vincentcarragher’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sufficient time has been spent on efficiency

  Hi there

  I apologise for starting this with the word sorry in a sentence - sorry but I have to comment on the energy inefficient article!

  The most inefficient thing about the NYT article is the lack of mention of sufficiency. As I see it the article is a commentary and opinion and in that context I see why sufficiency would not be mentioned. However it's the elephant in the corner!

  Successive waves of deferred responsibility have passed during the industrial revolution and technological advance. Successive waves of technologies with  improved efficiency. Succesive increases in population. Successive increases in nations energy use. Basically we are looking at successive bouts of deferred responsibility coming from virtually all energy users in the western world.

  Maybe the effiency message telling us we can rely on others to reduce our energy usage is popular in countries like  Australia, Canada & USA. I mention these as these countries use a lot of energy per capita. So one might think a leading newspaper in one of these countries in its editorial page might push for intelligent comment and discussion; some of this comment may hedge its way around uncomfortable home truths.

  No I don't think so. Sorry - oops! I lost my way as you can tell I love to fantasise.

  Until we in the western world (that includes where I live in Ireland) grasp the uncomfortable hometruths we will always use more! Was it Gandhi who best put it with `there is enough on this planet for our needs but not for our greed'. Sufficiency; we must look at what is enough - we must set limits. Not a popular message to energy guzzlers but this is what I cannot believe.

  Why editorial comment would miss the elephant in the corner? What does it say about the comment? Moreso what does it say about the population which that comment or newspaper editor seeks to service? What does it say about you and me? Bill Hicks may have put it best with ` a virus on legs'. But miiroring the GAIA hypothesis we may be very similar to a viral population on the outside of a living cell.

  I welcome the discussion on efficiency. However please do not defer the discussion on sufficiency any longer. We have one planet so take your responsibility seriously editors, public, governments one and all and discuss the elephant in the corner.

  Deferred manufacturing capacity means we export our emissions ....... Look forget it I really do not know where to start.

  Just accept that because you put in an energy efficient bulb or a more energy efficient heating system does not mean you should use it the same amount of time as you did or even for more time. This is often the case where efficiency is installed we use more! It means that if you say I will buy this because its your job to make my life more efficient you defer your responsibility.

  One question do you do this for your kids - childminders. Do you do this for your old relatives - nursing homes. Etc. etc. etc. Deferred responsibility is the friend of energy guzzlers but moreso the friend of us all. Accept your responsibility and buy efficiency why not we consume so much more than that we might aswell start consuming efficiency. Imagine if there was none left. Where would your capacity to feel responsibility be then.

  Sufficiency is simple I will use as much as I use today tomorrow and no more. I will even try my best to use less. Its about behaviour and change and it can be done. My community in Ballina, tipperary is living proof!

  www.ul.ie/lowcarbonfutures

  Yours

  Tired from Shopping

  regards

  Vincent Carragher
  On NYT gets schooled by readers on efficiency posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  rampant consumption

  Hi archigeek;

  agree to the bulk of what you said - but you have to have faith.

  a community in ireland has reduced its emmissions by 15% through behavioural change. some of that has been less consumption like reduction in car miles, reduction in energy use in the home etc.

  it is possible but like the study i quoted intimates we must start over agin and educate the values and beliefs of the youngest generations - ASAP.

  you will find that study at  www.ul.ie/lowcarbonfutures

  there are many projects in europe now showing impressive and willfull and painless change in consumption behaviour.

  regards

  vincentOn Day four of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  climate change ideas

  Hi there;

  I am from Ireland and do not really mind what you call it: greed over-consumption, 'super size me' bla, bla, bla.

  I do mind other terminology. you discuss avenues into the american psyche - how the footprint of the average american might be reduced with behavioural remedies etc. You continually use the word energy efficiency - this conventionally refers to technology and guess what we are back to consumption again buying technology.

  The word and the emphasis real debate shoud use is energy conservation. conservation can be met through energy efficency remedies or renewable energy technology remedies both purchase related behaviour.

  we need to work however on an argument that is touched on very little by government for obvious reasons and that is sufficiency and habit type beahviour also contributing to energy conservation. Vested interests, egos and leading by example might all be reasons why we rarely see this argument.

  please call it what is is energy conservation because energy efficiency in our use of that term normally refers to technology remedies. we need to talk deeper than this, we do not have to reinvent language because the words are there - energy conservation.

  We do however have to reinvent - ideas, thought, beliefs, values, attitudes and maybe finally behaviour. American ans Canada are stop number one on this trip!

  Nobody expects a meaningful debate to ensue where terminology is used so loosely.

  Energy conservation and sufficiency are words you need in these debates.

  a website detailing research where the community uses meaningful discourse/debate can be found at www.ul.ie/lowcarbonfutures

  regards to you all

  vincent carragherOn Day four of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  topical but no more than that!

  Hi guys;
  So what! water vapour is more important - big deal. global warming stopped - fantastic great news!

  well done on this significant and revealing and very topical dare I say sexy presentation of facts.

  Did you consider what impact water vapour has on human consumption or maybe related depletion of natural resources. Hey here's one for you to argue 'depletion of natural resources is not related to human consumption'. Lets see you rap data around that argument.

  Now that should keep you busy for awhile.

  Levels of carbon dioxide happen to be an important metric for assessing human impact. Human consumption has many diverse impacts making it difficult to report to the public. Carbon dioxide happens to be a tangible and probably currently the only decent indicator.

  Knock Knock - who pays your bills then?On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 1 year, 5 months ago 170 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  of course we can make changes

  hi there;
  just a quip to back up the backbone of this book.

  there is an attitude behaviour gap which needs to be closed for real change.

  to see real change please log onto this website which defines the progress made within a community in the non-green Ireland.

  anyway here goes www.ul.ie/lowcarbonfutures

  regards

  vincent carragherOn Book shows we can meet hard targets in stopping climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses