TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

Column: We ignored signs of the bank crisis. What about the climate crisis?

Ireland is headed in the wrong direction, writes Molly Walsh – and the Government is blindly ploughing ahead.

Molly Walsh

TWO WEEKS AGO, the ESRI published a report in which they warned that Ireland will miss its climate change targets. The report states that unless we implement a new policy or plan our emissions will breach our targets by 2020.

We have some experience in this country of what happens when we ignore the warnings of an approaching crisis. However one of the mistakes of our economic boom is in danger of being repeated in the area of climate change. And that is the mistake of allowing the desires of a strong lobby group to thwart attempts to plan and regulate sensibly.

The consequences of contributing to climate change will be felt both locally and globally. Climate change has been called the greatest challenge to humanity by people as politically varied as Leonardo DiCaprio, Maggie Thatcher, Al Gore and Phil Hogan. Globally the impacts of climate change are frightening: climate change is likely to greatly affect water resources and food security in some of the world’s most populous countries. Here in Ireland we are likely to see impacts on farmers in the South and East who will find it much drier, our rivers are at a greater risk of flooding, even the humble Irish potato may be at risk.

One of the biggest questions that we will have to face as a country is how to deal with people who have had to leave their homes because of climate impacts in their countries. Will we tell these people they are not welcome here when we caused the problem that forced them from their homes?

‘It is sometimes said that our problem in Ireland is cows and cars’

Why are we going to miss our targets? Well one of the main reasons mentioned in the report is that our agreed climate targets are on a collision course with a document call Food Harvest 2020, which is a growth strategy for our agricultural industry.

It is sometimes said that our problem in Ireland is cows and cars. However emissions from transport are finally starting to reduce while emissions from agriculture are set to increase. Methane from cows has a very warming effect in the atmosphere. Cows release lots of methane by belching and farting. Food Harvest 2020 plans to double our output of beef and dairy and more cows means more emissions.

But, I hear you ask, if its a government strategy it must have undergone some sort of check to ensure that it didn’t do more harm than good? In fact isn’t there a requirement for all government plans to undergo a Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA)? Well here’s the tricky thing about Food Harvest 2020. It is a strategy that was prepared by the farming industry itself and despite referring to it regularly the government have found it most convenient to insist that it isn’t government policy when it suits them.

In an answer to a PQ in the Dáil earlier this month Minister of State Shane McEntee said it was a document that was “wholeheartedly embraced” by the Agriculture Minister who was committed to its success but that it wasn’t a government plan or programme, it was an industry–led strategy!

‘This is exactly the kind of thing that allowed the financial industry to write their own rules’

This is exactly the kind of double think that allowed the financial industry to write their own rules and caused the financial crisis. We ignored the warnings on light touch regulation and failed to act then, we must not ignore these climate warnings now.
There is a way to make sure that we do meet our targets and play our fair part in tackling climate change. That way is to pass a strong climate law.

A climate law passed in the UK in Autumn 2008 and an even stronger one in Scotland in 2009. A climate law is a way to make sure that government thinking makes sense, it is an action plan to meet our targets, a plan to plan if you will. A climate law would do a few things but one of the most important would be a requirement on Ministers to set five-year legally binding targets.

Five years is about the time scale within which politicians can effectively think. Its long enough to allow flexibility, but short enough to mean something. The law would also have provision for an expert committee to publicly advise the government. Every year the minister would have to go in front of the Dáil and explain whether or not we are on target to meet our five year target or and respond to the advice of the expert committee. If we are off course they will have to explain what is going to be done to get back on track.

The best analogy I can think of is one of a student who is falling behind with their work. They wouldn’t be expelled or fail their state exams straight away. The end of year exams or annual targets would give a clear idea if the student was performing poorly, there would be mechanisms in place to stop them failing, teachers would advise, parents would work to get the pupil back on track etc.

The ESRI have warned that we are on a course to fail our Leaving Cert, the only exam that matters. What is worrying is that without a climate law we don’t have any plan to get us back on track.

Molly Walsh is the policy and advocacy officer with Friends of the Earth Ireland. For more information, visit their website at foe.ie or their Facebook page.

Read next:

Comments (56 Comments)

  • Interesting article and very good points, the only problem is that if we were to reduce our beef farming then it will probably just move to somewhere like south America where it is in general not as sustainable and therefore increase carbon emissions worldwide but Ireland would have an A+ 

    Reply
    • Peter 26/06/12 #

      Well we could do a bit more tillage but buy doing so beef prices would rise, but still global warming is a theory, those climate scientists like to fudge reports to make them sound more dramatic, like those guys in England before Copenhagen 2009.

      Reply
    • Yeah Peter, it’s just a theory.
      Like, you know, the theory of gravity.
      Anyday now, we’re going to prove that that silly gravity thing is just a theory and then we’ll all fly like pigeons…

      Reply
  • E L 26/06/12 #

    We are currently jn a race between human ingenuity and human stupidity ! We Have an economic system that requires perpetual growth to survive in a finite world. That is why we do need to find ways to reduce the farting of cows – we are getting ourselves into complex problems that require complex solutions so yes jay we do need the scientists.

    Reply
  • Molly our Co2 emissions are relatively minuscule. Climate change is already happening and is more than likely irreversible. We however, have some of the worlds best real estate to deal with it, with our northern latitude and relatively high elevation. I would refute your drought stricken southern farm theory as folly. We should absolutely concentrate on departing from our fossil fuel dependence but mainly because we need to prepare for the transition as such power sources run out. The analogy of Co2 emissions and our economic depression is little more than a parlour trick designed to shed light on topics that are utterly unrelated.

    Reply
  • Another great example of the Irish self-hate bias! No mention of the right of Americans to wastefully drive gas guzzlers, Canadian wastefulness in extracting shale oil or Chinese hunger for burning dirty coal ad inf. Paddy is attacking Paddy for producing less than 0.14% of the world’s greenhouse gas thus ignoring the real culprits and arguing for Paddy to shoot himself in the foot. Evidence if were needed that Irish journalism (like banking) is infected with mad cow disease!

    Reply
    • Andrew 26/06/12 #

      While it’s a good point that those countries are being wasteful, telling others what you see they’re doing wrong (especially when Paddy has his own wrongdoings going on) often just gets people’s backs up. It doesn’t help the situation and distracts from what Irish people can actually change directly: the .14% of emissions as you put it.

      Plus it doesn’t have to be a foot-shooting exercise, there is profitability in them their renewables.

      Reply
    • Andrew 26/06/12 #

      While it’s a good point that those countries are being wasteful, telling others what you see they’re doing wrong (especially when Paddy has his own wrongdoings going on) often just gets people’s backs up. It doesn’t help the situation and distracts from what Irish people can actually change directly: the .14% of emissions as you put it.

      Plus it doesn’t have to be a foot-shooting exercise, there is profitability in them there renewables.

      Reply
    • Andrew – gross ineptitude is perhaps the best description of the “green movement” world wide and especially true of Ireland. It is not about cattle that are reared in Ireland to provide food for other countries, it is about consumerism and the mad unsustainable snobbish behaviours of humans in general. When the “airy fairy green loons” realise where the problem lies they might be able to solve it and the label of “gross ineptitude” might disappear.

      Reply
  • May sound like a contradiction, but the carbon impact of building and running and transporting a new car outweighs the impact of continuing to run an older “dirtier” car thats already been built and shipped. Especially hybrids. They use hard to get rare earth minerals much more than standard diesel or petrol cars.

    Reply
  • Not to overly dwell on the farting thing but imagine the climate change when dinosaur s were at it .no wonder they had to go.

    Reply
    • That’s pretty much exactly what happened to them Eilish, more than once (there was more than one extinction event – they were around for a few million years, we’ve only been here for at most a hundred thousand). Asteroid impacts, ice ages, supervolcano eruptions; all (ultimately) forms of climate change, species couldn’t adapt to the new climate and died out.

