The Green Party are scary!

McSandwich

SeanW wrote:

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

Stark wrote:

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

They're implementing a means to capture the co2 emissions, and so burn the coal cleanly:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2006/2006-03-15-06.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

SeanW

Coal will be next to impossible to clean up because it's a filthy, dangerous, toxic witches brew. In addition to insane amounts of Carbon Dioxide, coal-fired power stations also spew potent toxins like arsenic and mercury, Acid Rain forming compounds like Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide (which countries downwind like Norway spend a packet cleaning up from their lakes and rivers), and a good bit of radiation from Thorium and Uranium thrown in for good measure, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found these to emit more radiation than similar nuclear plants.

You think coal can be burned "clean," good luck to you. But I have my doubts.

McSandwich

SeanW wrote:

You think coal can be burned "clean," good luck to you. But I have my doubts.

Countries with developing economies and with large reservses of coal, such as China, are going to burn it regardless. It would be better if they could do that cleanly.

I agree with you that coal is a filthy fuel and don't know enough about this "cleaning" technology to tell you that it removes 100% of its pollutants.

Nuclear waste cannot (currently) be cleaned, and unlike coal is an unknown quantity as far as pollution is concerned. It can be stored underground, as you mentioned, but some of the waste components will still be emitting radiation in 100,000 years. There can be no guarantees about it's safe storage, or that it will never pollute tthe water table or soil. What would happen in the event of an earthquake?

I'm not completely against the idea of nuclear power, but I don't think we (as a country) we are anywhere near ready to deal with the safety, waste management (we can't dispose of our own sh*t properly, for f*ck sake), or security requirements. Planning and location would probably be a more difficult problem in Ireland and not one I can see ANY politician or party taking on (how do you think it would go down in Longford? like a tonne of enriched uranium I'd imagine!).

Meeting these requirements could take 20 years (based on time taken for other countries to 'become nuclear capable' and our own difficulties regarding nuclear power - I'll verify my sources..). I don't believe we have 20 years to reduce our dependance on oil and gas.

http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal4.asp
http://www.american.edu/TED/chincoal.htm
http://www.mercurypolicy.org/emissions/documents/hgcontroloptions.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/epp/index.html#ind1
http://www.ohiodnr.com/geosurvey/geo_fact/geo_f16.htm

thebman

The problem with Nuclear power is that the population size isn't big enough to justify it. We could a build a nuclear plant and probably service the entire islands needs but what if it goes down?

The costs of building, decommisioning, waste storage and clean ups if anything goes wrong (assuming it'll go wrong at least once in 100,000 years or before they work out how to clean the crap up) is unacceptable IMO.

Then you have environmental problems caused by the waste when/if something goes wrong. It isn't a clean fuel as some claim it to be, it just doesn't emit CO2.

We need proper research grants for clean energies such as wind power and in the mean time, work towards minimislising emissions from our energy production. While an expensive solution that fixes the problem might seem great at first, we have to take into account cost and what effect it will have on government finances and the economy.

Better to buy in power from abroad until a proper solution is available. There is now a lot of money in clean energy development so a lot of investment and research is now starting to be done in the area so better, more efficient solutions will become available in the next few years.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

McSandwich

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That doesn't make the other issues, especially waste management and security any easier to deal with.

I don't think it's ethical to say that we don't support nuclear power because it's harmful and then buy nuclear energy from other countries. If you're against it you should be against taking nuclear energy from other countries.

What if those other countries already have the (expensive) infrastructure in place required to produce nuclear power and deal with the related issues in a safe(r) manner? If we really need nuclear power, then ethically, importing it is the lesser of two evils. This is a country which can't effectivly deal with domestic and human waste or even toxic industrial waste. We'd end up with a nuclear power plant run similiar to Mr. Burns' one in the Simpsons!

karen3212

On their economic policy, did anybody see questions & answers where the guy from the green party said that the Irish Times analyst said their policies were the best, is that true?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

karen3212

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Aah, that's right, I remember now. Thanks for that

Red Alert

My ideal scenario is cut VRT to zero, and static road tax to a smallish amount, say 50 euro/annum. Then highly tax on fossil fuels. Hybrid cars would be on the up, and cars running on biodiesel, ethanol and waste veggie oil. Would finally kick the gas guzzling city SUV's off the road.

Their environmental policy is actually well developed and unlike FF does not involve 'buying' carbon credits from some african country. FF/PD's are actually more concerned with keeping the status quo rather than shifting off our carbon-heavy economic policies in a workable and sustainable timeframe.

However I worry about the greens - i will not vote for a party that will prop up an FF/PD government, end of story.

