there is finally investment in research on how to optimise them. As a country that makes nothing out of carbon fuels, it is an opportunity for us to become energy self sufficient.

Imo those targest are much too low to be worth bothering with. We need a 100% carbon-free energy self-sufficiency target, and a plan for getting there.

cactus flower wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

....its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

George Soros mentions this in the PBS piece that rockyraccoon linked on the "Economics is Dead" thread. Soros reckons that the USA is dead as the economic engine of the world. He believes that fighting global warmng can be the new economic engine of the world if Governments act together. He reckons it will be painful to implement but "at least we won't cook". George and I are in agreement.

how can reducing economic output be a "new economic engine of the world"?

I'm inclined to agree with you on this aspect. Just as financiers looked for nostrums and potions to dig themselves out of the dot.com burst, now they are looking around for some magical new economic miracle to dig themselves out of this one. Switching from cheap oil that gushes out of the ground to expensive new wind, solar and tidal technology will be an increased cost on the whole economy, just as higher oil prices would be.

I also agree that recession will lead to a slackening off of carbon emissions from some sources.

However I agree with George about the desirability of not cooking. We lost all our big old trees (horse chestnuts) this weekend to disease, consequent on increased rainfall and raised water table. They had big canopies and were doing a lot of good work. Now they are releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere and it will take years to replace them.

This thing has the potential to go into a rapid spiral, if it hasn't already started to do that. Did you read Nicholas Stern's report for the UK government which spells out the horrendous economic costs of letting this drift? I don't think we have any option, its a matter of survival.

The good news for Ireland is that we are well placed geographically for wind and tidal energy, and there is finally investment in research on how to optimise them. As a country that makes nothing out of carbon fuels, it is an opportunity for us to become energy self sufficient.

Imo those targest are much too low to be worth bothering with. We need a 100% carbon-free energy self-sufficiency target, and a plan for getting there.

come back vestigal appendix, all is forgiven, we'll eat raw meat again!!!

zakalwe wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

....its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

George Soros mentions this in the PBS piece that rockyraccoon linked on the "Economics is Dead" thread. Soros reckons that the USA is dead as the economic engine of the world. He believes that fighting global warmng can be the new economic engine of the world if Governments act together. He reckons it will be painful to implement but "at least we won't cook". George and I are in agreement.

how can reducing economic output be a "new economic engine of the world"?

I'm inclined to agree with you on this aspect. Just as financiers looked for nostrums and potions to dig themselves out of the dot.com burst, now they are looking around for some magical new economic miracle to dig themselves out of this one. Switching from cheap oil that gushes out of the ground to expensive new wind, solar and tidal technology will be an increased cost on the whole economy, just as higher oil prices would be.

I also agree that recession will lead to a slackening off of carbon emissions from some sources.

However I agree with George about the desirability of not cooking. We lost all our big old trees (horse chestnuts) this weekend to disease, consequent on increased rainfall and raised water table. They had big canopies and were doing a lot of good work. Now they are releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere and it will take years to replace them.

This thing has the potential to go into a rapid spiral, if it hasn't already started to do that. Did you read Nicholas Stern's report for the UK government which spells out the horrendous economic costs of letting this drift? I don't think we have any option, its a matter of survival.

The good news for Ireland is that we are well placed geographically for wind and tidal energy, and there is finally investment in research on how to optimise them. As a country that makes nothing out of carbon fuels, it is an opportunity for us to become energy self sufficient.

Imo those targest are much too low to be worth bothering with. We need a 100% carbon-free energy self-sufficiency target, and a plan for getting there.

come back vestigal appendix, all is forgiven, we'll eat raw meat again!!!

It will have to be raw vegetables, if we're going to meet those targets.

zakalwe wrote:

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

....its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

George Soros mentions this in the PBS piece that rockyraccoon linked on the "Economics is Dead" thread. Soros reckons that the USA is dead as the economic engine of the world. He believes that fighting global warmng can be the new economic engine of the world if Governments act together. He reckons it will be painful to implement but "at least we won't cook". George and I are in agreement.

how can reducing economic output be a "new economic engine of the world"?