      Reply
  • This is simply put and well said. The weakness of all democracies, our own included, is short termism and superficiality. Rarely do politicians see beyond the next election or beneath a newspaper headline.nThis is why when the economic bubble was expanding in the mid 2000s not one of the main political parties had a ‘let’s be prudent and stop spending’ manifesto and if they did, would they have enjoyed electoral success? I think not.nSo too with our fragile climate, which needs unpopular short term pain (public transport resources, running costs of cars increasing even more, water charges etc) for unseen and inexperienced benefits ( a sustainable future). Now that’s a real vote winner!!!

    Reply
    • That’s a bit arrogant, Shane.

      The majority of the electorate are shallow, vacuous people who are incapable of long term thoughts and only care about the latest glittery bauble presented by the greedy politicians, while only a small minority like yourself are capable of seeing the great vision?

      Give people a chance, they might surprise you.

      Reply
    • They constantly surprise us Damocles.
      They elect Jackie Healy-Rae, then Michael; they elect Lowry and Cowen and Ahern and all their ilk. They surprise us every time.

      Frankly, I wish they’d stop surprising us quite so much…

      Reply
    • I stopped believing in climate change and other fairy-tales when I was a child. Most sensible people realize that the Earths climate goes through cycles and future generations are heading towards an Ice age regardless. What never ceases to amaze me is mans stupidity in believing Global Warming is anything but a political movement designed for taxes and careers. 10,000 years ago Arizona was under 40″ of ice, so we know that temperature can vary on its own. Glaciers world wide have been shrinking for the last 300 years, this means that things other than CO2 change our climate.

      To keep things in context, a recent survey ‘The Petition Project’ featured over 31,000 of the worlds most esteemed scientists signing the petition stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere”

      The Inconvenient Truth, like most political propaganda is for sheep.

      “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” Galileo Galileo

      Reply
    • ….and surprised again. Cheers for that Paula….

      Go have a read:
      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      Reply
    • BTW Paula your “petition project” ? “Doctor” Michael J Fox, “Doctor” Geri Halliwell, “Doctor” John C. Grisham and “Doctor” Perry S. Mason are all signatories. Now, I enjoyed Back to the Future as much as any other kid, but I don’t really think it qualified Michael J Fox to the point where his signature was sufficient evidence to discount the work of climatologists the world over for the past fifty years and the physical evidence they’ve uncovered and highlighted.

      Reply
    • For anyone who genuinely wants to know the full story behind the “Petition Project”, take a read:
      http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/#feature

      Reply
  • It’s not the governments fault, it’s ours. We vote them in, they want to stay in. If you want them to tackle climate it means higher taxes. We don’t want that.

    Reply
  • It’s true to say that cows (or more properly, their complementary load of methanogenic bacteria) release merhane to the armosphere.

    Yet there is a duplicity here. The figures for the impact of agriculure on global warming are derived from
    making many assumptions which may or may not be true, and which this writer is disingenuously glossing over.

    Grain growing accounts for, by far, the largest carbon impact of all human food production. The calculations for livestock usually include a “grain loading” which is not appropriate to include in a calculation for grass-fed herds like Ireland’s. Pastured animals also CREATE soil, an important carbon sink, while grain crops steadily destroy soil and replace it with petroleum based feetilisers. I would request the writer do separate calculations on the impacts of grain-fed v grass-fed herds, and the im

    Reply
    • …pacts of spil-building practices versus soil-destroying practices.

      Is she suggesting that Irish livestock farms, which suit local conditions should be converted to less suitable and more destructive practices?

      Or that we should let our hillsides go to fire-hazard whin-strewn undegrazed wilderness?

      Some useful practical thinking is in order. And truthful use of statistics.

      *trigger finger*

      Reply
  • Those are your words, Damocles. In 2007, all the main parties had manifestos based on 4-6% economic growth – why, if not to get elected? nThe astuteness of the Irish electorate (or indeed of any democracy) is hard to judge and I am not making such an assessment. My comment is about democracy…which is littered with short termism etc. I am not sure what the answer is… But we are all paying the cost of poor leadership. Also the standard of public political debate…. Someone once said..’everything is political, except politics, which is personal’ (or some such). The personal slanging matches that often characterise Dail discussions and TV debates illustrate this well.

    Reply
    • Damocles 26/06/12 #

      Just paraphrasing.

