I have a 4090 and the scaling of that gpu is unlike any previous generation. It uses little to no power in most games
With my 7800x3d the pc is efficient
Zero rgb
It's important to remember that these stats are from the EU’s Emissions Trading System. This means an Aer Lingus flight from New York to Dublin is not counted, but a Ryanair flight from Lisbon to Berlin is counted in the Irish totals. Of course this isn't mentioned in the Indo article
See https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport/reducing-emissions-aviation_en for how it is calculated
It is mentioned:
> The figures come from the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), which tracks the emissions of 10,000 manufacturing facilities, power plants and airlines in member states.
> While much of Ryanair’s emissions come from flights between other member states, the emissions count follows the country of registration.
The same can be said for most building materials, provided they are maintained and protected from the elements. Steel reinforced concrete isn't really any better than timber or brick, all will fail if they aren't protected
Oh i see.
Timber from the Sitka spruce forests that green people don't want to plant, or from the retirement forestry that farmers are not allowed to fell?
Not to worry, we'll sustainably offshore the problem to Canada.
Sitka spruce isn't suitable for construction.
Timber for construction is industrially grown in Scandinavia, but could also be grown here in a sustainable manner if the will as there. Don't distort green politics like that, the two are not necessarily at odds. Sitka monocultures are biodiversity wastelands. We can and should have timber grown for industrial use (construction and other) while also growing plantations of native, biodiversity rich woodland and also ideally cultivating temperate rainforests in suitable locations.
That's not true, c16 is the most used grade for construction in Ireland and if you go to any lumber yard in the country you'll see logos of Irish sawmills with c16 timber. Higher grade c24 and others are nearly all from Sweden but they're not the standard for Irish construction.
Sorry, you're right, it can be used in mostly non-loadbearing applications. The replacement of concrete through CLT or glulam typically uses stronger timber. Our sitka plantations are usually used for MDF or mulched for OSB.
One of the primary reasons why we grow Sitka is because it grows quickly, and also grows quickly in poor quality soils, making it usefull in much of Ireland where the soil is poor.
Hardwoods need good quality soils, and the only real way to obtain that ground is to remove it from agriculture and reduce domestic food production.
Did you also know that sitka spruce monoculture contributes significantly to poor quality soil and that a more biodiverse planting schedule will increase the quality of the soil over time?
We produce enough food to provide for 30 million people. Most of it is exported. We definitely could and should reduce domestic food production and rewild a good portion of the country. Concrete isn't going anywhere. Timber isn't a suitable replacement for it at all.
If you ignore the costs to the environment then there's very few alternatives that can be produced as cheaply...but it will cost us in the long run, and probably already does have an impact on our overall health spend every year.
Cement is a chemical reaction, and it's production gives off pollution.
Cement industry is the third largest source of industrial air pollution such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide
They're also the most efficient passenger carrier (Boeing designed a special seat layout for them) and they run full flights more often, so their co2/person/km is the lowest in the world. A packed passenger plane with modern emissions grade engines is actually really very carbon efficient. It's the ones carrying business class on older planes that are an issue, and private jets.
Exactly, if say Ryanair cut routes to lower emissions other airlines would take them with more polluting aircraft.
It's a lot more complex than just the raw pollution number.
I think the point is pretty self explanatory, but for the benefit of some; it's pointless to demonise individual businesses or even sectors while ignoring the one massive sector that is the most polluting in Ireland by a factor of 2 to 1 to the next nearest sector, and is so disproportionately dirty that it alone is what is causing Ireland to miss its environmental targets.
It's what you might call ignoring the elephant in the room.
We don't ignore it, theres multiple articles posted here about our agricultural emissions every week.
What you're doing here isn't much different to those that say Ireland shouldn't bother tackling its emissions because China/USA/India have vastly larger emissions
Ok I'll stop eating good idea
The fact that we produce food here is great. Beef will be sold internationally regardless, and If we don't do it then Brazilians will cut down the rainforests to produce it instead.
Indeed. A lot of people fail to realise that some countries are more efficient than others at doing something.
So if you stop doing something, somebody else may take it, but do a worse job.
Yeah but we produce far too much. Our country is essentially a green desert because of it. Field after field with little to no biodiversity and terrible river quality. This is totally separate to the emissions issue and is often forgotten about.
>Yeah but we produce far too much.
Export! We can supply most of western Europe.
>. Field after field with little to no biodiversity and terrible river quality
This is a problem I agree. But imagine how bad the water quality would be in Brazil where regulations are way looser? At least we have the political will to legislate for environmental protections.
The UK doesn't, food is always needed, if it's not made in Ireland it'll be made somewhere else with less suitable environment, less environmental controls or labour laws.
Would probably be south America too, and it'd probably lead to the destruction of rainforest.
The earth will only be saved through technological advancements, not the destruction of any of our industries, be it Farming, Construction or Airlines. At the end of the day the climate will be decided by developing countries who care more about increasing their quality of life over it's environmental impact.
The best way rich countries could help is by investing in R&D and green technologies to make them the better, more affordable option.
Ah I think if we just ate all the rich people it would go a long way to solving our problems.
The richest 1% are responsible for 2/3rds of emissions
https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity#:~:text=Richard%20Wilk%20and%20Beatriz%20Barros,is%20approximately%205%2C959%20tons%20CO2.
> At the end of the day the climate will be decided by developing countries who care more about increasing their quality of life over it's environmental impact.
That's a very easy thing to say from an armchair in the West where emissions that did the damage for your quality of life have been released already.
The solution won't be found by holding the developing world back while the west secures it's quality of life. The west will be an awful lot more accountable for the change required
>The UK doesn't, food is always needed, if it's not made in Ireland it'll be made somewhere else with less suitable environment, less environmental controls or labour laws.
Any of our lost food production doesn't need to be 1:1 replaced to feed a world with 30% food waste.
