Leftie Greens

cavedave

Why are the green party left wing? Should right wing conservatives not seek to conserve the environment?
Looking at the Green parties principles on http://www.greenparty.ie/en/about none seem left wing.

• All political, social and economic decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level.

Down right libertarian in fact probably slightly right wing as almost all these decisions can be taken at the individual level and so will lead to market effects.

• Society should be guided by self-reliance and co-operation at all levels.

hmmm oxymoronic

• The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests.

Ever since the invention of nuclear weapons, and the development of the ability to kill everyone, everyone has recognized this to be true.

• The poverty of two-thirds of the world's family demands a redistribution of the world's resources.

This last one sounds left wing but it does not say how redistribution will occur. If it is we will take money from rich people it is left wing. If it is we will free up trade to allow poor people earn more it is right wing.

The green party policies however are left wing

We Are For...
• A basic income for all citizens.

Left wing

We Are Against...
• The depopulation of the countryside and over-crowding in the cities.

Like Pol Pot? Left wing

• Control of industry by large national and multinational companies.

Most right wing people would support removal of subsidies on big business so this is not necessarily left wing

• Land and property speculation.

This is left wing.

Akrasia

cavedave wrote:

Why are the green party left wing? Should right wing conservatives not seek to conserve the environment?
Looking at the Green parties principles on http://www.greenparty.ie/en/about none seem left wing.


Down right libertarian in fact probably slightly right wing as almost all these decisions can be taken at the individual level and so will lead to market effects.

hmmm oxymoronic

Ever since the invention of nuclear weapons, and the development of the ability to kill everyone, everyone has recognized this to be true.

This last one sounds left wing but it does not say how redistribution will occur. If it is we will take money from rich people it is left wing. If it is we will free up trade to allow poor people earn more it is right wing.

The green party policies however are left wing


Left wing


Like Pol Pot? Left wing


Most right wing people would support removal of subsidies on big business so this is not necessarily left wing


This is left wing.

Left/right labels don't really apply to the greens (and to be honest, they're an extremely antiquated way of looking at politics). The Greens claim to be an anti authoritarian party with socialist leanings.

That is closer to anarchism than it is to conservativism or free market capitalism....

cavedave

Left/right labels don't really apply to the greens

They do, though nothing in their principles is either their policies are.

(and to be honest, they're an extremely antiquated way of looking at politics).

You mean you were not otherwise being honest?
Agreed though you do have to consider the authoritarian/libertarian access as well. But it is still worth considering the right/left access.

The Greens claim to be an anti authoritarian party with socialist leanings.

That would seem right from looking at http://politicalcompass.org/ireland

My point is that none of the green principles are against a market economy but the policies for
A basic income for all citizens.
and Against...
• The depopulation of the countryside and over-crowding in the cities.
• Land and property speculation.
are against market economics

Why the difference between their principles and policies?

Akrasia

cavedave wrote:

They do, though nothing in their principles is either their policies are.

You mean you were not otherwise being honest?
Agreed though you do have to consider the authoritarian/libertarian access as well. But it is still worth considering the right/left access.

That would seem right from looking at http://politicalcompass.org/ireland

My point is that none of the green principles are against a market economy but the policies for
A basic income for all citizens.
and Against...
• The depopulation of the countryside and over-crowding in the cities.
• Land and property speculation.
are against market economics

Why the difference between their principles and policies?

If their principles are against inequality and destruction of the environment and wastage of natural resources, then they are naturally against pure free Market economics, because inequality, over exploitation of resources and destruction of the environment are all inevitable outcomes of individualistic profit driven capitalist enterprise.

cavedave

then they are naturally against pure free Market economics, because inequality, over exploitation of resources and destruction of the environment are all inevitable outcomes of individualistic profit driven capitalist enterprise.

Not necessarily, there is a significant theory of free market environmentalism. Thanks you for the explanation. If their left wing beliefs are because of the explanation you described at least it is an opinion that can be argued against. If right wing people can convince the greens that the free market can be environmental they would change their mind.

