The Great Global Warming Debate


Yea, I was reading this stuff 20 years ago so when you know the origin Ryan is glow in the dark flourescent green at this point. :whistle:


All Movie.


It’s absolutely brazen now


It is better to live in small towns rather than giant cities IMHO, better for health and while still reamining close to all the places & services you would need to go to. But I am not talking about low density surburbia which is car dependent more like higner density suburbs that existed before cars, ones that were served by a decent PT system and people could get around without having to rely on their own personal transport.

EV’s are clean, but they can still cause traffic jams in a badly designed city.


If you are under thirty and don’t have kids why wouldn’t you live in a rented apartment in a city? They can’t afford a house and even if they wanted one, any given city has bars, nightclubs, transport links etc. That ride-on lawnmower isn’t everyone’s bag…


All this is related


Didn’t that lad Aodhán Ó Ríordáin profess some similar or same talking point recently?


I have worked in a manufacturing industry in the 1980s that made consumer products, but there was no life limited parts in the design.

Why would you not be able to sell your products - just because you make (fewer) durable products, you’re still selling and making money. Just like the Forth bridge maintenance, the same painters start at one end and take several years to get to the other end. The more painters the quicker they reach the other end.
There’s nothing wrong in having a smaller manufacturing base, one that matches consumption.
UBI & part time working will overcome the unemployment issues.

As above

After decades of marketing to ensure that consumers have ever decreasing expectations of product life and the pressure imposed by marketeers to ensure that all products are replaced frequently. It is no wonder the consumers now believe that stuff is short lived and needs frequent replacement and they must get the latest and greatest.

No way will it cost five times, maybe 30% at most, anyway at work the other day I saw one of the IT staff fill a skip with old power supplies, all working and around 12 years old. The reason they’re being scrapped is simply due to the connectors being incompatible with the replacement laptops.
A classic example of planned obsolescence

A Chinese capacitor manufacturer in the 1990s made capacitors that were so bad that the products failed within the warranty period, this was very expensive for the vendors as they had to replace so much equipment before it’s planned expiry date.
For artificially short lifespans, we’re really talking about domestic appliances, these should last far longer than they actually do - replacing a washing machine every 5-10 years is an incredible waste of resources.

Yes indeed, the whole economy is based on moving material from the quarries to landfill as fast as possible, with lip service to “green” initiatives like recycling.

Generally the modern economy has been designed to funnel wealth upwards while making “work” for everyone else and stigmatising those who are unable to find work

Which laws make products less durable, it’s more like manufacturers are using the regulations as an excuse to shorten the life of products. The “greenest” products are those that last a long time.

There is nothing in the “green” regulations that mandate manufacturers to make flimsy products, they make that choice themselves. It’s really up to individuals to lobby manufacturers to make durable products, nothing to do with greenwashing politics. Also it is something that governments really should mandate for as well, along with the “right to repair”.

If referring to Diesel cars then I agree with you, very ill informed decision ignoring all the pollutants that diesel engines emit, while looking at CO2 reductions that were at best insignificant, therefore reducing air quality significantly in urban areas.
Transitioning to Electric Vehicles and reducing coal are things that are far better for the environment due to the improvements in air quality that such policies are bringing about.

Do you like living in a smog filled city?

Yes, controlled burning in small areas each and every year will prevent huge out of control fires from starting. That’s how people did it in the past for good reason.

No, there needs to be a different approach, we are living in an economy that has minimised the human input to most commercial & industrial activities thus making the outputs/products extremely cheap, they make them flimsy so the consumers are forced to make repeated purchases.

The theory behind planned obselesense was to provide work where there was no work after the 1930s depression, but these days with so much automation, there is less of a requirement for work as such we should be looking at options like UBI to provide the basics for living and if anyone wants more then there will be jobs for them.

The modern economy does not need full employment to function, it does however need the income pyramid to be more pyramid shaped as opposed to the current “Spire of Dublin” model where something like 50% of all wealth is in the hands of a dozen or so people.


Yeah I’d agree that a lot of it is planned, but you might be in the minority on this issue, I think most people like buying new stuff, because the new model is always better


I should mention that there is a subtle difference in replacing equipment that is “past it” and replacing equipment that is perfectly serviceable or prematurely failed.
For example at work, we have an old disk array storage system that uses 5.25" hard drives and can heat a house, this device is soon to be replaced by a device that is 10% the size and consumes 20% of the power and hold 500% more data and has capacity for far more if needed.
This is where it is OK to replace equipment, as the newer one is far better than the predecessor on so many levels.

The Issue I have is when you’re forced to replace like for like just because the manufacturers have limited the life of the product for no better reason than to “keep the money flowing” that is a criminal waste of resources and energy. in my opinion.


The US state of California made it mandatory for older diesels to be retrofitted with particulate filters. It should be mandatory in Europe and any other sensible country too.

Instead they are going the ban route despite dpf equipped vehicles being cleaner than petrols…


The debate is virtually over. The Gods of the New Age are in full power grab mode. Their plan is almost complete. The Green Man is returning.


A classic case of where business interests trump environmental interests.
From an environmental point of view, it’s better to extend the life of vehicles by adding the filters than to scrap and build replacements.

A case of if we can’t make money from it, wee’re not going to let you benefit from it.


Next to these beneficial effects on health and well-being, taking cold showers has a rather neglected, but none the less important effect as taking cold showers substantially reduces individual CO2 emission. On the basis of the CO2 emission of the average electricity mix used in Switzerland (kwH=169g CO2) and the average habit of taking warm showers (Switzerland: 8.7 minutes 6 times per week, with 15 litres/minute of warm water of 35°C), taking warm water showers produces up to 248 kg of CO2 per person and year, which corresponds to a flight from Zurich to Paris and back. This CO2 emission per year significantly increases when the house-hold is run on natural gas (296 kg) or oil (390 kg). By ratifying the Paris Convention, Switzerland has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. With the previously calculated example, 15% of per capita CO2 emissions could be saved to meet the 2030 target




Lads the CO2 cult is a funny-money cult. Remember I told yiz a very long time ago:

  • Original sin
  • Karma
  • Carbon Taxes

What are they… what makes these 3 things identical?


Will that finally get car owners to shot STOP, the Government takes enough from them as it is

I know a lad from the UK and he’s convinced they put something in the water over here to make the population docile and easy to control

If the planners want to make public transport in Dublin more efficient then they should take a look a building heights again, change that would give us far more than 1000 extra appartments, they should do the same in Cork, Limerick, Galway ect too,


I used to believe fluouride was about dental health. Now?


All new road-building projects in Wales are being frozen while the Welsh government conducts a review.

Ministers say it is a necessary part of Wales’ effort to reduce carbon emissions.