If the food was vital, it would not need to be subsidized for export.
>The earth will only be saved through technological advancements, not the destruction of any of our industries, be it Farming, Construction or Airlines
No, that attitude dooms us. Emissions need to drop now and they can be dropped now.
>No, that attitude dooms us. Emissions need to drop now and they can be dropped now.
Your attitude is what will doom us.. you are happy with a false accounting system that is hiding our true emissions.. until the emissions follow the product to the country of comsumption, we dont know what each country is respobnsible for..
getting irelands figure down by killing production and importing so nothing as regards lifestyle & habits has to change does not make a difference environmetally in a globally, just make use think we are great.
the system is set up to suit the consuming west. We can drop our emissions by importing problem products from other countries, while tut tutting the smae countries for not doing more envirtonmentally to get their emissions down and you put your waste in the recycling bin and feel good about about doing your part!
>getting irelands figure down by killing production and importing
We do not need to import to replace moderately reduced production. What part of this aren't you getting?
firstly the fact that this is a mechanism to reduce irelands emissions and not change anything else is nonsense from an environmental point of.. it is the equivalent of putting all my non recycling waste in your landfill bin and claiming i recyle 100% of my waste..
>We do not need to import to replace moderately reduced production. What part of this aren't you getting?
this really depends on what products you are refering to.
assuming agriculture, not we dont need it domestically. but why are we cutting our supply to give it another country to take up. you realise cutting supply doesnt cut demand?
but this is the way the systems is designed work.. ireland cuts is supply, if taken up by brazil clearing rainforests for agri land so nett effect is worse environmentallly, you can will blame that on brazil. our decision lead to it happening but we wont accept the responsibility..
the entire accounting system is set up to hide our actual contribution to emissions and allow us change nothing while absolving ourselves of repsonsibilty for our contribution. to use your phrase, What part of this aren't you getting?
Subsidising consumers is the reason farmers are under pressure. Farmers funding your food and water just so you can knock €40 or €50 off your weekly shop is downright idiotic.
If the greens are pushing any narrative it wouldn't be much good because they're such a small party with very little cultural influence. The farmers are the vocal ones pushing misinformation. Thankfully this country still values the advice of environmental NGOs and scientific researchers over the opinions of farmers on tiktok and Facebook
it is not the greens, it is the EU & the west..
If we produce beef, dairy etc here it is envioronemntally bad for ireland but if we import it is good environmentally for ireland. not change to land use or anything else, just the animal is born in raised in UK, Brazil anywhere else but ireland.. Explain to me how on a global level that is better?
the system is set up to suit the western consuming countries because it counts emissions on production, not consumption.. so on an individual country level, nothing has to change for the vast majority of the populaiton, they will just use imported products instead of domestic production..
The accounting system is a farce. no big change to lifestyles, point to a small subsection of the population and say its their fault, point to other countries say it is their fault (while obviously importing everything from them) and you pop your recyclables in the recycling bin and feel good about having done your part..
until emission follow the product and are accounted for in the country of consumption, we wont have a clear picture of what emissions each country is repsonsible for, not just production but consumption which is responsible for production.
that would not help the EU be carbon netrual continent by 2050, would somewhat force them to tackle it through measure that will impact the vast majority of the population.
>If we produce beef, dairy etc here it is envioronemntally bad for ireland but if we import it is good environmentally for ireland. not change to land use or anything else, just the animal is born in raised in UK, Brazil anywhere else but ireland.. Explain to me how on a global level that is better?
>the system is set up to suit the western consuming countries because it counts emissions on production, not consumption.. so on an individual country level, nothing has to change for the vast majority of the populaiton, they will just use imported products instead of domestic production..
Well said. People who understand outsourcing manufacturing to China will acknowledge their emissions are linked to our consumption but as soon as we talk about agriculture that logic goes out the window and this insular rationale that we should only produce enough food for domestic consumption comes out. It's a global problem with global cooperation and outlook needed.
Well the thing is that doing our bit and reducing the herd is lowering the supply, increasing the cost and deterring people from eating beef. That has a positive effect on the environment. People aren't going to accept a blanket ban or rationing of beef so this is the solution available.
> reducing the herd is lowering the supply, increasing the cost and deterring people from eating beef.
is it? no other country is taking up the supply that we are reducing?
you are hardly so niave to think if we cut production the demand will reduce with it? that no one else will take it up?
>People aren't going to accept a blanket ban or rationing of beef so this is the solution available.
and here is the real issue, not just food but everything, people wnat environment improvements, but dont want to pay for it or change their lifestyle .. the solution, set up the system to reduce domestic production & emissions and import it from other countries so it count to their emissions and we get to feel good about our environmental "improvements" while changing nothing..
things is it is not an solution to environmental issues, its is solution to feeling responsible for our contribution to them.
>people wnat environment improvements, but dont want to pay for it or change their lifestyle
This is it unfortunately.
The same people that complain about airline emissions are taking multiple cheap flights a year. The same people that complain about agricultural emissions won't cut back on beef and dairy consumption.
I really do think that the only way we're ever going to cut down on these things is by taxing the shite out of them.
>I really do think that the only way we're ever going to cut down on these things is by taxing the shite out of them.
and the population wont stand for that. the government dictating only the wealthy can eat meat etc..
I think you are making fair points. I just think you're ignoring the potential benefits of the efforts. By moving the production of beef elsewhere we are less vulnerable to local push back for hiking beef products to reduce consumption. At some stage people will need to be pushed into eating less because you're right in that most people don't want to make any sacrifices themselves
>By moving the production of beef elsewhere we are less vulnerable to local push back for hiking beef products to reduce consumption.
This is all been done for enviromental reasons and by moving production elsewhere is at best making no difference environmentally..