I agree with you about the "pure free market" being bad. You do need to have certain unalienable rights otherwise abuses (like slavery say) are possible in a free market system.

Akrasia

cavedave wrote:

Not necessarily, there is a significant theory of free market environmentalism. Thanks you for the explanation. If their left wing beliefs are because of the explanation you described at least it is an opinion that can be argued against. If right wing people can convince the greens that the free market can be environmental they would change their mind.

I agree with you about the "pure free market" being bad. You do need to have certain unalienable rights otherwise abuses (like slavery say) are possible in a free market system.

That free market environmentalism idea is so full of gaping holes that it's just not credible.

The basic idea is that if people have an economic interest in maintaining a resource, then they will take measures to protect their economic well being. Milton Friedman used this logic to justify his 'Privatise every inch of the planet agenda'
But it just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. The example given in wikipedia is of the fishing waters near Newfoundland.

Proponents of free market environmentalism use the example of the recent destruction of the once prosperous Grand Banks fishery off Newfoundland. Once one of the world's most abundant fisheries, it has been almost completely depleted of fish. Those primarily responsible were large "factory-fishing" enterprises driven by the imperative to realize profits in a competitive global market.[4] It is contended that if the fishery had been owned by a single entity, the owner would have had an interest in keeping a renewable supply of fish to maintain profits over the long term. The owner would thus have charged high fees to fish in the area, sharply reducing how many fish were caught. The owner also would have closely enforced rules on not catching young fish. Instead commercial ships from around the world raced to get the fish out of the water before competitors could, including catching fish that had not yet reproduced.

First of all, I can't see the difference between the ideal 'single owner' of this resource, and a Government owning the resource in trust for the people. Secondly, a Monopoly owner of a resource isn't exactly very competitive is it, and thirdly (most importantly) Who is to say that the owner of the resource wouldn't prefer to completely exhaust that resource as fast as possible to make as quick a profit as possible before moving on to somewhere else? It happens all the time in the corporate world. Move in, make a huge amount of money in a short period of time, and then move on. It is especially common in the extractive mining fishing and logging industries.

Just because someone or some corporation owns a resource, doesn't mean they care about the long term viability of the resource, they are probably only interested in short to medium term profits because that is all the stock holders are interested in. (The oil industry, like any other extractive industry is an example of this, they're not rationing the limited oil resources to ensure we have enough of this vital raw material for centuries to come, they're finding it, drilling it, sucking it out as fast as possible, and then moving on to the next well) The only times they limit supply are when they are in an anti competitive cartel and then only to force up the short term prices of the commodity for their own immediate profit.

Another huge problem is that the economic value of a resource is very often in direct contrast with the environmental value of the same resource. The Amazon rainforest is hugely valuable to the entire planet as a curcial component of the Biosphere, but if it was owned by a logging company it would be of massive value as a load of trees that they can cut down to sell on the world lumber market. Who is more likely to be able to afford to purchase a rainforest and protect their property rights? An environmental group or a multinational logging company? And how exactly would an investor be able to secure a return by simply conserving the natural resource? If they spent, lets say a hundred billion to buy the Amazon, how are they going to make that back? (A logging company probably could, but what are an environmental group supposed to do? charge for photographs?)

cavedave

I can't see the difference between the ideal 'single owner' of this resource, and a Government owning the resource in trust for the people

If you cannot see this difference sign over all your possesions to the government and see where it gets you.

Thank you again for pointing out the reasoning behind the greens policies.

I do believe in trusting people to make reasonable choices with their lives. I have difficulty with any set of environmental beliefs thats start with its premise that people, technology and personal choice are evil.

DadaKopf

Dudes, the question is ultimately about power, who weilds it, and in whose interests. I do think the Greens tend to think that the world can be fixed by a few technical modifications here and there. This said, they are opposed to corporate political donations. Indeed, Ireland scores worse than Botswana in terms of political interference by powerful private interests.

It's a question for the 'left' and the 'right': how can those who wield power in a way that undermines the public good including the environment be challenged?

