Should We Drop Environment Targets Because of the Recession?

Auditor #9 wrote:

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)

Say our Kyoto target was 9000. Assume the Irish economy had a size of 1,000,000, and produced 10,000 units of carbon pre-recession. We'd have had to make up 1000 units of carbon, costing us, say, 22,000 (2.2% of GDP).

Now say our economy shrinks by 5% to 950,000 and 9500 units of carbon. Our Kyoto deficit is now 500, costing us 11,000, which is now 1.16% of GDP - a reduction of nearly 50%.

cactus flower wrote:

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.

Hmm. Traditionally in Ireland what would be worse for those features than a bubble is a tax concession.

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Particularly as we seem to buy them and give them to CRH.

cactus flower wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Particularly as we seem to buy them and give them to CRH.

Exactly. Fake phoney targets. At least the Americans said they can't do that and opted out to meet their own lower yet more realistic targets. Why do we always have to have bullshit political solutions instead of real ones.

Time to put 166 engineers in the Dáil. Oh maybe one accountant then....someone to take the piss out of over lunch.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyoto isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

I knew you would kill me for that outburst.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyoto isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

I knew you would kill me for that outburst.

Yeah, you're on borrowed time now...but, really, is Kyoto that hard to understand?

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

Nothing personal Ibis, but I'm a country girl, and I know bullshit when I come across it. Where's the list of projects and who measures the offset, the time period over which it is effective and how is it measured? If you don't want to repeat yourself you could always link the P.ie thread. We don't ban them over here

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

Nothing person Ibis, but I'm a country girl, and I know bullshit when I come across it. Where's the list of projects and who measures the offset, the time period over which it is effective and how is it measured? If you don't want to repeat yourself you could always link the P.ie thread. We don't ban them over here

These people (the CDM board of the UN) oversee it. The searchable list of projects is here. Their methodologies are here.

The problems with Kyoto are essentially the usual - political interference, too much slack, regulatory issues. For some reason people get quite irrational about the mechanism and the targets - but there's not that much wrong with either of them. It's still essentially a regulatory solution.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

Nothing person Ibis, but I'm a country girl, and I know bullshit when I come across it. Where's the list of projects and who measures the offset, the time period over which it is effective and how is it measured? If you don't want to repeat yourself you could always link the P.ie thread. We don't ban them over here

These people (the CDM board of the UN) oversee it. The searchable list of projects is here. Their methodologies are here.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1208850599.86/view

I watched a programme about one of these projects - solar power in monogolia. They used it to power TVs in their yurts. I've no objection to that, but precisely how would it compensate for the environmental impacts of cement production in Ireland ?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

Nothing person Ibis, but I'm a country girl, and I know bullshit when I come across it. Where's the list of projects and who measures the offset, the time period over which it is effective and how is it measured? If you don't want to repeat yourself you could always link the P.ie thread. We don't ban them over here

These people (the CDM board of the UN) oversee it. The searchable list of projects is here. Their methodologies are here.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1208850599.86/view

I watched a programme about one of these projects - solar power in monogolia. They used it to power TVs in their yurts. I've no objection to that, but precisely how would it compensate for the environmental impacts of cement production in Ireland ?

Because unlike, say, sulphur dioxide, greenhouse gases are not local pollutants. There's nothing wrong with CO2 or methane by themselves at the concentrations we're talking about. The problem is their addition to the greenhouse capability of the atmosphere. Atmospheric mixing is pretty good, so the CO2 from, say, Irish cement plants, doesn't contribute to Irish warming specifically.

All that counts, then, is the amount of greenhouse input to the atmosphere in total, not so much where it goes in (not totally true, but close enough). Ergo, if I'm emitting a tonne of methane and the forest you've planted is soaking up 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the outcome is neutral, even if I'm in Ireland and you're in Botswana.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

Nothing person Ibis, but I'm a country girl, and I know bullshit when I come across it. Where's the list of projects and who measures the offset, the time period over which it is effective and how is it measured? If you don't want to repeat yourself you could always link the P.ie thread. We don't ban them over here

These people (the CDM board of the UN) oversee it. The searchable list of projects is here. Their methodologies are here.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1208850599.86/view

I watched a programme about one of these projects - solar power in monogolia. They used it to power TVs in their yurts. I've no objection to that, but precisely how would it compensate for the environmental impacts of cement production in Ireland ?

Because unlike, say, sulphur dioxide, greenhouse gases are not local pollutants. There's nothing wrong with CO2 or methane by themselves at the concentrations we're talking about. The problem is their addition to the greenhouse capability of the atmosphere. Atmospheric mixing is pretty good, so the CO2 from, say, Irish cement plants, doesn't contribute to Irish warming specifically.