      The politicians might be just after the quick electoral hit but it’s the electorate that give it to them, right?

      If the electorate were half as well capable of seeing the grand vision that you do then they’d abandon such politicians for those who offer the long term solutions you see, surely?

      But you say that the politicians, and hence the electorate, go for the quick hit. Incapable and unwilling to see the grand vision …

      Maybe you’re right, maybe we need a long term vision from some sort of ‘new’ politician.

      Reply
  • The climate has always changed and always will.the cows have always belched and farted .and Molly will get paid to scare the s— out of us .more methaine.

    Reply
  • David 26/06/12 #

    This is the biggest load of rubbish i have ever read. Friends of the Earth should be called enemies of the people. What will people do when there is no food to eat or not enough lettuce to go around. Typical scaremongering from global warming morons. Ask any farmer if it’s getting too dry in the south of Ireland. It’s a complete washout. People like molly should not be entertained without facts and figures and also alternatives to her argument.

    Reply
    • Yeah, quick, lets ask any farmer, anywhere in the world, if they’ve been seeing more extreme weather in the last decade or so. (Hint: The answer will be either “Yes” or “I’ve not been farming that long”).

      Reply
  • People seem to oppose austerity but support Green austerity. This agricultural plan is in fact anything but short termism, quite the opposite, and will provide jobs and exports. When Molly says we are on target for the reduction in car emissions, that is down to the recession. We won’t get out of the recession unless industries, or agriculture grow and that will involve more emissions, unless we have technical solutions on emissions instead of solutions to reduce consumption or production.

    Economic contraction is not a solution, it creates human misery. Molly seems to suggest that we should not try to implement this report, and not compete for more exports in beef or cattle, exports which will be replaced elsewhere at a possible cost to the environment anyway, “good” for Ireland’s Green reports, but neutral, or worse, for the world’s. Thats a mugs game.

    Instead of austerity Greenism we could try to reduce emissions per cow. I was going to suggest it wasn’t past the ingenuity of humans to reduce cow emissions, or trap them, and in fact it has been done, just not implemented.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/mar/22/germany.climatechange

    Reply
  • Climate crisis? More like climate scam to tax your very existence.

    Reply
  • Insects contain as much protein as beef and don’t produce any emissions, in years to come we will be ordering a plate of insects rather than a stake!

    Reply
    • At which point, we’ll be doing what the majority of the human race already do.

      BTW, pass those red M&M’s, would you? Gotta have me some of those insects…

      Reply
    • Insect ‘meat’ is a more credible solution than we might imagine. Insects use a fraction of the space and feed resources of large animals. They give off close to zero methane and other harmful gases. They contain nearly twice as much protein per kilo and almost no fat.

      A recent project at the Royal College of Art in London tried to imagine ‘cricket mince’ and ‘caterpillar croquettes’ on the prepared food aisle at your local Tesco: http://cargocollective.com/ento/Products

      No worse than whatever foul grisel goes into a Supermac’s burger in my view.

      Reply
    • Interesting link derrynairn, I may just go and buy some!

      Reply
    • Ate insects regularly when living in Thailand.
      No different from eating prawns or periwinkles.

      some local farmers used to raise insects in cages for protein in their diet. Very cheap and convenient food.

      Reply
  • while some aspects of climate change, over the long run, should give us pause. the alarmist mentality that it is any sort “crisis” has been vastly overblown.

    simply put, those who advocate this crisis cannot scientifically support their own arguments in any form of fair, honest public debate.

    add in the fact that, if you are a professor or scientist, and you don’t advocate for the current climate change junk science. you’ll very soon find yourself out of a job. and ridiculed by peers.

    many researchers and professors simply follow the research funding. which, for the most part, only flows into those who advocate for climate science, to the point where evidence against such is ridiculed. most of the true scientific work is heralded by retired members of the climate science community, no longer forced to provide one side only of the argument in order to receive funding and keep their university jobs (after all professors and scientists who don’t bring in funding aren’t of much use to the commercial income of any school).

    it gets so bad, that even students who propose otherwise in their own papers are automatically failed by some professors, regardless of the merits of their research. simply for going against the status quo of the governing “consensus” with their views.

