The Green Party are scary!

Stark

Ballybrickenman wrote:

Good point and CO2 and climate change is very much the same, still just a theory that in opinion still needs to be refined.

In addition, by giving merit to global warming theories, we lose our window of opportunity to do nothing and bury our heads in the sand.

impr0v

The_Minister wrote:

They wil not commit to bringing in moterways that have not had the contracts signed.
When asked if he would build the road from Dublin-Galway, he replied "we'll get you there by train"

The only section of the Dublin Galway route for which contracts haven't been signed is the 17km section between Athlone and Ballinasloe, which is at tender stage. Based on their commitment not to interfere with already signed contracts, all remaining sections (N6 Kinnegad to Athlone Phase II, and the remainder of Phase I, and the 57km Galway to Ballinasloe scheme) would proceed as planned.

In that case, I'm sure it wouldn't make sense, even to the Green Party, to leave a 17km long island of single carriageway road on a national primary which is otherwise motorway/dual carriageway, particularly when plans for its construction are well advanced.

Múinteoir

brianthebard wrote:

And its important to know that as a theory it is not some sort of unchangeable concept, there are alternative theories and updates being discovered all the time. The modern concept of gravity has changed since Newton's time and will probably change again. To dismiss something as "just a theory" is to completely ignore why scientists call it a theory at all, and to furthermore miss the point the OP was making, that declaring such things as immoveable fact means you lose the ability to look at a concept in a different light.

I'm not denying it in any manner. I'm purely pointing out that as theories go, it's the only scientific kid on the block. Just like gravity.

McSandwich

M&#250 wrote: »

I'm not denying it in any manner. I'm purely pointing out that as theories go, it's the only scientific kid on the block. Just like gravity.

Gravity has always existed and is not 'just a theory.' Theories are used to explain it and help us understand how gravity works and why it exists. While theories of gravity may change, gravity will continue to work like it always has. Same goes for evolution, etc. You can deny they exist, but that doesn't mean they'll just go away - see what happens if you deny the existance of gravity while falling off a wall

leninbenjamin

McSandwich wrote:

Gravity has always existed and is not 'just a theory.' Theories are used to explain it and help us understand how gravity works and why it exists. While theories of gravity may change, gravity will continue to work like it always has. Same goes for evolution, etc. You can deny they exist, but that doesn't mean they'll just go away (assuming they really do exist!) - see what happens if you deny the existance of gravity while falling off a wall

post makes no sense. you contradict yourself by saying they do exist and then back track by saying "assuming" they really do exist. even if the evidence for global warming being caused by CO2 isn't complete, i think there is substantial evidence to suggest that our CO2 emissions have accelerated the problem (from all those studies i've heard of measuring CO2 levels in ice from around the times of previous climate change).

back on the greens, i'm a little unconvinced myself. I've normally had a soft spot for those who put environmental issues to the fore front of the campaign (Corrib is a right mess these days, its been getting like that for ages. it should have been cleaned up ages ago and more effort put into expanding the angling tourist industry), but i dunno... they seem a bit wishy-washy at times (particularly with policies economic impact imo). O'Brolcháin is against the proposed Galway ringroad/bypass thingy and that really wrangles with me (he is in favour of the Clare Galway one i'm told , if that's true it just seems a complete contradiction). Freemoving traffic in the city is surely better than the environment than standstill, higher mpg and all that? while i do like his plans to bring a Luas type thingy to Galway (been hoping for something like that myself for ages) i still think it' doesn't negate the need for a ringroad.

Giblet

M&#250 wrote: »

It's just a theory in so much as gravity is just a theory.
As regards the Greens' message even if a person rejects the idea of human activity affecting global warming (which has mountains of scientific evidence to support it), they're not addressing the fact that our economy is dangerously dependent on a finite fuel that is starting to rocket in price and economies much more developed than ours, already have plans in motion to be completely weaned off their dependence on oil by 2050. As per usual, the Irish seem determined to be Paddy-Last (excuse the pun) and only make the inevitable changes when it already has the economy in tatters and not now, when it can still be a relatively painless transition.
Isn't it funny how just stating the plain honest truth, gets you labelled as "scaremongering". :roll:

Nuclear power!

