Sir, – I watch with ever increasing concern as Ireland drifts recklessly towards massive EU penalties for our failure to meet legally binding climate targets which targets we ourselves agreed to (“Ireland falls further behind on emissions targets, Home News, May 28th). This situation is not because we lack solutions, but only the political courage to implement them.
There is a legally binding obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 51 per cent by 2030-from about 60 million tonnes to about half of that. Yet even if all current climate plans were fully realised we would only achieve a 23 per cent reduction. The shortfall could cost, and is likely to cost the taxpayer, between €8 and €26 billion, not to mind the cost to planet Earth.
And we continue to protect and encourage our biggest offenders, why?
Cutting the national dairy herd by 30 per cent would reduce emissions by about 2 million tonnes annually. A similar 30 per cent reduction in the beef herd a further 1.5 million tonnes annually. Together that’s nearly one quarter of the emissions gap we must close to avoid fines.
The secrets behind the new Nissan Leaf’s style: ‘Hopefully it’s a pleasant shock’
‘He counted himself blessed to be an Irishman’: Henry Mount Charles remembered at Slane
Leaving Cert grinds industry: ‘Salaries scales for the top teachers can be 100 to 250 grand’
Look inside: Fine four-bed Regency home in Sandymount just steps from the beach for €1.235m
Other measures such as banning new fossil fuel boilers, taking existing ones out of service, mass retrofitting homes, sharply reducing car use, especially large car/ SUV use, through radical measures (perhaps rationing fuel availability for everyone regardless of the size of their car), public transport investment, stopping the subsidisation of aviation fuels and suspending new data centre expansion etc could close much of the remaining gap.
Even smaller symbolic changes, like reducing or removing red meat and dairy from school lunches, hospital menus and other state funded meals would reduce both demand and emissions even further.
The necessary steps are obvious, what’s missing is not the funding or the means – it’s the courage to face down lobby groups and do what is clearly required, rather than kick the can down the road for the sake of temporary popularity.
Too many of our politicians are afraid of farmers, air passengers, motorists and others –afraid of doing what needs to be done. It is somewhat depressing, and even more depressing to think that, if this letter is published, there is unlikely to be any substantive response from the powers that be. – Yours, etc,
PAUL O’SHEA,
Dublin 18.
Sir, –The report that Ireland is projected to achieve a reduction of just 23 per cent in total greenhouse emissions by 2030 is alarming. As the report highlights, this exposes Ireland to multibillion costs imposed by the EU. While some of the more bullish commentators dismiss the prospect of such penalties, they might note international reports that the EU as a whole will hit the target for a 55 per cent reduction.
Tolerance for Ireland’s poor performance is very unlikely in that scenario. Those billions in Apple taxes which we disputed with the EU may well be on their way to Brussels. –Yours, etc,
DAVID LOUGHLIN,
Dublin.
What’s in a name?
Sir, – Aine Kenny (“Yet another good name lost to the Mrs Machine”, Wednesday 28th May) is disappointed at women changing their last names to their husband’s name when they marry. She describes this as part of a patriarchal, sexist tradition and symbolic misogyny. Of course, this is all true except that nowadays women have full choice in the matter.
Women do not have to change their name on marrying, nor are children “automatically” given their father’s name as is suggested. While traditions can be hard to shake off, these are all choices that people are free to make in a modern society and most people, other than newspaper columnists, really don’t care what name people choose in these situations.
Double barreled names sounds like the ideal egalitarian choice, but what happens when two people with double barreled names get married?
If they have children will they be given quadrupled barrelled names? At some point for most people it makes sense to choose a name. I personally like having the same name as my husband and children, it is our family name and signifies us a unit and I am happy with the choice I made while fully aware of the patriarchal tradition this comes from.
Aine admits to having a big white wedding. Unless her new husband also wore virginal white, she too has taken part in an inherently sexist symbolically misogynistic tradition. We are both lucky that we had the choice to opt into inherently sexist traditions simply because we wanted to. We should not judge or sneer at the choices made by others.– Yours, etc,
KAY CHALMERS,
Douglas,
Cork.
Sir, – Áine Kenny tells us that a woman changing surname on marriage suffers a loss of identity. I’m afraid that loss is centuries old. The name she loses is her father’s name. The name she takes is her husband’s. Did women ever have names of their own? – Yours, etc,
BERNIE LINNANE,
Dromahair,
Co Leitrim.