It's pretty much like having a war without all the killing and destruction. Mass mobilisation directed towards the creation of a new technologies and huge projects in a fight for one's life. It requires huge amounts of engineering, production, administration, innovation, regulation, infrastructure creation and world salvation. Get thee to the Economic Church of Global Refrigeration!

zakalwe wrote:

ibis wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

I remember hearing on the radio some well intentioned eejit on from Friends of the Earth bleating about spending money on reducing carbon emissions especially in recessionary times.

first off: in a recession (never mind depression) all bets should be off re kyoto.

secondly, a recession will reduce carbon emissions due to slowdown in economy activity.

thirdly, i'm sure joe public who's job is under threat will not be happy with more tax money being spent on pissing into the wind (ireland cannot make anything other than a token impact on global carbon emissions) especially when he/she has a family to rear and feed.

fourthy, call me a cynic but i've noticed a whole load of peripheral quangos coming out with pre-budget statements trying to prevent their little organisation from being axed by inflating their own importance.

No. We're currently up shit creek as a result of ignoring a growing problem. Suggesting that we should now ignore an even more serious growing problem because we have to deal with the fallout from previous decisions to ignore problems is arrant stupidity. Sorry to be rude, but what do you think will happen if we decide to step out of Kyoto because it's 'bad for our economy'?

let me answer your question with a question:
what would the impact on global carbon emissions of 100% of irish gdp being spent on irish reduction of carbon emissions?
what would the impact on global carbon emissions of 0% of irish gdp being spent on irish reduction of carbon emissions?
thats what the fiends of the earth were calling for, spending of irish taxpayers money on a nebulous goal.

The impact of Ireland stepping out of Kyoto wouldn't be drastic in terms of actual emissions. It would be drastic in terms of setting an example, and very poor in terms of our international standing.

Kyoto is a voluntary pledge. It's far from perfect, but it's there, and some kind of program to reduce emissions is vital. Kyoto being voluntary means that it requires an act of will to stay in. By opting out on the basis that it hurts our economy, we set the scene for others to do exactly the same.

This is the same issue as Lisbon. Nobody can make us (or anyone else involved) do anything, but by opting out we encourage others to do so too.

zakalwe wrote:

as far as i recall, the irish commitment to kyoto was to bring carbon emissions to 1992 levels. well, thats bleedin great for mature western industrialised countries that needed to clean up its 1970's heavy industry, but terrible for developing countries like ireland china and india where the indirect effect of the agreement is to roll back the greatest period of development our countries have had.

its easy to be an environmentalist on a full belly but if, and when, irish people have to tighten their belts, turn off the heating in the winter etc out of economic necessity, they'll be mightly peeved if the irish govt were throwing taxpayers money (in deficit times) down the drain achieving nothing effective.

Nothing will ever stop the Irish government doing that. The problem here is that what we're talking about here isn't some kind of optional extra. If we choose not to reduce our emissions because it might hurt our economy, we're essentially saying that we're going to freeload off everyone else's efforts.

I appreciate a lot of people will disagree with me when I say it, but our EU partners are already under the impression that we're only in it for the good times, thanks very much. Unilateral repudiation of international agreements hasn't done the US any favours, and we are not the US.

no one would even miss ireland opting out. the agreement is absolutely meaningless without the US, china or india in the first place.

secondly, the agreement is a flat "meet 1992 level of emissions" or dont. by its very nature its flawed. the US and germany can make it easy peasy, all they have to do is clean up their heavy industries. its much harder for countries that have had a long overdue period of development in the intervening period. it penalises "catch up" development. should china bulldoze all those hospitals and schools it built since 1992 which currently increase its carbon emissions???

anyway, in a recession economic activity ergo carbon emissions will reduce. leave well enough alone and do not put a further burden on the taxpayer. hell, if things keep going the way they are, we'll be back to 1972 emissions without the need of paying additional hundreds of millions of euro in fines/carbon credits.

zakalwe wrote:

no one would even miss ireland opting out. the agreement is absolutely meaningless without the US, china or india in the first place.