McSandwich

leninbenjamin wrote:

post makes no sense. you contradict yourself by saying they do exist and then back track by saying "assuming" they really do exist.

sorry, typo - meant to take that out...

Múinteoir

Giblet wrote:

Nuclear power!

Your questions answered

Giblet

Hahaha you're not serious?

Utter tripe!

Unfounded Concerns given misleading answers more like.

How about this seeing as we're throwing links around.

http://www.nei.org

"Nuclear power will not power electric cars!!"
I fail to see how that's true. I suppose it actually contradicts itself in the summary though, so you can see right through it.

And don't get me started on terrorists.

McSandwich

Given the security and safety risks not to mention transport requirments, it could take 20 years before we're ready to produce nuclear power.

Another big problem, nimbyism, it's near impossible to open a dump, an incinerator, or even a wind generator in Ireland without years of protests. Imagine the planning process for a nuclear power station, that would be fun to watch

Considering these issues, our small population, and soaring Uranium prices, it would make more sense to focus on renewable power generation. We also have the option of importing nuclear power from countries better equipped to produce it, like Britain. Oh wait, Sellafield is hardly a glowing advertisement for Nuclear power... so bad they named it twice..

Nuclear Fusion will hopefully offer the ultimate solution in the near(ish) future. We could help by joining http://www.iter.org/. Typically Ireland is one of the few (Euro) countries not involved in the project.


Uranium supply & Prices:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_2yr-price.html
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2472
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/04/11/cnuranium11.xml

leeptr

leninbenjamin wrote:

O'Brolcháin is against the proposed Galway ringroad/bypass thingy and that really wrangles with me (he is in favour of the Clare Galway one i'm told , if that's true it just seems a complete contradiction). Freemoving traffic in the city is surely better than the environment than standstill, higher mpg and all that? while i do like his plans to bring a Luas type thingy to Galway (been hoping for something like that myself for ages) i still think it' doesn't negate the need for a ringroad.

My understanding of his objection to the Galway bypass (and I honestly don't know that much about the suituation as I don't live there , so if someone is in a better position to comment go for it) is that it is because he believes it is too far out and will not help the traffic situation in Galway as opposed to being an ideological objection .

VoidStarNull

The way I see it, the major issues in this election are:

1. The economy. Going bust with the end of the construction boom. No party
has a credible policy (in fact they're all trying to ignore it).

2. The health service. It doesn't work. No party has a credible policy (but they all say "we'll try harder". That's very re-assuring).

3. The environment. It's pretty dirty out there (in Galway), and we're pumping
out CO2 like Kyoto never happened. Everyone promises to "try harder", but
the Green Party is actually proposing a change of direction. Fancy that!

4. Energy. This is the one no-one wants to talk about. Oil is getting more
expensive (see why: www.peakoil.com) and if you want gas, just do as
Mr. Putin tells you to do. No-one is talking about this one, but the Green
Party policies are directed towards addressing it.

So I'm voting Green. Because they are the only party with credible policies
on any of the major issues.

Giblet

Policies which will increase tax. Ever wonder why Australia and the US won't be a part of Kyoto?

VoidStarNull

Ever wondered why George Bush's credibility as a world leader is in shreds?:)

And no; it ain't just Iraq. The US abandoned world leadership on two of the
most important international issues of today: energy and climate change.

Chardee MacDennis

US wont be part of Kyoto becuase the 'coporations', hate to use that word but i have been watching team america, pay hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns to make sure things like that dont come in and affect their business. while i do disagree with some og the GP's policies, e.g. alcohol, they do seem to have some very good policies. also their candidate in West Dublin, O'Gorman seems pretty good and has a good prespective on things especially from a younger person point of view.

also i dont think they are as tainted as some of the other parties.

SeanW

M&#250 wrote: »

Your questions answered

Utter garbage! My god, these enviro-nuts don't have a clue? Oh my fscking days this document is so full of deception and fallacies as to be beyond belief.

That silly document wrote:

1: The cost of providing back up power for
nuclear is prohibitive
Electricity Grid operators need to have back up power they can
immediately call on should a power station shut down
unexpectedly, as frequently happens. This back up power is called
'spinning reserve' and it has to be the same size as the biggest
power plant in the system. At the moment we have a total electricity
generating capacity in Ireland of 5,000 Mega Watts (MW). Efficient
nuclear power plants are at least 1,000 MW in size.