    Reply
  • @mark….Oh it must be true it’s on nasa’s website… Governments want you to believe it so they can tax it. I’d rather hear it from independent scientists

    Reply
    • If you want independent scientific reports, look up the publications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..body of work reviewed is probably as extensive as possible to synthesise the existing research on the core issues. nTake it as a starter point to find additional literature to do your own reading around the issues. nObviously no one source can be unbiased enough so if you read widely you can come to your own conclusions. n http://www.ipcc.ch

      Reply
  • Oh give me a break, who cares……

    Reply
  • Ooo yeahh

    Reply
  • Basic facts are that the banking crisis WAS a man made problem and “Climate Change” is not. The pseudo-science involved in this modern myth is nothing more than researchers with no real work being able to get easy funding for almost anything they want as long as they make a link (No matter how tenuous) to climate. Climate cycles have been around as long as the planet and is a natural cycle and to mention Al Gore adds insult to injury… This is the man that tried to convince everyone he invented the internet while he was running for president and believes in climate change so much that he makes absolutely no attempt to reduce his own so called “Carbon Footprint” You only have to look at his house. I’m all for green energy if it means cheaper energy, but the funny thing is that when I looked at the prices here in Ireland, If you want to purchase solely renewable source electricity it’s the most expensive electricity you can buy!!! SCAM SCAM SCAM

    Reply
    • Once upon a time Jay, folks would have argued with you about that.
      These days, they just recognise you as a quack.
      But here, go read the actual evidence for yourself. No reason you have to remain a quack.
      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      Reply
    • EMD 26/06/12 #

      Mark, the words ‘head’, ‘wall’, ‘banging’ spring to mind. Honestly The Journal is not the place to be if you are looking for rational debate, science and factual comments. I’m with you on this and agree with the science supporting your argument but the majority of comments here are not worth responding to. Just hold on to the thought that The Journal commenters are not representative of the Irish people (hopefully).

      Reply
  • Mark ,as will happen,life s like that

    Reply
    • Actually, *death and extinction of the species* is like that Eilish.
      Thing is, while we currently couldn’t do very much about asteroid impacts or supervolcano eruptions, we’ve already proven with the Montreal Protocol, we can control our own impact on the environment. And if we’re going to go extinct as a species, let’s do it because of something massive and beyond our control, not because we couldn’t stop a few cows belching…

      Reply
  • Those are your words, Damocles. In 2007, all the main parties had manifestos based on 4-6% economic growth – why, if not to get elected? nThe astuteness of the Irish electorate (or indeed of any democracy) is hard to judge and I am not making such an assessment. My comment is about democracy…which is littered with short termism etc. I am not sure what the answer is… But we are all paying the cost of poor leadership. Also the standard of public political debate…. Someone once said..’everything is political, except politics, which is personal’ (or some such). The personal slanging matches that often characterise Dail discussions and TV debates illustrate this well.

    Reply
  • http://carbon-based-ghg.blogspot.ie/2010/11/leaking-siberian-ice-raises-tricky.html when this happens were all shagged.cattle, insects people everything.

    Reply
    • Yup, not to mention what happens if the Ross Shelf lets go or if the gulf stream shifts because of climate change. Mind you, at that point, as we sit here slowly freezing (our latitude is *cold* folks, if it wasn’t for the stream, we’d normally see winters like the one in 2010/11), all we’d here is “stupid scientists, call this global *warming* do you?”…

      Reply
  • censored 27/06/12 #

    Is it still raining?

    Reply
  • Alvaro 26/06/12 #

    Climate change is a massive lie!!

    Reply
    • That is a somewhat unsubstantiated claim. At least the issue is in dispute and evidence is suggestive that something significant is happening our climate (melting polar ice, atypical weather patterns globally over the last few years). While it is true the evidence is not without it’s detractors, I for one think it’s taking an unnecessary risk with our and future generations well being to deny the possibility of climate change.

      Reply
    • human evolution favours the forces of psychological denial

      Reply
  • We need a world government to control population and climate change. Thankfully it’s well on the way now even if they are just the super rich banksters.

    Reply

Add New Comment