No, that's not the case. The EU has a larger industrial sector than the US, and Japan is bigger than China:

GDP, $millions

EU 3,718,260
Japan 1,242,483
Total 4,960,743

US 2,696,880
China 1,208,272
Total 3,905,152

zakalwe wrote:

secondly, the agreement is a flat "meet 1992 level of emissions" or dont. by its very nature its flawed. the US and germany can make it easy peasy, all they have to do is clean up their heavy industries. its much harder for countries that have had a long overdue period of development in the intervening period. it penalises "catch up" development. should china bulldoze all those hospitals and schools it built since 1992 which currently increase its carbon emissions???

No, but it can invest in carbon offset, and so can we. It's necessary, not optional.

zakalwe wrote:

anyway, in a recession economic activity ergo carbon emissions will reduce. leave well enough alone and do not put a further burden on the taxpayer. hell, if things keep going the way they are, we'll be back to 1972 emissions without the need of paying additional hundreds of millions of euro in fines/carbon credits.

If that happens, we will be in a position to sell credits.

If we shy away from our targets we will harm our economy both in the long run and the short run. It is in our longterm interests to have more energy independence and it will end up being cheaper for us. In the shorterm increased innovation coming out of Ireland could be precisely what we need to generate the next boom. If our scientists and engineers are funded so that we can, for instance, develop a great means of wave energy, this can be exported all over the world by Irish industry.

Energy efficiencies and environmental industry isn't just about saving the trees - it will be the next boom. We should be at the source of it, not 15 years behind everyone else.

well, at $5 per metric ton i don't think we'll get all that much!

i think they were priced at $20 when introduced! i bet there were a few in companies investing in them back then!

Unequivocally no. The environmental crisis of climate change coupled with the physical realities of Peak Oil and Peak Gas make it impossible for us to avoid the challenge of reshaping our society and economy from oil, pollution and non-renewable towards wind, no pollution and renewable.

People are overly concerned with the costs of this move and largely ignore the benefits. Having a commitment to renewable technology and a generally environmental way of going about our business will create tens of thousands of new jobs, billions in export sales, billions in savings on imported fuel and generate billions of euro in tax income.

Between Airtricity, Kingspan, OpenHydro, our recycling companies and so on we have a nucleus of an environmental sector in our economy. If we actively foster this area to achieve global leadership, we will reap significant political, social, environmental and economic benefits for many decades to come.

zakalwe wrote:

well, at $5 per metric ton i don't think we'll get all that much!

i think they were priced at $20 when introduced! i bet there were a few in companies investing in them back then!

Currently at €22.85...

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Unequivocally no. The environmental crisis of climate change coupled with the physical realities of Peak Oil and Peak Gas make it impossible for us to avoid the challenge of reshaping our society and economy from oil, pollution and non-renewable towards wind, no pollution and renewable.

People are overly concerned with the costs of this move and largely ignore the benefits. Having a commitment to renewable technology and a generally environmental way of going about our business will create tens of thousands of new jobs, billions in export sales, billions in savings on imported fuel and generate billions of euro in tax income.

Between Airtricity, Kingspan, OpenHydro, our recycling companies and so on we have a nucleus of an environmental sector in our economy. If we actively foster this area to achieve global leadership, we will reap significant political, social, environmental and economic benefits for many decades to come.

It's essential for the environment, and provided it is managed carefully and in the public interest, investment in renewables will be good for our population. If it is blown up into a profit-driven bubble and slush-fund the way that construction investment and public services have been over the last five years, it would be a disaster: sub-prime combined with eevoting machines.

I think Zakalwe has a point - maybe the thread could read "could our environmental targets drop because of the recession?" . Oil has fallen back in price from well over 100$ a may well be that way for a while which must indicate relaxing of demand thus a reduction of CO2 emissions surely to God.