All that counts, then, is the amount of greenhouse input to the atmosphere in total, not so much where it goes in (not totally true, but close enough). Ergo, if I'm emitting a tonne of methane and the forest you've planted is soaking up 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the outcome is neutral, even if I'm in Ireland and you're in Botswana.

Are you sayin that cement production in Ireland does not produce greenhouse gases? Nobody has suggested this is in any way localised - that would be insane, why bring it up.

I think so much of this offset stuff is bullshit. If you look at the projects a lot of them are for introducing renewables into areas that currently are marginal habitations with very low populations living poor but sustainable lifestyles. The introduction of something like a hydroenergy dam into the Congo would on paper be an eco project but would in fact be an environmental disaster. You didn't reply to my question which was how does someone getting telly in their yurt going to compensate for Irish greenhouse gases. Planting trees - another good one. The greenhouse gases are going to be produced now. The trees, if they ever come to maturity (climate change itself may knock them out) will take years before they start to take up significant amounts of C02. In the fullness of time they will release it again.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

Nothing person Ibis, but I'm a country girl, and I know bullshit when I come across it. Where's the list of projects and who measures the offset, the time period over which it is effective and how is it measured? If you don't want to repeat yourself you could always link the P.ie thread. We don't ban them over here

These people (the CDM board of the UN) oversee it. The searchable list of projects is here. Their methodologies are here.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1208850599.86/view

I watched a programme about one of these projects - solar power in monogolia. They used it to power TVs in their yurts. I've no objection to that, but precisely how would it compensate for the environmental impacts of cement production in Ireland ?

Because unlike, say, sulphur dioxide, greenhouse gases are not local pollutants. There's nothing wrong with CO2 or methane by themselves at the concentrations we're talking about. The problem is their addition to the greenhouse capability of the atmosphere. Atmospheric mixing is pretty good, so the CO2 from, say, Irish cement plants, doesn't contribute to Irish warming specifically.

All that counts, then, is the amount of greenhouse input to the atmosphere in total, not so much where it goes in (not totally true, but close enough). Ergo, if I'm emitting a tonne of methane and the forest you've planted is soaking up 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the outcome is neutral, even if I'm in Ireland and you're in Botswana.

Are you sayin that cement production in Ireland does not produce greenhouse gases? Nobody has suggested this is in any way localised - that would be insane, why bring it up.

Jaysus, hold up! No, I'm not saying that cement production in Ireland doesn't produce greenhouse gases. Whatever gives you that idea?

cactus flower wrote:

I think so much of this offset stuff is bullshit. If you look at the projects a lot of them are for introducing renewables into areas that currently are marginal habitations with very low populations living poor but sustainable lifestyles. The introduction of something like a hydroenergy dam into the Congo would on paper be an eco project but would in fact be an environmental disaster. You didn't reply to my question which was how does someone getting telly in their yurt going to compensate for Irish greenhouse gases. Planting trees - another good one. The greenhouse gases are going to be produced now. The trees, if they ever come to maturity (climate change itself may knock them out) will take years before they start to take up significant amounts of C02. In the fullness of time they will release it again.

Sure. Some very badly thought out projects have been touted as carbon-offsetting, plus sometimes further research shows that something thought to be carbon offsetting isn't.

So, yes, Kyoto - not perfect: much hampered by our incomplete understanding of the natural systems involved; probably inadequate in any case. Let's abandon it and have - what? We can't even get some of the major polluters to sign up to Kyoto, and right at the moment the political will to create a better system is where, do you imagine?

As to the question "how does someone getting telly in their yurt going to compensate for Irish greenhouse gases?", the answer, as you might expect, is in the project documentation:

Quote :

By generating renewable energy the project will displace electricity from North China power grid. The project results in reductions of CO2 emissions that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. It is demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductions attributable to the project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity.

The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be on the average 118 906 tCO2e per year over the first 7-year crediting period. The emission reduction forecast has been checked, and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that the underlying assumptions do not change.

In other words, the same way any renewable energy project does - same way one in Ireland would. You reckon they're bullshit too?

Just to add to the mix, beware false profits and pointless monitoring.

To take one glaringly stupid example, House Information Packs, (HIPS) are required to sell a house in the UK. They include an energy audit of sorts. Average cost about £500-£600 and absolutely nothing is produced that reduces CO2 one jot. It tells you the house is energy inefficient, or otherwise, so what! Indeed people going back and forward to produce these useless bits of paper probably increase CO2.

There is a whole sector of self serving Quangos living of this subject. Some of the UK Building energy related regulations are now totally incoherent and unnecessarily convoluted.