LIE! New generations of nuclear power plants come as low as 10MW, such as the Toshiba 4S "Nuclear Battery" that Galena, Alaskaintends to build. Various other Pebble Bed technologies go from that to 125MW.

2: Renewable resources can provide the
necessary power
The ESB International (ESBI) has estimated that our untapped
wind resources are equivalent to nineteen times the ESB's total
generation capacity

When the wind is blowing - wind has the fundamental flaw of being as predictable as the wind - it has far, far more demands for backup than baseline providers and building wind turbines does not negate the need to build the same again of something else. The question goes back to fossil fuels v. nuclear.

3: Nuclear power will not solve
climate change
A doubling in global nuclear power by 2050 would only lead to a 5 per cent
reduction in global CO2 emissions. This is less than one tenth of the
reductions scientists say we require.

Noone ever said nuclear would do the job on its own. No one ever suggested that nuclear power should be done instead of efficiency measures or public transport etc, most who advocate nuclear power do so as part of a multi-pronged strategy.

4: Energy efficiency provides a better economic
and environmental return
Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) argues that
investment in end use efficiency programmes can deliver up to ten times the
gains in comparison to money spent on nuclear power.

See my rebuttal to point 3.

6: A centralised and subsidised state solution versus tens of thousands of Green jobs

1: Nuclear power also creates a ****load of jobs many of them high paying.
2: "Green" jobs are state-subsidied - the PSO levy on your ESB bill goes to pay for windfarms (and peat plants).

7: The waste problem has never been solved

Hmm, maybe they should have told that to the Americans and the Finns before they ... uh ... solved it! Whoops!

8: It is still not safe
Twenty years after Chernobyl, scientists still have no idea how to treat the
reactor, which is temporarily encased in a corroding concrete shell.
Meanwhile, an area the size of county Cork in Belarus is now permanently
uninhabitable

This alone is grounds for dismissal of the entire report because they either don't know what actually caused the accident at Chernobyl, the multitude of conditions unique to the Soviet Union, or they decided to play the Chernobyl card anyway regardless. So either they're totally misinformed, or being disingenuous.

10: Nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons

That's really going to be a major problem here in Ireland (which is guaranteed the right to peacefully use nuclear power under the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty as a Non Nuclear Weapons State, a treaty which Ireland INTRODUCED!)

McSandwich

Have any of the political parties proposed to introduce, or even discuss nuclear power?

OTK

The Greens are scary because they are opposed to nuclear power unlike all the other political parties in Ireland who are opposed to nuclear power.

For those of you who believe that global warming is not caused by humans, now is the time to stand up and smash the scientific consensus. A 10 year review of 928 peer reviewed papers on global climate change did not find a single paper suggesting that global warming is caused by anything other than humans. So now is the time to write your own paper and maybe win a Nobel prize.

A list of scientists who believe that global warming is caused by non-human processes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

It's always possible that the mainstream consensus view is wrong and that the small minority of scientists opposing this view is correct.

In any case, the Irish government has already signed up to Kyoto so either we reduce emissions or pay billions of euros in fines, regardless of whether the Greens ever get in.

SeanW

The other parties are just reacting (bad pun) to misinformed public opinion on nuclear power.

The Greens are setting this misinformation among the public through lies, decelption and propoganda. That's why they're scary.

And in the process, by managing to damage nuclear power so much, they've managed to score the biggest own goal in environmental history.

McSandwich

SeanW wrote:

The other parties are just reacting (bad pun) to misinformed public opinion on nuclear power.

The Greens are setting this misinformation among the public through lies, decelption and propoganda. That's why they're scary.

And in the process, by managing to damage nuclear power so much, they've managed to score the biggest own goal in environmental history.

Why then are countries which already generate nuclear power bothering to put so much effort into renewable electricty generation?

Gael

McSandwich wrote:

Why then are countries which already generate nuclear power bothering to put so much effort into renewable electricty generation?

Germany, incidentally, is shutting all her nuclear plants down.

