The Green Party are scary!

Sonderval

If everyone in the world is going to pay attention to Climate Change then I have no issue being a part of that, but damaging our economy to protect people who are doing nothing about their contributions to Climate Change is pointless in my book.

Your 100% entitled to your view, and thats commendable.

I should point out that green economic policy is a growth policy. Investment into alternate energy is a sound economic principle - foreshadowing the inevitable period of peak fossil fuel prices we are entering (if we are not already in), and thus saving Ireland huge swathes of cash on our energy needs. Investment into these renewable sources brings with it high end service and research jobs. There are countless other benefits.

I believe now is the time for us to start shifting gears into a forward thinking policy based on bringing future prosperity to Ireland, rather then watching in horror as we slowly drop further and further into debt and recession as the world sucks fossil fuels dry and we continue to buy increasingly more expensive carbon credits.

People who say green policy would damage the economy are being exceptionally short sighted and economically naive of global trends. Just like those who think tiger economies will mysteriously continue ad-infinitum...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I understand and share your concerns about these bigger nations but we have to look after our own environmental policies first. So far China and the USA haven't been very cooperative about eco issues, but going over and telling them they need to clean up their act, while much of the EU has not made the necessary steps, is not the way to force change. Instead the EU must clean up as much as possible, while at the same time putting increased pressure on these nations that refuse to do so. But we can't just sit by and say our mess isn't as big as there's, so its not as big an issue. Irish and British "recycled waste" is shipped over to huge landfills in China.
Our problem is part of their problem.

grahamo

The greens won't get a vote from me. They want to put up the cost of petrol & car tax without offering any alternative way of getting to/from work etc. Ye can shove it. I pay more than enough taxes as it is!

BBM77

egan007 wrote:

Do you work for the US?

gutta wrote:

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

I am not anti-green. If you question green theories or policies these days, you are labelled as pro US or some kind of non-environmentalist. I am far from any of these. As I wrote in the first post that started this thread

“Don’t get me wrong, I am against fossil fuels they are certainly pollutants and should be phased out”


What I am is skeptical about the Green Party’s policies both nationally & locally and some of the things they are quoting as fact. Their apparent exclusion of Waterford from their vision of progress is just another nail in their coffin when it comes to who I will be voting for.

McSandwich

grahamo wrote:

The greens won't get a vote from me. They want to put up the cost of petrol & car tax without offering any alternative way of getting to/from work etc. Ye can shove it. I pay more than enough taxes as it is!

You'll find that they want to improve and extend our public transport system. I would imagine that if they do get int power as part of a coalition that some of their 'harder to digest' policies will be tempered by their partners, e.g. cancellation of road projects.

McSandwich

Lennoxschips wrote:

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.

This might answer some questions regarding climate change, or raise some more!

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Lennoxschips

China and India both signed on to the Kyoto protocol. The only two major nations that didn't are the US and Australia. The US agreed to the Kyoto protocol under Clinton, but Bush tore it up as soon as he got into power.

So, are we going to go along with Bush and Howard, or go along with the rest of the world?

Hotblack Desiato

Lazairus wrote:

The greens will do good in government . you have to admit
that they do have some good policies , with regards to the Irish language

I, and the vast majority of voters, couldn't give a flying toss about the Irish language. Does the Italian government spend money promoting Latin?

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????

This is idiotic. On the one hand you are complaining about high prices, while on the other you want to stop the supply of new houses. Well, duh. People need somewhere to live, and our population has significantly expanded with the growing economy. Perhaps we should introduce a one-child policy and free sterilizations? Or just implement disastrous policies which will bring about large-scale emigration again.. that'll make houses cheaper :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

Lennoxschips wrote:

Our Kyoto target was particularily easy: emit no less than 13% more on 1990 levels between 1997 and now.

Problem is that we were still a pretty poor country by first world standards in 1990. It was a disastrous decision by the rainbow government to agree to Kyoto at such a low level. Anyway, the cynical say that Kyoto is a means to restrict the growth of emerging economies while protecting the established ones (which we weren't, really, in 1990.)

McSandwich

ninja900 wrote:

Problem is that we were still a pretty poor country by first world standards in 1990. It was a disastrous decision by the rainbow government to agree to Kyoto at such a low level.

Why!?

Gael

grahamo wrote:

The greens won't get a vote from me. They want to put up the cost of petrol & car tax without offering any alternative way of getting to/from work etc.

If you think that, you clearly haven't a clue what the basis of their policies are.

Hotblack Desiato

McSandwich wrote:

Why!?

Because now we are going to have to pay large fines for the "crime" of simply belatedly catching up to the same level of development the rest of the first world was at decades ago

The whole concept behind Kyoto is flawed anyway, but it would have been bearable had we entered at a decent level.

Hugh_C

grahamo wrote:

The greens won't get a vote from me. They want to put up the cost of petrol & car tax without offering any alternative way of getting to/from work etc. Ye can shove it. I pay more than enough taxes as it is!

i think they're suggesting higher price for petrol and NO car tax.

Grudaire

ninja900 wrote:

I, and the vast majority of voters, couldn't give a flying toss about the Irish language. Does the Italian government spend money promoting Latin?

No they don't, absolutely none, that's why all of their promotional leaflets and documents are in English, and their parliament is in English....

And let's be honest if you find this to be a reason to dislike the Greens you clearly haven't looked at any other parties attitude to Irish.

galactus

Ballybrickenman wrote:

(snip)What I am is skeptical about the Green Party’s policies both nationally & locally and some of the things they are quoting as fact.

Sceptical is good. It shows a rational approach. A scientific approach.

However in your opening post you state:
"there is a lot more evidence to say it is more to do with the sun’s natural cycle"

There is not. It is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists that humans are responsible for climate change.

Finally, I assume you have watched the recent C4 documentary on this. This documentary has been rubbished in many places (including here.)

McSandwich

ninja900 wrote:

Because now we are going to have to pay large fines for the "crime" of simply belatedly catching up to the same level of development the rest of the first world was at decades ago

The whole concept behind Kyoto is flawed anyway, but it would have been bearable had we entered at a decent level.

The targets we signed up to under Kyoto were easily attainable with increased energy efficiency and reduced reliance on fossil fuels. The truth is, no plan was put in place, apart from carbopn credit purchase. If that money was invested in a plan for change 10 years ago, we'd be a lot better off now with more efficient insulated buildings and cleaner electicity generation. This would result in lower costs for industry/ business, making us more competitive. Reduced expediture on imported oil and gas and in turn heating bills would also keep inflation low.

These are things which we will need to do anyway, in a future without oil and gas. It's not as if we have much heavy industry which is responsible for most CO2 emmisions in other countries which do.

Another thing, how can we expect China and India to become more efficient and produce less CO2 if we don't set an example?

Sensible energy policy saves more than it costs, something our new government - with our without the green party, will hopefully realise..

McSandwich

"there is a lot more evidence to say it is more to do with the sun’s natural cycle"

Again, see: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Lennoxschips

Yes, please people, read the New Scientist link which debunks all these climate skeptic half-baked or outdated theories.

Problem is that we were still a pretty poor country by first world standards in 1990. It was a disastrous decision by the rainbow government to agree to Kyoto at such a low level. Anyway, the cynical say that Kyoto is a means to restrict the growth of emerging economies while protecting the established ones (which we weren't, really, in 1990.)

The EU negotiated the Kyoto protocol as one bloc, agreeing to a 8% reduction. The pie was then redistributed within the EU. From that pie, we managed to negotiate a 12% increase for ourselves. Of course, the Rainbow government weren't counting on 10 years of Los Angeles style urban sprawl taking place in Ireland between 1997 and 2007, with the average commute turning into 70 minutes. That is entirely FF's doing.

Grudaire

Lennoxschips wrote:

Of course, the Rainbow government weren't counting on 10 years of Los Angeles style urban sprawl taking place in Ireland between 1997 and 2007, with the average commute turning into 70 minutes. That is entirely FF's doing.

Well to be fair the PD's helped too! :)

Hotblack Desiato

McSandwich wrote:

The targets we signed up to under Kyoto were easily attainable with increased energy efficiency and reduced reliance on fossil fuels.

Easy, if the economy had stagnated and we continued to have a high level of emigration and unemployment.

The truth is, no plan was put in place, apart from carbopn credit purchase. If that money was invested in a plan for change 10 years ago, we'd be a lot better off now with more efficient insulated buildings and cleaner electicity generation.

I agree, we should have started a programme of building nuclear power plants ten years ago which would leave us well set up now to reach our Kyoto targets and greatly reduce our dependence on Putin's gas.

Another thing, how can we expect China and India to become more efficient and produce less CO2 if we don't set an example?

Do you think they are altruists or something?
If we wreck our economies with well-intentioned but ill-thought-out carbon levies etc, it just means even more production and jobs going to those countries, which means they pollute even more and the transport of their goods back to us pollutes even more.

Sensible energy policy saves more than it costs, something our new government - with our without the green party, will hopefully realise..

Starting with a top priority nuclear programme, hopefully.
Renewables and conservation won't go nearly far enough to get us out of the crisis we're facing. Ireland is ridiculously dependent on imported oil and gas.

Hotblack Desiato

Cliste wrote:

No they don't, absolutely none, that's why all of their promotional leaflets and documents are in English, and their parliament is in English....

Er, no, Italian, the language the people speak, but not the dead language they used to speak centuries ago... :rolleyes:

And let's be honest if you find this to be a reason to dislike the Greens you clearly haven't looked at any other parties attitude to Irish.

At least with all the other parties (except SF) we know that regarding Irish it's only really lip-service

McSandwich

ninja900 wrote:

Easy, if the economy had stagnated and we continued to have a high level of emigration and unemployment.

I agree, we should have started a programme of building nuclear power plants ten years ago which would leave us well set up now to reach our Kyoto targets and greatly reduce our dependence on Putin's gas.

Do you think they are altruists or something?
If we wreck our economies with well-intentioned but ill-thought-out carbon levies etc, it just means even more production and jobs going to those countries, which means they pollute even more and the transport of their goods back to us pollutes even more.

Starting with a top priority nuclear programme, hopefully.
Renewables and conservation won't go nearly far enough to get us out of the crisis we're facing. Ireland is ridiculously dependent on imported oil and gas.

You managed to miss my main point, so I'll state it again:

If that money (now put aside for carbon credits) was invested in a plan for change 10 years ago, we'd be a lot better off now with more efficient insulated buildings, cleaner electicity generation , [edit] and a decent public transport system [/edit]. This would result in lower costs for industry/ business, making us more competitive attaracting more investment. Reduced expediture on imported oil and gas, and in turn heating bills would also keep inflation low.

I fail to see how this could have slowed down our enconomy. Industry is attracted to cheaper energy - something we don't have at present.

I'm not against the idea of nuclear power but given that it would require significant spending just to build the infrastructure required I don't thinks it's a viable solution for us. It would take at least 10, possibly up to 20 years by which time uranium will be in short supply and very expensive.

As I said before, we have problems managing our own waste - which some of us end up drinking. Do you think we could cope with radioactive waste ourselves, or would we just hand it over to the Brits for processing in Sellafield? What about security (given that nuclear facilities are supposedly terrorist targets), should 'neutral' Ireland rely on the British to protect our air space or should we just hope for the best?

DublinWriter

ninja900 wrote:

Starting with a top priority nuclear programme, hopefully.

Considering the objection to the various proposed incinerators, do you seriously think that Ireland will ever have a nuclear power programme?

One nuclear power plant would satisfy Ireland's power requirements four-fold, we'd even end up exporting electricity to the UK.

Personally I think it's the way to go, especially with the general trend for cars to run on electricity in 20-30 years time.

But the Irish nuclear arguement will always be a emotional/nimby one.

Either way, we're all doomed come 2012 and peak-oil.

Hotblack Desiato

DublinWriter wrote:

Considering the objection to the various proposed incinerators, do you seriously think that Ireland will ever have a nuclear power programme?

Unfortunately, no I don't think we will.

One nuclear power plant would satisfy Ireland's power requirements four-fold, we'd even end up exporting electricity to the UK.

Our power requirement is 5-6GW
I don't know of any 20-25GW plants
Modern plants can be anything from 100MW up.
Nothing wrong with exporting power either.

SeanW

McSandwich wrote:

As I said before, we have problems managing our own waste - which some of us end up drinking. Do you think we could cope with radioactive waste ourselves, or would we just hand it over to the Brits for processing in Sellafield? What about security (given that nuclear facilities are supposedly terrorist targets), should 'neutral' Ireland rely on the British to protect our air space or should we just hope for the best?

No, we wouldn't send it to Sellafield because the U-turn from demanding Sellafield's closure to being it's newest customer would make us look like a nation of mucking fuppets.

One option may be to make use of the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Or we could procure fuel ourselves and send waste firstly to Le Harve in France for reprocessing, then either deal with the unreprocessable remaining elements either in a Yucca Mountain style facility or (more likely) export it. I think Russia accepts nuclear waste now but I imagine they charge a good premium for it, as they would be well entitled to do so.

As for the plants themselves we would not necessarily want or need to go down the traditional large-plant route, rather we would best go with Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. These come in sizes ranging from 10MW to 125MW and higher. The 10MW version, the Toshiba 4S Micro-Nuke, is a totally self-contained gizmo that is placed underground with a control room at the surface. No need for an air-force to protect it when a hijacker couldn't hit the thing with an aircraft.

McSandwich

SeanW wrote:

No, we wouldn't send it to Sellafield because the U-turn from demanding Sellafield's closure to being it's newest customer would make us look like a nation of mucking fuppets.

Agreed, but nothing would surprise me

One option may be to make use of the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Or we could procure fuel ourselves and send waste firstly to Le Harve in France for reprocessing, then either deal with the unreprocessable remaining elements either in a Yucca Mountain style facility or (more likely) export it. I think Russia accepts nuclear waste now but I imagine they charge a good premium for it, as they would be well entitled to do so.

As for the plants themselves we would not necessarily want or need to go down the traditional large-plant route, rather we would best go with Pebble Bed Modular Reactors. These come in sizes ranging from 10MW to 125MW and higher. The 10MW version, the Toshiba 4S Micro-Nuke, is a totally self-contained gizmo that is placed underground with a control room at the surface. No need for an air-force to protect it when a hijacker couldn't hit the thing with an aircraft.

The 10MW units sound good, but we might need a number of these 'gizomos' spread accross the country. What about the cost of developing (multiple) underground waste storage facilities (carving through kilometeres of granite isn't easy or inexpensive)? Then there's transportation of the waste material, do we have the necessary infrastructure to do that safely (by road!)?

3 offshore wind turbines can produce 10MW reliably without producing radioactive or other waste.

http://www.airtricity.ie/ireland/wind_farms/offshore/operating/arklow_bank/index.xml

Our coastline also opens the opportunity for tidal power - through technology developed by an Irish company and under development in Scotland an Canada..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/energy/tidal-power.html
http://www.openhydro.com/techPlan.html

Grudaire

ninja900 wrote:

Er, no, Italian, the language the people speak,

Thats my point.

ninja900 wrote:

but not the dead language they used to speak centuries ago... :rolleyes:

Don't bring up the dead language argument, it's a load of cr*p.

ninja900 wrote:

At least with all the other parties (except SF) we know that regarding Irish it's only really lip-service

And yet the Official Languages Act not by the Greens or Sinn Féin never struck me as lip service....

oscarBravo

McSandwich wrote:

3 offshore wind turbines can produce 10MW reliably without producing radioactive or other waste.

Only if your definition of "reliably" is "whenever the wind is blowing".

McSandwich

oscarBravo wrote:

Only if your definition of "reliably" is "whenever the wind is blowing".

That's true, but being off-shore makes that more likely. Also, generated energy can be stored (in liquid elecrolyte tanks - I can't find the link).

Whatever about wind, tides will always ebb and flow (unless the moon leaves us) making this a reliable energy source.

The availability of oil, gas, annd uranium also cannot be assumed. These resources are not inexaustable and many of the countries supplying them are policically unstable at best.