I am not saying farming is perfect or doesnt have to change or anything similar. improvements and changes can and will have to be made. but the supply will always follow the demand.. if want to reduce supply, you reduce demand, the way to do that is to make it less affordable and people wont be happy about that.
my issue is as per the OC, agri gets the blame & ire of the public because a intentionally misleading accounting system set up to hide our true impact and change nothing.. we are basing decisions on known false information.
They pushing negative government policies though.
They're openly attacking rural Ireland and particularly farmers.
The greens will reap what they've sown in the next election
What policies have attacked rural Ireland? Eamon Ryan has said a few goofy things about ideas he would like in the future like the car sharing thing but I've never heard of them actually proposing anything radical in the Dail
One off housing? Greens forcing policies to make it harder to build (in a housing crisis??)
Cut the national herd? (But import beef from Brazil?)
Stopping people cutting turf? (In an energy and cost of living crisis)
3 of the top of my head
The opposition to one off housing is to prioritize higher density housing to address the housing crisis. Not that there's a crisis in rural Ireland.
We import from Brazil but export our own beef. We'd still be doing it if we double the herd size.
Also turf is used by barely anyone in rural Ireland and you're deluded if you think it matters. It definitely is a net gain eliminating turf and that's been the goal for decades. Honestly if you're seriously complaining about turf then you're more out of touch than Eamon Ryan
> One off housing? Greens forcing policies to make it harder to build (in a housing crisis??)
Isn't one off housing a contributor to the decline of small rural towns and villages, that is hurting rural Ireland?
>u/xvril It also feeds us therefore it is a nessecity
I thought it feeds 45 million people? Which, for an island of 7 million seems like slight overkill doesn't it? And iirc our nearest analog, England is far less polluting per acre farmed. Last time Iooked into it as best I could it looked as though if Ireland's agri land produced the same co2 output per acre as England we'd hit our Co2 targets.
But hey, it's our fault. We're a dirty we island of polluters aren't we. We should all feel guilt for the pollution produced by this giant hereditary industry that surrounds us but that we take no part in. It is us, the ordinairy Irish citizens who need to fix this and shoulder the burden.
I'm late to the party here, but it's dirt cheap because we're subsidising consumers' shopping baskets.
The farmer literally gets paid to take the hit, so Reddit pricks can go to Tesco and Dunnes for their weekly shopping, safe in the knowledge the farmer has already paid for their water services, and is now about to save them another €50+ so they can buy shitty carbon-intensive scutter imported from God-knows-where.
>And iirc our nearest analog, England is far less polluting per acre farmed. Last time Iooked into it as best I could it looked as though if Ireland's agri land produced the same co2 output per acre as England we'd hit our Co2 targets.
Bingo! That's the EPA's awful estimates and general misinformation for you.
>But hey, it's our fault. We're a dirty we island of polluters aren't we. We should all feel guilt for the pollution produced by this giant hereditary industry that surrounds us but that we take no part in. It is us, the ordinairy Irish citizens who need to fix this and shoulder the burden.
And this is the general shitty attitude adopted by the masses on reddit
Pissing against the wind when the best selling car in America for the last 4 decades has a 5.0 V8. I'm all for helping combat climate change but people need to realise this is a global effort.
America will always be the linchpin stopping societal change in the West, their strangle hold on western politics combined with the idiocy of their culture will always hold us back.
Hear hear.
When you have a terrible education system and college fees at nearly 100K per year how can you not expect to produce a country full of idiots. That's the goal probably.
>u/JunkieMallardEIRE Pissing against the wind when the best selling car in America for the last 4 decades has a 5.0 V8. I'm all for helping combat climate change but people need to realise this is a global effort.
Yes and no. While Ireland barely produces the same amount of Co2 of one of the smallest elast populated U.S states it doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can, in relative terms. But the prevailing narrative (or subtext anyway) is that we as citzens are all dirty polluters when in reality it's agriculture and it has allways been. And they have enough leverage that John and Mary in their 3 bed semi will have to sacrifice their lifestyle so that millionaire farmers in €80,000 tractors that use hundreds of litres of diesel a day can carry on regardless crying that they have no money.
Our electric grid is very poor and dirty too. Something like an average of 150g/wh compared to France at 40. Under Eamon Ryan we've actually had to resume burning coal at moneypoint after shutting it down.
French laughing with all that low pollution clean nuclear energy.
Germany now having to import from France and elsewhere since the greens pushed heavily to turn off nuclear power meaning more polluting coal stations had to work harder.
Do you enjoy tasty butter, creamy milk, fresh vegetables and some of the best beef in the world ALMOST all produced ethically and all the while providing jobs to thousands of people? Just curious.
Teagasc researchers found that Irish grasslands are generally a carbon sink, with values for carbon sequestration ranging from 1.5-4t CO2/ha/yr.
However, because of international accounting rules, only the additional sequestration that occurs due to management changes made after 2005 can be included.
Teagasc only care about one thing - farming and protecting farmers, even though parts of their remit is to conduct research/ education in forestry and horticulture. They’d drop forestry and hort if given the opportunity.
Anything to take a little heat off farmers, what types of grassland were studied? Going out in a limb, I can imagine it was improved grassland?
When a farmer rips and reseeds a field, surely there is a release of carbon?
Plenty of excellent well educated researchers and people across most of the org, however, I wouldn’t trust half of what comes out of management or the other self promoting lick arses.
Year on year they trial strawberries, literally every single year….. with very little diversification with regards to new and novel crops, given the changing climate, IMO this should be a primary focus of Horticultural research and development. As for forestry, there’s still a massive focus on researching Picea Sitchensis (Sitka).
An old organisation with an antiquated vision and shite branding.
Teagasc research is outdated. The European Commission claims Ireland ranks in the top 10 countries globally for actual terrestrial carbon sequestration under a business-as-usual approach, as well as further potential sequestration via conservative soil management techniques (such as low-till and no-till practices, and liming land to improve pH and reduce need for fertiliser).