Too many boards
Sir, – In the wake of the current HSE controversy, it begs the question why we have so many organisations in the delivery of health care with their own separate boards.
The function of a board is to provide management oversight, set broad policy objectives ensure compliance and protect shareholder interests.
All of these functions should be management objectives set by the HSE and not the purview of independent boards of management.
In the current controversy we have the CHI board, hospital boards and National Treatment Purchase Fund (NTPF), to name a few. It would be more transparent if these were simply just functions within the HSE. – Yours etc,
LIONEL BARKER,
Sandymount,
Dublin.
Speeding cyclists
Sir, – Kathy Sheridan (“I have nothing against cycling but spare me speeding cyclists” Opinion, 28th May)notes that there is a cultural issue amongst cyclists in Ireland. As a frequent cyclist and occasional motorist, I often find myself annoyed and frustrated with other cyclists behaving recklessly and ignoring the rules of the road.
However, she misses a point on priorities for road use; the behaviour of drivers is by far a more serious issue we should focus on. Distracted driving, phone use, aggressive behaviour have all become all too frequent the past few years.
On a final note; if motorists and pedestrians find cyclist behaviour to be unsafe, then they should be the biggest proponents of investment in greenways and good cycling infrastructure! – Yours, etc,
PAUL BARRY,
Leixlip,
Co Kildare.
Sir, –While Kathy Sheridan raises some valid concerns in her article “The aggressive speed and silence of cyclists is a cultural problem that needs tackling in Ireland,” it’s important to keep perspective. This is not the most pressing issue on our roads.
The biggest problem is not cyclists, but the almost complete absence of safe, high-quality infrastructure for walking and cycling.
And if we’re talking about cultural issues, the most deep-rooted one is our collective dependence on cars, particularly the rise of ever bloating SUVs.
This car-centric mindset, what some refer to as “car brain”, conditions us to ignore the real source of danger and dysfunction on our roads. Instead, we often shift blame onto more vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians, simply because they disrupt the illusion that the car should always come first.
If we are serious about making our roads safer and our cities more liveable, we need to start by questioning that assumption, not by scapegoating those who are already at risk. – Yours, etc,
DR OLA LØKKEN NORDRUM,
Irish Doctors for the Environment,
Dublin 4
US student visas
Sir, – As the US State Department prepares to expand social media vetting of foreign students I am reminded of Senator McCarthy campaign of spreading fear of communism.
If McCarthyism was the political practice of publiciding accusations of disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence.
Then is Trumpism the same practice of publicising accusations of disloyalty or subversive based on what your friends have shared with you on social media? As it turned out in the 1950s there were no reds under the beds. – Yours, etc,
DERMOT O’ROURKE ,
Lucan,
Dublin.
Education and religion
Sir – I agree with Alan Hynes (“Catholic education is not about indoctrination - it is about preparing pupils to contribute to the common good”, May 27th) that religious education is important. But, when I use the term “religious education” I am talking about being educated about religions (plural).
Mr Hynes initially appears to endorse this very approach when he writes: “In an increasingly pluralistic and multicultural society, the importance of religious education has never been more apparent” and “individuals are more likely than ever to interact with people from various religious backgrounds. Misconceptions about religious beliefs often lead to prejudice, fear and even conflict”.
But then what he means by “religious education” appears to shift when he says that it provides “a proposition of faith”.
Here, he conflates two completely different and mutually exclusive meanings of the term “religious education”. One entails a non-biased and objective education about religions (plural), while the other entails a biased and non-objective form of education in terms of religion, which in the guise Mr. Hynes advocates, overtly promotes one faith - namely Catholicism- over all others as well as atheism and agnosticism.
For example, he writes of a “responsibility: to faithfully transmit the teachings of the church”.
Mr Hynes refers to constitutional and human rights. Children have a clear-cut constitutional right not to attend religious instruction (indoctrination) in state-funded schools, but this right is flouted in Catholic schools across the country, and the State is of the clear opinion that it is for each school to ensure that this right is protected.
Children often have no choice but to remain in the classroom during these sessions in breach of their clearly enshrined constitutional right, while often being segregated at the back of the class and therefore othered within the classroom.