Only through asking this question can we decide who is left, and who is right.

cavedave

This said, they are opposed to corporate political donations. Indeed, Ireland scores worse than Botswana in terms of political interference by powerful private interests.

It's a question for the 'left' and the 'right': how can those who wield power in a way that undermines the public good including the environment be challenged?

Only through asking this question can we decide who is left, and who is right.

Good point corruption in any systemwill completely ruin it. The greens do plan to make reforms, in local government for instance, that should help reduce corruption.

Sand

First of all, I can't see the difference between the ideal 'single owner' of this resource, and a Government owning the resource in trust for the people.

So why oppose about privatisation of those resources? Governments can make good choices for controlling natural resources, but they are prone to corruption, incompetence and politically motivated decisions. Political representitives of "factory fishing" corporations would certainly be campaigning endlessly for reduced charges, exceptions and loopholes etc. Does Fianna Fail strike you as a responsibile guardian of any natural resource? What if an independant TD was elected from a coastal fishing town and held the balance of power in the Dail?

(The oil industry, like any other extractive industry is an example of this, they're not rationing the limited oil resources to ensure we have enough of this vital raw material for centuries to come, they're finding it, drilling it, sucking it out as fast as possible, and then moving on to the next well)

OPEC and other oil producers have controlled supply infamously throughout the history of oil production to protect their main - and in the cases of a lot of oil producers *only* - source of serious income to pay for their secret police, paramilitaries and vanity projects.

Oil at some point will run down to negligable levels no matter whose running because it can, is and indeed *must* be extracted *far* quicker than geological forces will replenish it. Fish are slightly more sustainable, and any profit driven company will see value in steady cashflows for decades, centuries etc as opposed to a short term splurge and then nothing for decades as the stocks recover.

Also, Im not sure the planet will survive us using oil at current levels for centuries to come tbh. Well - the planet may survive in some form, we probably wont.

Another huge problem is that the economic value of a resource is very often in direct contrast with the environmental value of the same resource. The Amazon rainforest is hugely valuable to the entire planet as a curcial component of the Biosphere, but if it was owned by a logging company it would be of massive value as a load of trees that they can cut down to sell on the world lumber market. Who is more likely to be able to afford to purchase a rainforest and protect their property rights? An environmental group or a multinational logging company? And how exactly would an investor be able to secure a return by simply conserving the natural resource? If they spent, lets say a hundred billion to buy the Amazon, how are they going to make that back? (A logging company probably could, but what are an environmental group supposed to do? charge for photographs?)

Well the enviromental groups could do a ring around Hollywood and see how many millionaries/billionaires could cough up, a website to allow small donations through paypal, seek out corporate donations if they want to demonstrate their "green" credentials etc etc. Between the highspending individuals/corporations and the the hundreds of millions who might donate 20 or so euro each year - all this before passing the bucket around a G8 summit - youd certainly be able to make a decent stab at buying plots. They spend tens of billions on US presidential races every few years already.

As for the return - Well, you said yourself its valuable due to its role in the biosphere alone. But why not tourism? Why not charge people for photographs? Why not offer every donation over some minimum the right to visit the rainforest for free, then do a Ryanair and screw them with taxes, charges and so on in the small print?

I understand enviromental groups are already fund raising and purchasing parts of rainforests worldwide so as to asset their private property rights. Fancy that.

Jackie laughlin

Greens try to avoid the basic political question faced every day: how far should state control extend? Liberals and socialists thrash this out continuously. Greens try to say that left Vs right is no longer relevant. Nonsense. These are useful shorthand for different approaches to achieving a good society.

The environment as an issue doesn't transcend the left/right divide. Will environmental degradation be prevented by market measures or state control/regulation?

There are Greens on both sides of the divide. That is why Environmentalism is not a coherent political position. Anyone can claim to be green. As I recall, socialist Greens used to be called "watermelons"!

The real problem with the Irish Green Party is that it, like FF, is populist. It certainly doesn't take man-made global warming seriously for fear of upsetting its "Dublin 4" supporters, who have property abroad and fly far too regularly for both business and pleasure.