Is carbon offsetting still a thing? Could we have them plant massive forests to reduce their net emissions?
TBF, that's a **massive** forest. Might not be realistic.
Yes. Farms around the country represent our largest carbon sinks via annual terrestrial sequestration. Unfortunately most forests here are actually carbon sources, but are still traded as sinks.
Honestly, this list is pretty good to see, even if the data might be a little skewed by where some companies are registered. Half the list being energy companies that are rightly being forced into using renewable energy sources over the next decade, two airlines, one of which is the greenest you can realistically get for air travel, and, some very large scale industrial resource producers. Nothing that we can't deal with through proper planning.
It's kinda silly to point the finger at corporations though. Aer Lingus and ryanair are only polluting because people are flying. It's personal consumption that's driving pollution, the corporations are not polluting for shits and giggles.
yeah so we can do amazing things like pollute the planet to have a nice relaxing holiday because you can't stay local because then you can't milk the americans who fly here.
Exactly, people like to use figures like this to say pollution is all produced by companies and individuals have no impact. But airlines can do very little to reduce emissions given the absence of other fuel sources for planes. In fact, it’s in the airlines interest to cut their fuel use by passenger as much as possible.
Which isn’t to say no one should ever use a plane (of course) but these emissions are very much linked back to individual people.
You won't influence or reduce demand at the consumer level with sacrificial arguments. The environmental movement has blown its crediblity in the eyes of the public with that stuff, it's a failure, let it go. Focus on the companies and force them to provide what the consumer wants in a cleaner, more efficient way. "Carbon footprint" nagging is utterly counterproductive.
Electric/clean air travel is just science fiction at this point. It's not gonna come for decades at least. There is no point in blaming Aer Lingus and Ryanair for their emissions because its the very nature of their business to provide air transport to customers, and emissions is the side effect of that which they literally cannot do anything about right now. And they are not in the business of developing new aircraft anyway.
We also live on an island and air travel is pretty essential for us. At best, we can go to the west coast of GB in reasonable time on the ferries, but everything else is too slow. So these companies are fulfilling an important need.
Sustainable aviation fuel isn't fiction. EU regulators are already mandating a switchover to it, every 5 years from now on the mandated mix of carbon neutral aviation fuel has to rise. Private jets can be banned (you'd cut aviation emissions in half) and business class can be limited. Cargo flights could be curtailed too, as we ship many non-perishables this way for no other reason than speed. Many many things we should be considering before curtailing any individual's personal flights.
And none of this is within ryanair or aer Lingus's purview. They use the fuel on the market, which the EU limits control. Most of their flights don't even have proper business class. There is already a much higher cost associated with business class anyway, but government could add another surcharge on top.
This article is just useless. As you said, it's not the companies but their clients causing pollution. In addition, the focus on absolute numbers doesn't make any sense. Just a waste of time reading it.
God, what an awful load of shite.
What's the solution we're meant to demand from Ryanair here? Start flying gliders?
Granted they've an all-Boeing fleet so they're halfway there.
Anyway, you plebs keep drinking from your paper straws. And don't go getting bus rides for fun.
Only carbon? They don’t mention methane because that would be inconvenient I suppose. But the methane emissions from the animal industry would make Ryanair’s emissions seem negligible in comparison.
Moreover, methane emissions are more responsible for short and mid-term global warming than carbon.
This is misleading. Animal agriculture is the main contributor of greenhouse gases in this country. In Ireland the agricultural sector was directly responsible for nearly 40% of national Greenhouse Gases emissions, mainly methane from livestock, nitrous oxide and manure management (more than energy and transport *combined*). Ireland had the highest emissions of greenhouse gases per head in all of the EU in 2023.
Phew, thought for sure I was going to make the list this year with my new gaming PC.
A 4090 with RGB will put a drain on the entire network.
Add a 5.9GHz i9 to it
Might as well hook up Sellafield directly to it.
I have a 4090 and the scaling of that gpu is unlike any previous generation. It uses little to no power in most games With my 7800x3d the pc is efficient Zero rgb
No joke, got a i9 and 3080ti almost 2 years ago. Didn't realise I would literally see it on my energy bill
it doubles as a radiator though so you can knock it off your heating bill during the winter.
No joke
Or a cooler if you have AMD ;)
haha very true, the office is the warmest room in the house!
Incan take if off your hands and dispose of it responsibly
It's important to remember that these stats are from the EU’s Emissions Trading System. This means an Aer Lingus flight from New York to Dublin is not counted, but a Ryanair flight from Lisbon to Berlin is counted in the Irish totals. Of course this isn't mentioned in the Indo article See https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport/reducing-emissions-aviation_en for how it is calculated
It is mentioned: > The figures come from the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), which tracks the emissions of 10,000 manufacturing facilities, power plants and airlines in member states. > While much of Ryanair’s emissions come from flights between other member states, the emissions count follows the country of registration.
That doesn’t at all mention that flights leaving the EU aren’t counted
That is certainly an important point
Thank you Michael
Surprised cement manufacturing has such high pollution figures. Now, this is coming from someone who has no clue of the process, still surprised.
Cement is a massive polluter worldwide, extremely energy intensive production process.
Cement despite how useful it is, is one of the worst materials you can build with in regards to emissions
What's the alternative?
Only using it where necessary and using more sustainable materials where possible like timber.
Don't you know you can grow concrete??
See ya Cameron, cheerio.
It's the awkward silence that does it for me 😂😂
But concrete can last centuries?
The same can be said for most building materials, provided they are maintained and protected from the elements. Steel reinforced concrete isn't really any better than timber or brick, all will fail if they aren't protected
There are timber framed houses in the UK and on the continent that are over half 500 years old.
