Spending Overruns Undermine Emissions Targets

The European Court of Auditors expect that many EU countries, including Ireland, will not meet their 2020 targets for the share of total energy from renewables :

• six Member States are unlikely to meet their 2020 target as they need an increase in the share from renewables by: the Netherlands 7.4 pp, France 6.7 pp, Ireland 5.3 pp, the United Kingdom 4.8 pp, Luxembourg 4.6 pp and Poland 4.1 pp.  

•   the Netherlands shows the largest gap, with an actual average share of 5.9% for 2015/2016, versus an indicative RED trajectory of 7.6%. The gap to the planned NREAP share of 9.7% renewable energy in 2016 is even larger. 

•  for 11 Member States (Belgium, Cyprus France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom), currently implemented renewable energy policies and already planned renewable energy policy initiatives appear today to be insufficient to trigger the required renewable energy volumes purely domestically. 

• In addition, for 7 Member States (Austria, Germany, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain) there is some uncertainty related to 2020 renewable energy target achievement. Their capability of meeting their 2020 national binding targets will to a great extend depend on the levels of energy demand in case there would be a large increase in energy demand that brings their energy consumption back in line with the original trend indicated by the latest EU reference scenario.   

This should be seen as a serious indictment of Ireland's wind only policy which has completely failed to reduce emissions at any meaningful level. The idea that the EU will fine every one of these countries, that are also unlikely to meet their targets, now seems increasingly unlikely, as the widespread impracticality of the targets becomes manifest.

Ireland has already spent €86 million in buying carbon credits to offset it's high emissions with the cost potentially running to billions over the next decade. As with health and foreign aid policy (in fact every policy), Ireland's answer is always to spend more (taxpayers) money instead of doing some actual analysis to uncover the root cause of the problem.

Sustainable Economics is a Sustainable Environment

The simple fact, as this blog has pointed out previously, is that the more the government spend, the higher the emissions. Higher welfare spending, for example, results in more resources consumed beyond our means, more imported goods, higher immigration and more waste material like plastics. High government and private debt also encourages more wasteful spending.

A policy that would encourage more savings and less debt would result in lower emissions. Higher savings means more deferred purchasing, which means lower emissions in the short to medium term. 

It is perhaps somewhat ironic that the most climate change obsessed government in Irish history is also the worst offender when it comes to out of control spending. The Irish Fiscal Council last week reported that the government breached post financial crisis spending rules last year, and the increases in spending in recent years were not "conducive to prudent economic and budgetary management".   They warned that the spending had reached a similar magnitude to those prior to the 2008 crisis (funnily enough when the green party were last in government). Cormac Lucey has worked out that the cost of the spending overruns last year was € 3,500 per person living in the state. Instead of putting away the additional tax receipts into a rainy day fund, which would have lowered emissions, every cent has been squandered. 

And the more the government continues to spend recklessly, the more carbon credits they will need to purchase to offset the extra emissions meaning that the spending overruns are set to become a vicious cycle. If Ireland wants to get serious about reducing emissions it  needs a prudent government.

Agriculture Emissions Should be Reducing in a More Extreme Climate

Agricultural emissions has been in the news lately after the minister for agriculture claimed that agricultural emissions had been decoupled from production. Many groups rightly corrected the minister who had compared increased dairy herd and milk production with total agricultural emissions.

"in the five-year period 2012-2016, dairy cow numbers have increased by 22 per cent and corresponding milk production by 27 percent while emissions increased just 8 per cent, demonstrating a level of decoupling is occurring.”

Other agriculture emissions include methane and N2O from 6 million beef cattle, N2O from pigs and fertiliser; CO2 from liming fields, GHG from fishing industry, fossil fuel for tractors etc. so including those in the eight percent total increased emissions figure was obviously a mistake. In reality, dairy emissions increased at about the same rate as production. Emissions from agriculture are the largest single contributor to Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions.

This got me thinking, what would happen if agricultural emissions decreased? According to the climate changers, there would be less global warming so this would be a good thing. And what could drive emissions down ? If there was a fodder shortage, for example, then this would lead to a reduction in the cattle herd and a reduction in emissions. Extreme weather, in the form of a long period of frost or drought, would lead to such a fodder crisis. And what causes extreme weather ? Climate change / Global warming of course ! So if the climate is really becoming more extreme, then agriculture emissions should be falling - they should be self regulating without any need for Government herd or dairy quotas.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rise Despite Large Investment in Wind Energy

Want to reduce GHG emissions? Don't put all your eggs in the windfarm basket.

This week the EPA reported that emissions have risen across all main sectors in the Irish economy. It was widely reported on in the Irish media but certain details were either omitted or not focused on. 

In 2016, we had about 2,800MW of wind energy in Ireland, enough electricity generating capacity to meet about 50% of demand on a winter's day like today. If the wind was blowing constantly all the time. As it doesn't, we get about 840MW output on average. But this output varies every day and year. 

An interesting fact can be gleaned from this, although it is not apparent in the EPA report or in media articles (investigative journalists are in short supply, hence the need for blogs like this one). We built about 460MW of new wind farms in 2016. The EPA report states that :

Renewables now account for 25.6% of electricity generated in 2016 (down from 27.3% in 2015).

     So we built more wind farms, costing somewhere in the region of €600-800 million, but the total share of renewables contribution to electricity actually decreased. Yes, I hear you say, but what about demand ? Demand increased by 2.3%. We can infer from Eirgrid's reports that this was an annual increase of about 630,000MW/hr. This converts to an average growth in power demand of about 70 MW.

This means that the 460MW of new wind farms were not able to keep pace with electricity growth of 70MW or just 15% of the new wind capacity. So you can see the folly of adding more wind. New wind farms do not automatically mean more renewable energy or reduced emissions. 

Meanwhile, eco warriors and greens are warning about the dangers of Irish agriculture. Beef exports make up about 25% of total Irish exports. The same people egging on the eradication of our beef production are also (mostly) the same people freaking out about the negative impact of Brexit on the Irish economy. Looks like a serious case of cognitive dissonance to me.


1)  Eirgrid Report on wind energy 2016 - http://www.eirgrid.ie/site-files/library/EirGrid/Annual-Renewable-Constraint-and-Curtailment-Report-2016-v1.0.pdf

Ireland will fail to meet Greenhouse Gas Targets - EPA

by Owen Martin

The EPA have announced that Ireland will miss it's EU Greenhouse Gas emission targets for 2020 because of a growing economy and increases in agriculture and transport activities. The media are warning of EU fines.

Firstly, the EU is in no position to enforce fines for failing to meet emissions or renewable targets. The UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee have repeatedly issued rulings stating that the EU are in breach of the Aarhus Convention in relation to Ireland's renewable energy plans. So unless Ireland decides to simply lie down in the face of bullying European Union bureaucrats, there will be no fines. 

Secondly, consecutive EU policies have resulted in increased greenhouse gas emissions. By allowing beef imports from countries like Brazil into the EU, shipping and transport emissions will have increased. As Marine Le Pen has pointed out, if you want sustainable agriculture, then grow your own crops and invest in your own farms. The last thing that should be done is to ship beef into your country from 5,000 miles away. 

Another EU policy is that member states should accept millions of refugees. This will increase demand on food, electricity, housing and other resources increasing emissions. 

EU energy policies have increased electricity prices and driven energy intensive industries outside of the EU effectively outsourcing emissions elsewhere on the (same) planet. 

To whom do these policies benefit ? To whom would a fine against Ireland benefit ? It is exactly because of the contradictions inherent in EU policy right now that it is becoming ever more unpopular.