Múinteoir

The standard Green mantra is 'neither left nor right, but forward'. Also that they seek to combine 'the freedom of capitalism, with the security of socialism'. You should realise that a lot of the Greens in Ireland were/are actually small business people. Both Éamon Ryan and Mary White for instance, ran their own private businesses until they were elected to the Dáil.

The funny thing is, is that it is now clearly in the interests of capitalism to address the environment, since it is reaching a point where environmental destruction is hurting economic growth. Even the most-selfish capitalists are now realising that it's in their self-interests to tackle global warming etc. as these will inevitably hurt their profit margin if left unchecked.

Nicholas Stern, who is a world-renowned economist and author of the Stern Report on climate change (and certainly no leftie), estimates that if left unchecked, global warming will make the world economy contract by 20%. Now that's something that makes even the fat cats sit up.

And the fact is that there is a new emerging Green economy, where there is money to be made, especially as oil prices rocket. There was an excellent piece in a recent issue of Vanity Fair about the success of the Stern Report and how it differs from the standard environmental messages that tend to be more sentimental. Basically it states that the SR succeeded more than any other environmental report, by appealing to people's pockets, not to their hearts.

Jackie laughlin

Muinteoir,
A lot of what Marx wrote has not stood the test of time but on this he is relevant. There are fractions of capital and they can have conflicting interests. You cannot generalise and say that it is in the interests of capitalism to address the environment. A free market would lead to environmental disaster. Stern looks at the economics; he doesn't favour uncontrolled capitalism.

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

So why oppose about privatisation of those resources?

Because I said 'Ideal' single owner as in the 'ideal' required by this theory of a single self interested owner who is in it for the very long term and also conveniently believes that the common good is the same as his own self interest.... In reality, the single owner of these natural resources would be far more likely to exploit that resource for their own short term economic profit, even if that leads to the degradation of that resource in the long term

Governments can make good choices for controlling natural resources, but they are prone to corruption, incompetence and politically motivated decisions.

They are prone to corruption from private interests bribing them to make decisions against the common good. By supporting the privatisation of all public land and resources, all you're doing is making that Bribery legal and calling it 'business'. Instead of corporations having to take risks and bribing governments, they would just buy the resource and use it whatever way they want. And are you suggesting that incompetence is exclusive to the public sector? There are countless examples of Business people making really stupid decisions.

Political representitives of "factory fishing" corporations would certainly be campaigning endlessly for reduced charges, exceptions and loopholes etc. Does Fianna Fail strike you as a responsibile guardian of any natural resource? What if an independant TD was elected from a coastal fishing town and held the balance of power in the Dail?

No FF are far away from a responsible guardian of the Irish environment. But the solution is to change the political process, not to simply privatise the decision making process.

OPEC and other oil producers have controlled supply infamously throughout the history of oil production to protect their main - and in the cases of a lot of oil producers *only* - source of serious income to pay for their secret police, paramilitaries and vanity projects.

Oil at some point will run down to negligable levels no matter whose running because it can, is and indeed *must* be extracted *far* quicker than geological forces will replenish it. Fish are slightly more sustainable, and any profit driven company will see value in steady cashflows for decades, centuries etc as opposed to a short term splurge and then nothing for decades as the stocks recover.

Also, Im not sure the planet will survive us using oil at current levels for centuries to come tbh. Well - the planet may survive in some form, we probably wont.

Yeah, the private control of Oil as decided by global markets has resulted in the use of that particular resource in an extremely damaging and unsustainable way. Free market environmentalists claim to believe that the private ownership of all of the worlds natural resources will somehow lead to a sustainable environmental economy... but the oil Industry is the exact opposite of this.

Well the enviromental groups could do a ring around Hollywood and see how many millionaries/billionaires could cough up, a website to allow small donations through paypal, seek out corporate donations if they want to demonstrate their "green" credentials etc etc. Between the highspending individuals/corporations and the the hundreds of millions who might donate 20 or so euro each year - all this before passing the bucket around a G8 summit - youd certainly be able to make a decent stab at buying plots. They spend tens of billions on US presidential races every few years already.