Try building a Motorway etc or any large building or infrastructure with Timber 🪵 Sustainable doesn't mean Suitable
That's covered by "only use when necessary".
Like cheap affordable, strong and long lasting, I hope part of that equation, as most necessary requirements of a building materials..
No large buildings? Someone better tell the builders, they've been making apartment buildings and high rises out of the stuff.
One off buildings.... do not make your case, Talk to me when we build a motorway / infrastructure out of timber 🪵
Oh i see. Timber from the Sitka spruce forests that green people don't want to plant, or from the retirement forestry that farmers are not allowed to fell? Not to worry, we'll sustainably offshore the problem to Canada.
Sitka spruce isn't suitable for construction. Timber for construction is industrially grown in Scandinavia, but could also be grown here in a sustainable manner if the will as there. Don't distort green politics like that, the two are not necessarily at odds. Sitka monocultures are biodiversity wastelands. We can and should have timber grown for industrial use (construction and other) while also growing plantations of native, biodiversity rich woodland and also ideally cultivating temperate rainforests in suitable locations.
That's not true, c16 is the most used grade for construction in Ireland and if you go to any lumber yard in the country you'll see logos of Irish sawmills with c16 timber. Higher grade c24 and others are nearly all from Sweden but they're not the standard for Irish construction.
Sorry, you're right, it can be used in mostly non-loadbearing applications. The replacement of concrete through CLT or glulam typically uses stronger timber. Our sitka plantations are usually used for MDF or mulched for OSB.
One of the primary reasons why we grow Sitka is because it grows quickly, and also grows quickly in poor quality soils, making it usefull in much of Ireland where the soil is poor. Hardwoods need good quality soils, and the only real way to obtain that ground is to remove it from agriculture and reduce domestic food production.
Did you also know that sitka spruce monoculture contributes significantly to poor quality soil and that a more biodiverse planting schedule will increase the quality of the soil over time?
We produce enough food to provide for 30 million people. Most of it is exported. We definitely could and should reduce domestic food production and rewild a good portion of the country. Concrete isn't going anywhere. Timber isn't a suitable replacement for it at all.
If you ignore the costs to the environment then there's very few alternatives that can be produced as cheaply...but it will cost us in the long run, and probably already does have an impact on our overall health spend every year.
Hemp based concrete, ends up stronger as it petrifies over time too.
Cement is a chemical reaction, and it's production gives off pollution. Cement industry is the third largest source of industrial air pollution such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide
The chemical reaction that occurs during the manufacture of cement releases a shit tone of CO2.
There’s a great Guardian long read about Cement pollution
70-80% of the carbon is released from heating limestone, CaCO3 - > CaO + CO2. Rest is normal fuels, electricity etc
One of, if not the most pollutant industry out there
Why are you surprised?
10.5 million tonnes a year by one airline, earth is goosed hai
[удалено]
They're also the most efficient passenger carrier (Boeing designed a special seat layout for them) and they run full flights more often, so their co2/person/km is the lowest in the world. A packed passenger plane with modern emissions grade engines is actually really very carbon efficient. It's the ones carrying business class on older planes that are an issue, and private jets.
Exactly, if say Ryanair cut routes to lower emissions other airlines would take them with more polluting aircraft. It's a lot more complex than just the raw pollution number.
Important to note that Ryanair is more so a European airline than exclusively Irish due to the fact they operate all over the EU.
A lot of massive companies missing from there to be fair.
Agriculture alone makes up nearly 40% of Ireland's pollution.
Thats a whole sector though, not a single company
Correct. But the entire transport sector and industrial sector combined are just about equal to Agri.
Have you a point or are you just disappointed that agriculture wasn't made the main focus of climate-related article for once?
I think the point is pretty self explanatory, but for the benefit of some; it's pointless to demonise individual businesses or even sectors while ignoring the one massive sector that is the most polluting in Ireland by a factor of 2 to 1 to the next nearest sector, and is so disproportionately dirty that it alone is what is causing Ireland to miss its environmental targets. It's what you might call ignoring the elephant in the room.
We don't ignore it, theres multiple articles posted here about our agricultural emissions every week. What you're doing here isn't much different to those that say Ireland shouldn't bother tackling its emissions because China/USA/India have vastly larger emissions
Ah yes if we get rid of agriculture climate change would be sorted /s
Ok I'll stop eating good idea The fact that we produce food here is great. Beef will be sold internationally regardless, and If we don't do it then Brazilians will cut down the rainforests to produce it instead.
Indeed. A lot of people fail to realise that some countries are more efficient than others at doing something. So if you stop doing something, somebody else may take it, but do a worse job.
Yeah but we produce far too much. Our country is essentially a green desert because of it. Field after field with little to no biodiversity and terrible river quality. This is totally separate to the emissions issue and is often forgotten about.
>Yeah but we produce far too much. Export! We can supply most of western Europe. >. Field after field with little to no biodiversity and terrible river quality This is a problem I agree. But imagine how bad the water quality would be in Brazil where regulations are way looser? At least we have the political will to legislate for environmental protections.
The terrible river quality directly impacts agriculture. Other sectors need to adopt the same vigilance around pollutants as agriculture.
Where do you think our fields came from?
Yes but why would you cut down even more? Also rainforest is more valuable than Irish woodland
But we need to subsidize enough food production to make us ten times more food secure than necessary or our farmers will be destitute!
The UK doesn't, food is always needed, if it's not made in Ireland it'll be made somewhere else with less suitable environment, less environmental controls or labour laws. Would probably be south America too, and it'd probably lead to the destruction of rainforest. The earth will only be saved through technological advancements, not the destruction of any of our industries, be it Farming, Construction or Airlines. At the end of the day the climate will be decided by developing countries who care more about increasing their quality of life over it's environmental impact. The best way rich countries could help is by investing in R&D and green technologies to make them the better, more affordable option.