Stark

McSandwich wrote:

Why then are countries which already generate nuclear power bothering to put so much effort into renewable electricty generation?

Nuclear power isn't the best long-term solution due to reliance on the uranium market, but it's still a better short term solution than burning fossil fuels imo. Renewable energy is the ideal future but it still needs a lot of investment and research.

Gael wrote:

Germany, incidentally, is shutting all her nuclear plants down.

As mentioned in SeanW's link, in favour of coal burning plants of all things.

E92

A couple of things here.Number 1, Fianna Fáil got 41% of the vote in 2002. They got 81 seats. Now the alternative Government of Fine Gael and Labour are on 41% combined, whether you chose todays poll or the poll published in the Irish Times during the week. There is no reason to suggest that the alternative couldn't get very close or actually achieve an overall majority on their own. Fianna Fáil could have gotten the majority if they had managed their vote properly in Dublin Central, Limerick East properly. Obviously if Fine Gael transfers heavily to Labour and vice versa, an overall majority on a combined rating of 41% is a realistic proposition. Either way, add in the Greens if they so wish, and the alternative will be in power. I cant see the Greens getting their way on every policy issue, for instance the roads building programme. But I do see them getting some of their way on public transport, and anyway both FG+ Lab have promised more buses for dublin and other cities. Anyway, even if the Greens do get their way on Roads, the network of Dual carriageways from Dublin to Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford will still be done, as the contracts for these roads have already been signed IIRC.

The other political parties are running a mile from nuclear power because they know that the public doesnt even want to know it. It never bothers public of course that soon we will be using nuclear generated electricity from the UK, but the public likes to bury that one under the carpet conviently enough, heaven forbid that we would have a nuclear plant though. The UK want to expand nuclear power by 40% as well. I am in favour of nuclear generated power by the way.

thebman

E92 wrote:

The other political parties are running a mile from nuclear power because they know that the public doesnt even want to know it. It never bothers public of course that soon we will be using nuclear generated electricity from the UK, but the public likes to bury that one under the carpet conviently enough, heaven forbid that we would have a nuclear plant though. The UK want to expand nuclear power by 40% as well. I am in favour of nuclear generated power by the way.

I see no problem with not wanting a Nuclear power plant in your country but being willing to buy that power from someone who is willing to build one in theirs.

Britain are perfectly happy to build Nuclear power plants so why shouldn't we buy power from them just because we have safety concerns over Nuclear power plants?

Fact is, we can't decide which of their power plants we get the power from anyway. Should we only buy our surplus electricity needs from countries that don't have nuclear power plants?

gerky

Just after skimming this tread,where did you all come up with 20c a litre as far as I know its 2c a litre,but I could be wrong.

Gael

It's 2c a year over a decade. But plenty of people can't/won't rationlise the difference.

Gael

It's 2c a year over a decade. But plenty of people can't/won't rationlise the difference.

Gael

It's 2c a year over a decade. But plenty of people can't/won't rationlise the difference.

E92

Trevor Sargent actually said recently on RTÉ that the proposal would have to be tax neutral, and that the increase in the price of fuel would be 5-10c per litre. He said that the increase in fuel tax would come about with a reduction in VRT for new cars.

gerky

Sorry was in a hurry earlier this is from http://www.danboyle.ie/documents/GreenParty_VRT_submission1.pdf

2. Environmental Levy based on increased excise duty on Fuel
The Green Party proposes to replace the Annual Motor Tax with an Environmental
Levy on fuel. The Green Party is proposing to introduce the levy on a phased basis
over either a five or a ten year period.
Option 1: The Levy would be phased in over a five year period at a rate of 4c per litre
per annum
Option 2: The Levy would be applied over a ten year period at a rate of 2c per litre
per annum.
Our preference is for the ten year option in order to minimise the potential inflationary
pressure exerted by the levy.
The current government scheme for biofuel exemption would continue for the
duration of the scheme. Thereafter we would replace the current exemption scheme
with an obligation on fuel suppliers to include a certain percentage of biofuel in their
overall fuel mix. This would ensure that the cost is borne by the fuel suppliers rather
than by the exchequer.
The total monies collected from the increased Environmental Levy on fuel would be
allocated to Local Government Authorities