Sonderval

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

Its actually soon to reverse this decision. I was recently over at a nuclear plant there talking to a technician about this The Economist also noted this recently.

Alot of other German heavy industries coming on line soon again (e.g. some black forest mining facilities) as the cost price is now attractive enough to compete with China, etc.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Hogmeister B

Ballybrickenman wrote:

Last night Trevor Sargent said on TV3 that it was fact that CO2 was causing climate change. I found this an inaccurate & scare mongering statement.

How the climate works is not understood enough to be able to say that CO2 is to blame for the period of climate change we are in. There is a lot more evidence to say it is more to do with the sun’s natural cycles. Don’t get me wrong, I am against fossil fuels they are certainly pollutants and should be phased out but saying they are the cause of global warming is a bit much when you consider CO2 only make up .04% of the atmosphere.

Quick lesson: the existence of the greenhouse effect is utterly undisputed and quite provable: certain types of gases trap heat and therefore cause average global temperatures to be higher than if those gases weren't present. Increasing the concentrations of these gases increases the effect. mankind has vastly increased those concentrations.

Ergo, being sceptical about global warming means you're sceptical about the existence of the greenhouse effect, which is a scientifically and logically untenable position.

BBM77

Hogmeister B wrote:

Quick lesson: the existence of the greenhouse effect is utterly undisputed and quite provable: certain types of gases trap heat and therefore cause average global temperatures to be higher than if those gases weren't present. Increasing the concentrations of these gases increases the effect. mankind has vastly increased those concentrations.

Ergo, being sceptical about global warming means you're sceptical about the existence of the greenhouse effect, which is a scientifically and logically untenable position.

Show me a reputable scientist that says, CO2 causing climate change is utterly undisputed.

O and a quick lesson, being sceptical is the very essence of science. If theories were never questioned we would never have progressed passed Adam & Eve and the flat Earth.

McSandwich

Ballybrickenman wrote:

Being sceptical is the very essence of science. If theories were never questioned we would never have progressed passed Adam & Eve and the flat Earth.

Dead right.

In the case of global warming we're still awaiting credible evidence from those who believe that it's an entirely natural phenomena and that humans have nothing to do with it. All the evidence to date pointing to the opposite. Until very recently the scientists who said that co2 caused global warming were the sceptics/ held the unpopular view.

BTW, I still haven't read anything here which convinces me that the Green Party are scary...

BBM77

McSandwich wrote:

I still haven't read anything here which convinces me that the Green Party are scary...

When you are from a city whose future growth depends on a modern road link being constructed to Dublin and you hear a political party say that they would cancel that project, to me that is scary. In all the interviews Green party Members have done, they did not mention Waterford as a main city once and this is from a party that has a good chance of being in the next government, now that to me and a lot of people in Waterford is really scary.

Hogmeister B

Ballybrickenman wrote:

.

O and a quick lesson, being sceptical is the very essence of science. If theories were never questioned we would never have progressed passed Adam & Eve and the flat Earth.

Correct. Scepticism is important. But so is logic and experiment. The existence of the greenhouse effect can be shown by both of these.

McSandwich

Ballybrickenman wrote:

When you are from a city whose future growth depends on a modern road link being constructed to Dublin and you hear a political party say that they would cancel that project, to me that is scary. In all the interviews Green party Members have done, they did not mention Waterford as a main city once and this is from a party that has a good chance of being in the next government, now that to me and a lot of people in Waterford is really scary.

Can't blame you for that... what does their Waterford candidate have to say?

Lazairus

but look at this way, if the FG/Lab coalition get into power , what will hopefully happen is this .

The FG/LAB will hold the big issues: Crime , health and the Economy, with some input from the greens.
It is my hope that they do get to work on tacking Climate Change .

The greens will do good in government . you have to admit
that they do have some good policies , with regards to the Irish language, The Environment and Transport. With regards to the motor way I dont agree with tara/ m3 route and also i dont agree with the 10 year NDP, on Roads ,in my opinion , the roads that are building already ,and contracted for should be completed , but should be stopped there after , Rail needs serious investment.

my biggest concern is house planning and development , the country is ruined with hosing estates . Donegal is in crisis with holiday homes. planning is a serous issue to me. If the houses keep coming, there will be no land left to develop. The environment comes hand and hand with planning. in my big issues . come on , 3 bedroom housed cost near 1 million , thats a joke rite????

professore

brianthebard wrote:

Eh no its not, its still a theory. It may be the best theory available, and people may be 99% sure of it but it is still very much a theory.

In scientific terms there is no such thing as a fact. Everything is a theory which is constantly tested.

brianthebard

professore wrote:

In scientific terms there is no such thing as a fact. Everything is a theory which is constantly tested.