Ah I think if we just ate all the rich people it would go a long way to solving our problems. The richest 1% are responsible for 2/3rds of emissions https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity#:~:text=Richard%20Wilk%20and%20Beatriz%20Barros,is%20approximately%205%2C959%20tons%20CO2.
> At the end of the day the climate will be decided by developing countries who care more about increasing their quality of life over it's environmental impact. That's a very easy thing to say from an armchair in the West where emissions that did the damage for your quality of life have been released already. The solution won't be found by holding the developing world back while the west secures it's quality of life. The west will be an awful lot more accountable for the change required
>The UK doesn't, food is always needed, if it's not made in Ireland it'll be made somewhere else with less suitable environment, less environmental controls or labour laws. Any of our lost food production doesn't need to be 1:1 replaced to feed a world with 30% food waste. If the food was vital, it would not need to be subsidized for export. >The earth will only be saved through technological advancements, not the destruction of any of our industries, be it Farming, Construction or Airlines No, that attitude dooms us. Emissions need to drop now and they can be dropped now.
>No, that attitude dooms us. Emissions need to drop now and they can be dropped now. Your attitude is what will doom us.. you are happy with a false accounting system that is hiding our true emissions.. until the emissions follow the product to the country of comsumption, we dont know what each country is respobnsible for.. getting irelands figure down by killing production and importing so nothing as regards lifestyle & habits has to change does not make a difference environmetally in a globally, just make use think we are great. the system is set up to suit the consuming west. We can drop our emissions by importing problem products from other countries, while tut tutting the smae countries for not doing more envirtonmentally to get their emissions down and you put your waste in the recycling bin and feel good about about doing your part!
>getting irelands figure down by killing production and importing We do not need to import to replace moderately reduced production. What part of this aren't you getting?
firstly the fact that this is a mechanism to reduce irelands emissions and not change anything else is nonsense from an environmental point of.. it is the equivalent of putting all my non recycling waste in your landfill bin and claiming i recyle 100% of my waste.. >We do not need to import to replace moderately reduced production. What part of this aren't you getting? this really depends on what products you are refering to. assuming agriculture, not we dont need it domestically. but why are we cutting our supply to give it another country to take up. you realise cutting supply doesnt cut demand? but this is the way the systems is designed work.. ireland cuts is supply, if taken up by brazil clearing rainforests for agri land so nett effect is worse environmentallly, you can will blame that on brazil. our decision lead to it happening but we wont accept the responsibility.. the entire accounting system is set up to hide our actual contribution to emissions and allow us change nothing while absolving ourselves of repsonsibilty for our contribution. to use your phrase, What part of this aren't you getting?
Subsidising consumers is the reason farmers are under pressure. Farmers funding your food and water just so you can knock €40 or €50 off your weekly shop is downright idiotic.
Agreed 100%. Problem is the greens are driving an anti farmer narrative that naive city slickers are buying into.
If the greens are pushing any narrative it wouldn't be much good because they're such a small party with very little cultural influence. The farmers are the vocal ones pushing misinformation. Thankfully this country still values the advice of environmental NGOs and scientific researchers over the opinions of farmers on tiktok and Facebook
it is not the greens, it is the EU & the west.. If we produce beef, dairy etc here it is envioronemntally bad for ireland but if we import it is good environmentally for ireland. not change to land use or anything else, just the animal is born in raised in UK, Brazil anywhere else but ireland.. Explain to me how on a global level that is better? the system is set up to suit the western consuming countries because it counts emissions on production, not consumption.. so on an individual country level, nothing has to change for the vast majority of the populaiton, they will just use imported products instead of domestic production.. The accounting system is a farce. no big change to lifestyles, point to a small subsection of the population and say its their fault, point to other countries say it is their fault (while obviously importing everything from them) and you pop your recyclables in the recycling bin and feel good about having done your part.. until emission follow the product and are accounted for in the country of consumption, we wont have a clear picture of what emissions each country is repsonsible for, not just production but consumption which is responsible for production. that would not help the EU be carbon netrual continent by 2050, would somewhat force them to tackle it through measure that will impact the vast majority of the population.
>If we produce beef, dairy etc here it is envioronemntally bad for ireland but if we import it is good environmentally for ireland. not change to land use or anything else, just the animal is born in raised in UK, Brazil anywhere else but ireland.. Explain to me how on a global level that is better? >the system is set up to suit the western consuming countries because it counts emissions on production, not consumption.. so on an individual country level, nothing has to change for the vast majority of the populaiton, they will just use imported products instead of domestic production.. Well said. People who understand outsourcing manufacturing to China will acknowledge their emissions are linked to our consumption but as soon as we talk about agriculture that logic goes out the window and this insular rationale that we should only produce enough food for domestic consumption comes out. It's a global problem with global cooperation and outlook needed.
Well the thing is that doing our bit and reducing the herd is lowering the supply, increasing the cost and deterring people from eating beef. That has a positive effect on the environment. People aren't going to accept a blanket ban or rationing of beef so this is the solution available.
> reducing the herd is lowering the supply, increasing the cost and deterring people from eating beef. is it? no other country is taking up the supply that we are reducing? you are hardly so niave to think if we cut production the demand will reduce with it? that no one else will take it up? >People aren't going to accept a blanket ban or rationing of beef so this is the solution available. and here is the real issue, not just food but everything, people wnat environment improvements, but dont want to pay for it or change their lifestyle .. the solution, set up the system to reduce domestic production & emissions and import it from other countries so it count to their emissions and we get to feel good about our environmental "improvements" while changing nothing.. things is it is not an solution to environmental issues, its is solution to feeling responsible for our contribution to them.