Keep it simple and encourage productive investment not growth of hangers on.


EVM

I agree get the engineers and other practical people in.

Squire wrote:

Just to add to the mix, beware false profits and pointless monitoring.

To take one glaringly stupid example, House Information Packs, (HIPS) are required to sell a house in the UK. They include an energy audit of sorts. Average cost about £500-£600 and absolutely nothing is produced that reduces CO2 one jot. It tells you the house is energy inefficient, or otherwise, so what! Indeed people going back and forward to produce these useless bits of paper probably increase CO2.

I've insulated 3 upstairs bedrooms in my house for about that same money - 800 Euro including new skirtings and socket fittings and skimcoat finish.

If I had paid for an energy audit, these rooms would still be freezing in the winter, now they are snuggly.

Quote :

I agree get the engineers and other practical people in.

WooHoo Squire. Two people are a MOVEMENT.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Aren't our Kyoto commitments a joke anyway, with the ability to buy carbon credits (subsidise pollution?) and all that ?

Dear me. A carbon credit subsidises something that offsets carbon - so it's a case of reducing pollution overall. Do I have to go through the same thread here as on p.ie?

Kyotot isn't perfect by a long long chalk, but the mechanism is fine.

Nothing person Ibis, but I'm a country girl, and I know bullshit when I come across it. Where's the list of projects and who measures the offset, the time period over which it is effective and how is it measured? If you don't want to repeat yourself you could always link the P.ie thread. We don't ban them over here

These people (the CDM board of the UN) oversee it. The searchable list of projects is here. Their methodologies are here.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/DNV-CUK1208850599.86/view

I watched a programme about one of these projects - solar power in monogolia. They used it to power TVs in their yurts. I've no objection to that, but precisely how would it compensate for the environmental impacts of cement production in Ireland ?

Because unlike, say, sulphur dioxide, greenhouse gases are not local pollutants. There's nothing wrong with CO2 or methane by themselves at the concentrations we're talking about. The problem is their addition to the greenhouse capability of the atmosphere. Atmospheric mixing is pretty good, so the CO2 from, say, Irish cement plants, doesn't contribute to Irish warming specifically.

All that counts, then, is the amount of greenhouse input to the atmosphere in total, not so much where it goes in (not totally true, but close enough). Ergo, if I'm emitting a tonne of methane and the forest you've planted is soaking up 25 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the outcome is neutral, even if I'm in Ireland and you're in Botswana.

Are you sayin that cement production in Ireland does not produce greenhouse gases? Nobody has suggested this is in any way localised - that would be insane, why bring it up.

Jaysus, hold up! No, I'm not saying that cement production in Ireland doesn't produce greenhouse gases. Whatever gives you that idea?

cactus flower wrote:

I think so much of this offset stuff is bullshit. If you look at the projects a lot of them are for introducing renewables into areas that currently are marginal habitations with very low populations living poor but sustainable lifestyles. The introduction of something like a hydroenergy dam into the Congo would on paper be an eco project but would in fact be an environmental disaster. You didn't reply to my question which was how does someone getting telly in their yurt going to compensate for Irish greenhouse gases. Planting trees - another good one. The greenhouse gases are going to be produced now. The trees, if they ever come to maturity (climate change itself may knock them out) will take years before they start to take up significant amounts of C02. In the fullness of time they will release it again.

Sure. Some very badly thought out projects have been touted as carbon-offsetting, plus sometimes further research shows that something thought to be carbon offsetting isn't.

So, yes, Kyoto - not perfect: much hampered by our incomplete understanding of the natural systems involved; probably inadequate in any case. Let's abandon it and have - what? We can't even get some of the major polluters to sign up to Kyoto, and right at the moment the political will to create a better system is where, do you imagine?

As to the question "how does someone getting telly in their yurt going to compensate for Irish greenhouse gases?", the answer, as you might expect, is in the project documentation:

Quote :

By generating renewable energy the project will displace electricity from North China power grid. The project results in reductions of CO2 emissions that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. It is demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductions attributable to the project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity.

The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be on the average 118 906 tCO2e per year over the first 7-year crediting period. The emission reduction forecast has been checked, and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that the underlying assumptions do not change.

In other words, the same way any renewable energy project does - same way one in Ireland would. You reckon they're bullshit too?

That is based on the assumption that someone was going to wire this place up the grid. Never in a million light years. These are nomadic herdspeople that move their yurts regularly.