This will help with our targets though - it's like getting a kinda windfall... Up to now an effort needed to be made to slow the economy in order to reduce CO2 but weyhey the economy slowed up all by itself, doing us a bit of a favour.

I've said it a million times before but youngdan is totally wrong (I hope) about Gold Standards; we should be talking about CO2 ceilings to describe our money or something similar. Money can be printed - I believe - until CO2 starts rising and then the money supply can be contracted.

That's a zany theory I'll take over to the "Economics is Dead" thread.

But ... this recession, being a CO2 windfall should be taken advantage of as such - this gives us a bit of a boost in our efforts to stabilize CO2 around the place but we shouldn't take our eye off it; indeed don't we have a bit less to fork out if our levels are down? Now is the time to go for the throat of the problem - as Ard T has said we have a good rudimentary Green Business Sector and somehow maybe Fás could be modified to push for developments in that - crucially energy production, which would give Fás a bloody purpose and meaning besides harassing and bothering people happy on the low-CO2 dole. I say: Algae algae algae!! As a nation we're contemplating pumping CO2 from power stations into undersea caverns off Kinsale FFS !!!! Make algae eat CO2 I say then we use algae oil in our vehicles. It produces CO2 still but we're importing less oil now, hence two reductions - in CO2 and import costs. And we've created jobs at home - and maybe a product for export?

This will not happen outside the Halls of my imagination unless I start up my own feckin business though (I could drive to MoneyPoint and bottle the CO2 there)

***cactus - I don't know if a Green Bubble would be a bad thing at all ... It'd probably be inequitable alright though.

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Unequivocally no. The environmental crisis of climate change coupled with the physical realities of Peak Oil and Peak Gas make it impossible for us to avoid the challenge of reshaping our society and economy from oil, pollution and non-renewable towards wind, no pollution and renewable.

People are overly concerned with the costs of this move and largely ignore the benefits. Having a commitment to renewable technology and a generally environmental way of going about our business will create tens of thousands of new jobs, billions in export sales, billions in savings on imported fuel and generate billions of euro in tax income.

Between Airtricity, Kingspan, OpenHydro, our recycling companies and so on we have a nucleus of an environmental sector in our economy. If we actively foster this area to achieve global leadership, we will reap significant political, social, environmental and economic benefits for many decades to come.

It's essential for the environment, and provided it is managed carefully and in the public interest, investment in renewables will be good for our population. If it is blown up into a profit-driven bubble and slush-fund the way that construction investment and public services have been over the last five years, it would be a disaster: sub-prime combined with eevoting machines.

Not entirely, since a bubble in renewables would leave us with the wind farms, solar panels, wave generators etc, even though the companies that built them went bust. Bought up on the cheap by companies that didn't pay to build them, they would be able to provide electricity more competitively.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Unequivocally no. The environmental crisis of climate change coupled with the physical realities of Peak Oil and Peak Gas make it impossible for us to avoid the challenge of reshaping our society and economy from oil, pollution and non-renewable towards wind, no pollution and renewable.

People are overly concerned with the costs of this move and largely ignore the benefits. Having a commitment to renewable technology and a generally environmental way of going about our business will create tens of thousands of new jobs, billions in export sales, billions in savings on imported fuel and generate billions of euro in tax income.

Between Airtricity, Kingspan, OpenHydro, our recycling companies and so on we have a nucleus of an environmental sector in our economy. If we actively foster this area to achieve global leadership, we will reap significant political, social, environmental and economic benefits for many decades to come.

It's essential for the environment, and provided it is managed carefully and in the public interest, investment in renewables will be good for our population. If it is blown up into a profit-driven bubble and slush-fund the way that construction investment and public services have been over the last five years, it would be a disaster: sub-prime combined with eevoting machines.

Not entirely, since a bubble in renewables would leave us with the wind farms, solar panels, wave generators etc, even though the companies that built them went bust. Bought up on the cheap by companies that didn't pay to build them, they would be able to provide electricity more competitively.

My point is that if they were built in the same way as the housing of the construction boom they would cost three times too much, be in the wrong place and would be environmentally unfit.