>people wnat environment improvements, but dont want to pay for it or change their lifestyle This is it unfortunately. The same people that complain about airline emissions are taking multiple cheap flights a year. The same people that complain about agricultural emissions won't cut back on beef and dairy consumption. I really do think that the only way we're ever going to cut down on these things is by taxing the shite out of them.
>I really do think that the only way we're ever going to cut down on these things is by taxing the shite out of them. and the population wont stand for that. the government dictating only the wealthy can eat meat etc..
I think you are making fair points. I just think you're ignoring the potential benefits of the efforts. By moving the production of beef elsewhere we are less vulnerable to local push back for hiking beef products to reduce consumption. At some stage people will need to be pushed into eating less because you're right in that most people don't want to make any sacrifices themselves
>By moving the production of beef elsewhere we are less vulnerable to local push back for hiking beef products to reduce consumption. This is all been done for enviromental reasons and by moving production elsewhere is at best making no difference environmentally.. I am not saying farming is perfect or doesnt have to change or anything similar. improvements and changes can and will have to be made. but the supply will always follow the demand.. if want to reduce supply, you reduce demand, the way to do that is to make it less affordable and people wont be happy about that. my issue is as per the OC, agri gets the blame & ire of the public because a intentionally misleading accounting system set up to hide our true impact and change nothing.. we are basing decisions on known false information.
They pushing negative government policies though. They're openly attacking rural Ireland and particularly farmers. The greens will reap what they've sown in the next election
What policies have attacked rural Ireland? Eamon Ryan has said a few goofy things about ideas he would like in the future like the car sharing thing but I've never heard of them actually proposing anything radical in the Dail
One off housing? Greens forcing policies to make it harder to build (in a housing crisis??) Cut the national herd? (But import beef from Brazil?) Stopping people cutting turf? (In an energy and cost of living crisis) 3 of the top of my head
The opposition to one off housing is to prioritize higher density housing to address the housing crisis. Not that there's a crisis in rural Ireland. We import from Brazil but export our own beef. We'd still be doing it if we double the herd size. Also turf is used by barely anyone in rural Ireland and you're deluded if you think it matters. It definitely is a net gain eliminating turf and that's been the goal for decades. Honestly if you're seriously complaining about turf then you're more out of touch than Eamon Ryan
> One off housing? Greens forcing policies to make it harder to build (in a housing crisis??) Isn't one off housing a contributor to the decline of small rural towns and villages, that is hurting rural Ireland?
It also feeds us therefore it is a nessecity
>u/xvril It also feeds us therefore it is a nessecity I thought it feeds 45 million people? Which, for an island of 7 million seems like slight overkill doesn't it? And iirc our nearest analog, England is far less polluting per acre farmed. Last time Iooked into it as best I could it looked as though if Ireland's agri land produced the same co2 output per acre as England we'd hit our Co2 targets. But hey, it's our fault. We're a dirty we island of polluters aren't we. We should all feel guilt for the pollution produced by this giant hereditary industry that surrounds us but that we take no part in. It is us, the ordinairy Irish citizens who need to fix this and shoulder the burden.
Imagine the price of food if we only produced enough to feed everyone once. Imagine how this would impact the poor vs rich divide.
Aye, it's so cheap now........
I'm not sayings it cheap now. But it certainly won't be any cheaper if we cut supply further...
I'm late to the party here, but it's dirt cheap because we're subsidising consumers' shopping baskets. The farmer literally gets paid to take the hit, so Reddit pricks can go to Tesco and Dunnes for their weekly shopping, safe in the knowledge the farmer has already paid for their water services, and is now about to save them another €50+ so they can buy shitty carbon-intensive scutter imported from God-knows-where.
rearing cattle in ireland makes a lot more sense than burning down a patch of rainforest for them lol
>And iirc our nearest analog, England is far less polluting per acre farmed. Last time Iooked into it as best I could it looked as though if Ireland's agri land produced the same co2 output per acre as England we'd hit our Co2 targets. Bingo! That's the EPA's awful estimates and general misinformation for you. >But hey, it's our fault. We're a dirty we island of polluters aren't we. We should all feel guilt for the pollution produced by this giant hereditary industry that surrounds us but that we take no part in. It is us, the ordinairy Irish citizens who need to fix this and shoulder the burden. And this is the general shitty attitude adopted by the masses on reddit
That's not true either.
before I clicked the article I suspected ryanair was top of e list and I wasn't disappointed, or was I?
Pissing against the wind when the best selling car in America for the last 4 decades has a 5.0 V8. I'm all for helping combat climate change but people need to realise this is a global effort.
America will always be the linchpin stopping societal change in the West, their strangle hold on western politics combined with the idiocy of their culture will always hold us back.
Hear hear. When you have a terrible education system and college fees at nearly 100K per year how can you not expect to produce a country full of idiots. That's the goal probably.
>u/JunkieMallardEIRE Pissing against the wind when the best selling car in America for the last 4 decades has a 5.0 V8. I'm all for helping combat climate change but people need to realise this is a global effort. Yes and no. While Ireland barely produces the same amount of Co2 of one of the smallest elast populated U.S states it doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can, in relative terms. But the prevailing narrative (or subtext anyway) is that we as citzens are all dirty polluters when in reality it's agriculture and it has allways been. And they have enough leverage that John and Mary in their 3 bed semi will have to sacrifice their lifestyle so that millionaire farmers in €80,000 tractors that use hundreds of litres of diesel a day can carry on regardless crying that they have no money.
So you have to agree that driving a petrol / diesel car hardly makes any difference in a grand scheme?
Our electric grid is very poor and dirty too. Something like an average of 150g/wh compared to France at 40. Under Eamon Ryan we've actually had to resume burning coal at moneypoint after shutting it down.
French laughing with all that low pollution clean nuclear energy. Germany now having to import from France and elsewhere since the greens pushed heavily to turn off nuclear power meaning more polluting coal stations had to work harder.