Moreover, because of the “integrated curriculum”, children are exposed to more subtle forms of religious indoctrination throughout the school day. So much for “inclusion” and respect for children’s rights.
What kind of “values-based education” which purports to espouse “the essential dignity of all” engages in such practices?
Mr Hynes refers to the late Pope Francis. In an interview with La Croix in 2016, Pope Francis has said that the “States must be secular. Confessional states end badly. That goes against the grain of history. I believe that a version of laicity accompanied by a solid law guaranteeing religious freedom offers a framework for going forward.”
The Irish school system is one which is consistent with that of a confessional state. It is a system in which children’s rights are breached while Church and State turn a blind eye. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin.
Wrong turn on Pearse Street
Sir, – I had to double-take on your headline: (“Dublin’s Pearse Street ‘noticeably quieter’ since left-turn ban,” May 28th).
It should be clarified that your reporter refers to just one section of Pearse Street (the 400 metres between Westmorland Row and Tara Street) as enjoying less noise and congestion. It’s worth pointing out that this part of Pearse Street has no residents, only businesses. Iwrite from a flat above a shop on the other side of Pearse Street, at the junction with Erne Street, where traffic has hugely increased since these traffic changes.
To get onto Tara Street and across the Quays now, traffic is joining Pearse Street earlier, via Macken Street or Erne Street (closer to Grand Canal Dock).
Pearse Street has consistently achieved top placement in delightful lists of pollution ‘hotspots’, ‘blackspots’ and ‘areas of concern’, with health risks posed and EU air pollution limits ‘repeatedly breached’.
I can only imagine that this new influx of cars will cause air monitors to simply expire in a puff of toxic smoke.
Previously, rush-hour traffic (4pm - 7pm) would have cars at a standstill on Pearse Street (from the Macken Street junction towards city centre) and surrounding roads of Macken Street, Erne Street and Grand Canal Street Lower.
This week there has been no rush hour traffic – that is to say, the rumbling, revving, riled up traffic jam lasts all day long.
It’s great that one section of Pearse Street is now quieter, as per your article. As one of those fabled few who “live above the shop” in our country’s capital, I recognise the desperate need to make Dublin into a liveable city - for Pearse Street residents, a breathable city would be a good first step. To be clear, we need even more traffic restrictions for private cars, replacing that option with many more buses, Darts, Luases and cycle tracks.
I would urge The Irish Times to look at Pearse Street more fully in future, lest I have to read about ‘Pearse Street’ being quieter while the roar of engines and aggressively long beeps increase daily outside my window. – Yours, etc,
CARA DUNNE,
Pearse Street,
Dublin 2.
Insurance the legal profession
Sir, how disappointing to see the Chair of the Bar Council resort to populist invective in defending the role of lawyers in bringing personal injury claims(“Is going to court worth it for personal injuries claimants? A lawyer and insurer go head to head on the issue”, Tuesday, May 27th).Describing insurers as bandits is just as bankrupt an approach as similar demonisation of lawyers.
Perhaps he resorts to such demagoguery because his arguments are so poorly made: a society needs profitable insurers because the insolvency of an insurer leaves policyholders exposed and reliant on limited government compensation schemes.
And if profits are considered too high, that’s a regulatory issue best addressed by regulators aiming to lower premiums for the benefit of all.
His thesis seems to include the idea that high insurer profits should be addressed by higher awards. How does he square the idea that awards should be informed by insurer profitability with the common view that they should be determined only by justice and circumstances of the case?
If he has better arguments to make, he should do so more dispassionately. – Yours, etc,
DECLAN BLACK
Donnybrook
Dublin 4
Background check
Sir, – David Clarke (Letters, 28th May) is sceptical of the description of Madeleine ffrench-Mullen, who has had a plaque mounted at her childhood home in Ranelagh, as a “radical Irish nationalist despite coming from a middle-class Protestant background “.
He rightly cites Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, Maud Gonne and other equally prominent Protestant nationalists. My ancestor Madeleine was certainly a radical nationalist, a proponent of women’s suffrage, and a social reformer, but for the record, she came from a long established Catholic family. – Yours, etc,
RODNEY DEVITT,
Dublin.
