If it actually stopped climate change, most people would pay a lot I reckon. The problem is taking money without an iota of a guarantee
1 Like
I suspect an electric bike will be the mode of transport for that soon.
1 Like
Virtual reality.
Don’t be dotin fella, they would in their shite
I have answered this a few times already. For your Dublin to Donegal example it’s trains. (And there won’t be 100 people on the aircraft by the way unless you’re suggesting half of them are standing in the aisles).
Whatever the number. Is it more environmentally viable to have a multiple of cars on the road for 10 times longer? It’s a genuine question.
I haven’t had this conversation with you before so I don’t know whether you’ve answered it or not. If you to want discontinue go ahead.
Where will the money for these trains come from? Will people use them? The existing rail network isn’t economically viable. It’s still cheaper to jump in the car for most people
Yes it is. Not by much. But it is.
But the answer is trains and better bus services.
The money from trains can come from reduced investment in road transport and reduced investment/subsidies in aviation.
We are currently spending €320m on a new runway at Dublin Airport. That is being financed by the DAA themselves (but of course the DAA itself benefits from state funding so it’s just indirect financing). Gatwick Airport handles significantly more passengers than Dublin Airport with one runway. We want to “invest” in a second when it’s not needed. And then we’ll have to justify the growth by investing further in subsidising more regional flights to increase passenger numbers to justify the money we spent on them and then we’ll say we need to do the same again and we can’t afford to divert money to anything else because we’ve proven that if we subsidise air travel we can increase demand for it.
1 Like
He works in the Dole office. He’s untouchable.
This thread is a superb example of not seeing the forest for the trees (no pun intended).
The primary issue on human impact on climate is the number of people on the planet and how much emissions they produce. It doesn’t matter a rats ass where they are, they could all be squeezed into Africa and we would have the same issue.
Global temperatures have risen by +1C since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Let’s assume for this exercise all of that is due to human activity, and specifically due to carbon emissions. Carbon emissions continue to rise as population grows but more importantly as poor and underdeveloped regions become developed. Every human on the planet wants a better lifestyle and who can blame them?
There are almost 8 billion humans on the planet, 1 billion are in the most developed areas of Europe and North America, the other 7 billion are largely in poor, underdeveloped or developing countries in Asia and Africa. Unless global economic growth is shut down immediately, there is no way to stop this runaway train of emissions. The estimates for the increase in global temperatures over the next century are from 2C (a pipe dream) to 9C, so let’s use the average of +5.5C. If +1C has led to the environmental disasters we have had such as the melting of the polar caps, burning of Australia, etc. what do you think +5.5c will do?
The problem is nobody is dealing with reality, especially the cunt politicians who would say anything to get a vote. Then reality is people in the western developed world are not willing to reduce their standard of living (the opposite actually, build more houses, more roads, etc.) and people in the developing world want the same lifestyle as the developed world.
That doesn’t mean we do nothing, but if we are going to make an impact for the humans on the planet 100 years from now (it is too late for this generation and the next one) then there has to be a more urgent global effort to reduce emissions, like shutting down all coal plants and huge investment in nuclear and renewables. How the fuck can you do that when China has ramped up building coal plants again internally and is building 300 new coal plants in Asia and Africa to meet demand in developing countries?
The most important thing we can do is adapt to the changes in climate that are coming. The simple fact is there are going to be large areas of the world that are uninhabitable, either under water or desert like. We need to build massive new cities in areas that are inhabitable and there needs to be human migration on a colossal scale.
Are humans likely to collectively get together and do all this? Not a fucking hope.
5 Likes
Looks like tree huggers are better at hugging trees than actually planting them.
The head of the union claimed, however, that 90% of the saplings his teams have inspected so far have died because of insufficient water.
The ministry of agriculture and forestry denied the claim and said that “as of today, 95% of the more than 11 million saplings planted are healthy and continuing to grow”.
That’s some discrepancy 
1 Like
I’m with the ministry
Your man is from the forestry trade union, it’s in his interests to make out that planting trees is hard
1 Like
This deserved a great post award.
He’s saying the fact they were planted by volunteers and not experts (the member of his union) is one of the main reasons they failed.
It is in its bollix. Over 2 hours Galway to Limerick, twice the time it takes in a car. The few times I was on it, it was also one of the smaller trains with no facilities in it.
Oh right. I’ve never used it but I love meeting all the auld stocks up from Limerick for the day on the bus pass
Are you choosing to ignore by question on the use of eco-blocks on purpose?
Right-wing politics and its ideology as we see practised throughout large parts of the world today is a sickness.
Sadism is the point.
The halcyon days when climate change was a worry.