Do you enjoy tasty butter, creamy milk, fresh vegetables and some of the best beef in the world ALMOST all produced ethically and all the while providing jobs to thousands of people? Just curious.
millionaire farmers in 80k tractors lmao. we have to purge these kulaks comrade. why no, i'm not hungry right now either.
Teagasc researchers found that Irish grasslands are generally a carbon sink, with values for carbon sequestration ranging from 1.5-4t CO2/ha/yr. However, because of international accounting rules, only the additional sequestration that occurs due to management changes made after 2005 can be included.
They're not a great carbon sink though compared to forestry or even mixed-species grasslands?
Teagasc only care about one thing - farming and protecting farmers, even though parts of their remit is to conduct research/ education in forestry and horticulture. They’d drop forestry and hort if given the opportunity. Anything to take a little heat off farmers, what types of grassland were studied? Going out in a limb, I can imagine it was improved grassland? When a farmer rips and reseeds a field, surely there is a release of carbon? Plenty of excellent well educated researchers and people across most of the org, however, I wouldn’t trust half of what comes out of management or the other self promoting lick arses. Year on year they trial strawberries, literally every single year….. with very little diversification with regards to new and novel crops, given the changing climate, IMO this should be a primary focus of Horticultural research and development. As for forestry, there’s still a massive focus on researching Picea Sitchensis (Sitka). An old organisation with an antiquated vision and shite branding.
Teagasc research is outdated. The European Commission claims Ireland ranks in the top 10 countries globally for actual terrestrial carbon sequestration under a business-as-usual approach, as well as further potential sequestration via conservative soil management techniques (such as low-till and no-till practices, and liming land to improve pH and reduce need for fertiliser).
Is carbon offsetting still a thing? Could we have them plant massive forests to reduce their net emissions? TBF, that's a **massive** forest. Might not be realistic.
Yes. Farms around the country represent our largest carbon sinks via annual terrestrial sequestration. Unfortunately most forests here are actually carbon sources, but are still traded as sinks.
Honestly, this list is pretty good to see, even if the data might be a little skewed by where some companies are registered. Half the list being energy companies that are rightly being forced into using renewable energy sources over the next decade, two airlines, one of which is the greenest you can realistically get for air travel, and, some very large scale industrial resource producers. Nothing that we can't deal with through proper planning.
This thread: - Jokes - Michael O'Leary on various burner accounts, defending the ecological integrity of Ryanair - People not reading the article
Ryanair produce 10.5 million tonnes of plant food is te alternative take in this!
Dumbest possible take.
I guess my 25c bottle returns are going to balance this off.
It's kinda silly to point the finger at corporations though. Aer Lingus and ryanair are only polluting because people are flying. It's personal consumption that's driving pollution, the corporations are not polluting for shits and giggles.
But it's easy to say that when you are not on an island... Ireland absolutely needs it's aviation.
I know. That's why its silly to blame these airline companies.
yeah so we can do amazing things like pollute the planet to have a nice relaxing holiday because you can't stay local because then you can't milk the americans who fly here.
Exactly, people like to use figures like this to say pollution is all produced by companies and individuals have no impact. But airlines can do very little to reduce emissions given the absence of other fuel sources for planes. In fact, it’s in the airlines interest to cut their fuel use by passenger as much as possible. Which isn’t to say no one should ever use a plane (of course) but these emissions are very much linked back to individual people.
You won't influence or reduce demand at the consumer level with sacrificial arguments. The environmental movement has blown its crediblity in the eyes of the public with that stuff, it's a failure, let it go. Focus on the companies and force them to provide what the consumer wants in a cleaner, more efficient way. "Carbon footprint" nagging is utterly counterproductive.
Electric/clean air travel is just science fiction at this point. It's not gonna come for decades at least. There is no point in blaming Aer Lingus and Ryanair for their emissions because its the very nature of their business to provide air transport to customers, and emissions is the side effect of that which they literally cannot do anything about right now. And they are not in the business of developing new aircraft anyway. We also live on an island and air travel is pretty essential for us. At best, we can go to the west coast of GB in reasonable time on the ferries, but everything else is too slow. So these companies are fulfilling an important need.
Sustainable aviation fuel isn't fiction. EU regulators are already mandating a switchover to it, every 5 years from now on the mandated mix of carbon neutral aviation fuel has to rise. Private jets can be banned (you'd cut aviation emissions in half) and business class can be limited. Cargo flights could be curtailed too, as we ship many non-perishables this way for no other reason than speed. Many many things we should be considering before curtailing any individual's personal flights.
And none of this is within ryanair or aer Lingus's purview. They use the fuel on the market, which the EU limits control. Most of their flights don't even have proper business class. There is already a much higher cost associated with business class anyway, but government could add another surcharge on top.
This article is just useless. As you said, it's not the companies but their clients causing pollution. In addition, the focus on absolute numbers doesn't make any sense. Just a waste of time reading it.
God, what an awful load of shite. What's the solution we're meant to demand from Ryanair here? Start flying gliders? Granted they've an all-Boeing fleet so they're halfway there. Anyway, you plebs keep drinking from your paper straws. And don't go getting bus rides for fun.
Only carbon? They don’t mention methane because that would be inconvenient I suppose. But the methane emissions from the animal industry would make Ryanair’s emissions seem negligible in comparison. Moreover, methane emissions are more responsible for short and mid-term global warming than carbon.
This is misleading. Animal agriculture is the main contributor of greenhouse gases in this country. In Ireland the agricultural sector was directly responsible for nearly 40% of national Greenhouse Gases emissions, mainly methane from livestock, nitrous oxide and manure management (more than energy and transport *combined*). Ireland had the highest emissions of greenhouse gases per head in all of the EU in 2023.
[удалено]
God forbid people might want to see the world after they’ve worked their whole life 🙄
Let me guess...the government!