Why do you say this means I'm against Kyoto? Isn't it only Ireland that is relying totally on off-set? Other places have done quite well. I don't buy into the excuses. Where are all the failed attempts? We deserve a good slap and should get down to re-gearing our infrastructure and reducing emissions. The recession will give us a good start.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

As to the question "how does someone getting telly in their yurt going to compensate for Irish greenhouse gases?", the answer, as you might expect, is in the project documentation:

Quote :

By generating renewable energy the project will displace electricity from North China power grid. The project results in reductions of CO2 emissions that are real, measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. It is demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductions attributable to the project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity.

The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be on the average 118 906 tCO2e per year over the first 7-year crediting period. The emission reduction forecast has been checked, and it is deemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that the underlying assumptions do not change.

In other words, the same way any renewable energy project does - same way one in Ireland would. You reckon they're bullshit too?

That is based on the assumption that someone was going to wire this place up the grid. Never in a million light years. These are nomadic herdspeople that move their yurts regularly.

The wind farm project is attached to the grid. It doesn't have anything to do with solar powered yurts. This is a solar powered yurt, not attached to the grid, not part of Kyoto:



The project you referenced, on the other hand, is a wind farm:



Attached to the grid, and part of Kyoto.

cactus flower wrote:

Why do you say this means I'm against Kyoto? Isn't it only Ireland that is relying totally on off-set? Other places have done quite well. I don't buy into the excuses. Where are all the failed attempts? We deserve a good slap and should get down to re-gearing our infrastructure and reducing emissions. The recession will give us a good start.

True - we've done very little.

I have a yurt. Its a fall-back position in case of negative equity

The eastern european countries are saying they can't afford to deal with their emissions. The 20% target is looking very shaky.

Breaking News today -

The UN’s climate chief said today he was worried the European Union may miss its deadline on a policy of emissions cuts.

An EU summit ended this week with a general agreement to stick to a target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.

The EU has to produce a detailed plan by December on how it would implement the plan, but the summit concluded with a statement that softened that intention.

The UN ’s top climate official Yvo de Boer said that missing the December date also would delay a finance package, which the EU said would be ready early next year.

Developing countries are waiting to hear how money will be raised to help them adapt to global warming.

On the Ernst & Young programme last night, there was a candidate for entrepreneur of the year who makes eco-friendly cement. Every truck load saves 27 tons of emissions.
On another point, there is only lip service done to making Ireland energy independent.

clareman51 wrote:

On the Ernst & Young programme last night, there was a candidate for entrepreneur of the year who makes eco-friendly cement. Every truck load saves 27 tons of emissions.
On another point, there is only lip service done to making Ireland energy independent.

I reckon the ESB are way too powerful - they're building something in Asturias in Spain right now - a gas plant. The ESB have a hegemony here and they'll hardly tolerate sudden influx of wind and wave machines all over the place. The wave worms are amazing - be mighty off the coast of Spanish Point eh?

So any comment on the Behan resignation?

clareman51 wrote:

On the Ernst & Young programme last night, there was a candidate for entrepreneur of the year who makes eco-friendly cement. Every truck load saves 27 tons of emissions.
On another point, there is only lip service done to making Ireland energy independent.

Its something I haven't got my head around properly - there are EU targets and competition regulations having their effect as well as National policy and the vagaries of the ESB itself. I'll be doing my best to try and dig into this and would appreciate any information on this anyone turns up.

On principle, the recession should be an opportunity for looking at ways of saving more money - while saving on emissions, not a get-out clause.

What was that thread where ibis lamented that the Irish don't plan? If we were any good as a nation, we'd be taking the recession by the balls rather than lamenting that we've been kicked in them (harder by the government than anyone).

In the last few days I've been finding the focus on lack to be quite depressing and I do not wish to be depressed. We are presented with an abundance of opportunities as a nation and apart from those who were in financial trouble before the budget or the recession, with individual opportunities to empower ourselves and help others to do the same. Nor do I wish to be entertained by daft banker jokes to lift the mood. What I would like to see is some proactivity, some enthusiasm and some get-up-and-go. Otherwise we'll find ourselves coasting obliviously through the depression and recession the same as we did through the celtic tiger times.

Well, miss Kate P, money is the thing that unfortunately makes the world go round so those daft banker jokes are tied into this environmental business as much as anything, you know.

Our tickerman, karl denninger was even arguing that the 700 billion+ bailout should have been spent wisely on American green industry, in fact a bunch of congressmen made sure that tax breaks for the solar industry were slipped in with the bailout. They had been procrastinating for months on that one and suddenly it was flushed through.

Now Sarkozy wants a Second (or third?) Bretton Woods agreement where money will be again redefined in terms of something or other - probably nothing environmental when CO2 and WATER usage should make up a part of that inflationary ceiling on the printing of money. Among other values.

Gold my backside.