That was the point I was trying to put across.

BBM77

McSandwich wrote:

Can't blame you for that... what does their Waterford candidate have to say?

No. I disagree. It should be done this way instead of that. The usual kind of stuff you get from a Green naysayer. He has been nicknamed McCant there! He is against urban sprawl but at the same time, he is against building over three stories. He wants better public transport and when CIE applies to upgrade the train station, he objects. etc etc etc:mad: I am not going to bore you with this clowns actives, enough has been written about him already.

egan007

How the climate works is not understood enough to be able to say that CO2 is to blame for the period of climate change we are in.

Do you work for the US gov?

Any way you quoted him then changes his quote....
He said - it's Causing - meaning it's a contributary factor.
You said - it's to blame - it's not solely to blame.

joecoote

While no big fan of global warming theory, there is no doubt that environmental issues will come the forefront of world politics in the years to come. It is a simple supply and demand equation. The world's population is expanding rapidly while its resources are diminishing. It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure this out.

It is the job of environmentalists the world over to come up with an alternative strategy to growth for growth's sake. New technologies will become available and old ones can be made more efficient, but the underlying core assumptions of capital growth will have to be revised. Luckily, we have time to make changes. Time, unfortunately, like all resources is limited. A successful enviromental and growth strategy would be more beneficial sooner rather than later.

As for the Greens being scary. No they're not. What is scary, though, are the opportunistic scare-mongers that have cropped up on both sides of the Irish political equation. While scare-mongers pursue their own narrow agendas, the bigger picture is often blurred.

gutta

DarkJager wrote:

They (the Greens) are more concerned with saving the planet than dealing with the issues that really affect people.

I burst out laughing when I read that one...

Where are you going to live then Dark? Mars? The Moon? Mulhuddart?

OK alright it may not be in your lifetime but your kids, grand kids, great grand kids for sure...

You're being narrow-minded if you can't see the logic...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gutta

Ballybrickenman wrote:

The ozone layer is only a very thin layer it is not comparable to the entire atmosphere. Also the pollutants in question are not natural to the atmosphere, CO2 is and naturally fluctuates over time and the climate copes.

You appear to have a lack of understanding of the role of the ozone layer, what it does and how it protects us from the harmful effects of radiation emanating from the Sun.

In particular you should read the paragraph in Wikipedia which ends with

Considering that DNA damage can lead to maladies like skin cancer, it is clear that this absorption of the sun's ultraviolet radiation by ozone is critical for our well being.

Honestly, do yourself a favour and read.

Sonderval

what exactly is going to happen to me that's going to make life so unlivable? Sure we'll have more storms and more extreme weather as a rule but it's hardly the doomsday scenario some Global Warming people outline

Have to considered the implications of climate change on our ability to produce food? On population?

I have copied/pasted the following from the climate change article on Wikipedia. It is a mere mention of what will transpire:

Climate change events:-

1.They are a threat to human life –Events of high intensity would have an impact in terms of human loss. The rise of the sea level will also endanger coastal cities, such as Lagos.
2. They impact on human health : the increase of temperatures is conducive to a rise of epidemics and doesn’t facilitate sanitary conditions. Therefore it is likely that epidemics such as cholera, malaria, dengue fever will increase in some areas. (In the Andes Mountain in Columbia for example, mosquitoes that can carry dengue and yellow fever viruses were previously limited to 3,300 feet (1,006 m) but recently appeared at 7,200 feet (2,195 m). In Mexico as well, dengue fever has spread above its former elevation limit of 3,300 feet (1,006 m) and has appeared at 5,600 feet (1,707 m).
3. They are a threat to food security and water supply. Climate change will increasingly put pressure on crop yields. Indeed, the decrease of agricultural productivity in tropical and sub-tropical zones particularly will endanger food security. As well as the warming of oceans, which will affect communities, who rely on fishing.
4. They are a threat to peace and security : scarcity of resources leads to competition and could exacerbate tensions already existing between different ethnic groups, countries, etc


I think people really need to get their head out of the sand and actually start paying attention to what scientists have been saying for the last 30 years.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

gutta

Ballybrickenman wrote:

they did not mention Waterford as a main city

Could this be the reason you're anti-Green?

Lennoxschips

that alone doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything but the fact that others aren't does.

The rest of Europe is doing something about climate change and meeting Kyoto targets. Our Kyoto target was particularily easy: emit no less than 13% more on 1990 levels between 1997 and now. Not even a reduction, we were allowed to increase. But we've increased by 25%!! That is pretty damning for the current government really.