Now you're just taking the piss.We should rely on the generosity of Hollywood actors to preserve the planets rainforests?
Complete and utter nonsense. And a few 'plots' of rainforest being preserved because of private ownership would be nothing, Nothing compared to the massive destruction that would occur of Logging companies were able to purchase the rest and had the property rights to do with them whatever they please.

As for the return - Well, you said yourself its valuable due to its role in the biosphere alone. But why not tourism? Why not charge people for photographs?

Because if everyone started visiting the rainforest on luxury holiday breaks, than that would destroy the rainforest. Where are these people supposed to stay? How are they supposed to get there? How much would each genuine eco tourist be expected to pay to allow an environmental group raise enough money to out bid a Consortium of Logging, Mining and Pharmaceutical companies who want to dig up the place and make trillions of dollars profit doing so? And what about the local people who live in and around these rainforests who could never raise enough money to be able to afford to bid for their own local resources?

I understand enviromental groups are already fund raising and purchasing parts of rainforests worldwide so as to asset their private property rights. Fancy that.

That is not what Free Market Environmentalists are talking about.
Corporations aren't competing for that land now because the property rights aren't strong enough to allow them to exploit the resource in a profitable way. Free market environmentalists want to substitute government regulations and democracy with absolute property rights.

The environmental groups you are talking about have a budget of tens of thousands of Dollars. Their activities are purely symbolic

Múinteoir

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Muinteoir,
A lot of what Marx wrote has not stood the test of time but on this he is relevant. There are fractions of capital and they can have conflicting interests. You cannot generalise and say that it is in the interests of capitalism to address the environment. A free market would lead to environmental disaster. Stern looks at the economics; he doesn't favour uncontrolled capitalism.

I'm not saying he did. All I'm saying is that there is a realisation dawning amonst even the hardest capitalists, that the current mode of capitalism will hurt their interests, in the medium to long term. That will certainly involve reigning in unbridled capitialism, but the big point is that does not necessarily involve embracing socialism, as some assume.

Jackie laughlin

Muinteoir,
Yes, it does. Socialists control markets to achieve a public good. That control might mean public ownership, it might mean a ban on certain kinds of enterprise, it might mean limits on some enterprises, it might mean that some enterprises do much better.

Indeed in the present context it will certainly mean that some capitalists will support socialist measures to protect the environment.

This would not be unique in human history. Many capitalists would support socialist action against e.g. speculation.

Múinteoir

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Muinteoir,
Yes, it does. Socialists control markets to achieve a public good. That control might mean public ownership, it might mean a ban on certain kinds of enterprise, it might mean limits on some enterprises, it might mean that some enterprises do much better.

Indeed in the present context it will certainly mean that some capitalists will support socialist measures to protect the environment.

This would not be unique in human history. Many capitalists would support socialist action against e.g. speculation.

I'm sorry but you're making the assumption that all interference in the market is based on socialist motivations, for the common good. Action like George Bush putting tariffs on imported steel to protect the industry in the US has nothing to do with socialism. The Corn Laws that protected English Agriculture in the early 19th century were not motivated by socialism (Marxism didn't even exist then).
Although I certainly believe that international measures to tackle global warming will be in the common good of mankind, I do not believe that that is the reason many capitalist interests will sign up to it. They will do it out of their own self-interest, not because they give a toss about people who will be washed out by rising sea levels in Bangladesh, famine and drought in Africa etc.
The fundamental motivation will still be, "What's in this for me?"

Jackie laughlin

Muinteoir,
I'm making no such assumption. Neo liberals in government will distort markets for private ends. Your G. Bush example is prime. Your Corn Law example shows that the practice pre-dates neo-liberalism and of course it predates Marx. For goodness sake, why do you think Marx wanted change! Watch FF create market conditions which suit speculators and developers. I'm saying that interference in the market in the public good is what socialists do when they get into power. That's why socialism is despised and why some of us are proud to defend the socialist tradition. Frequently, socialist controls on the market will have a secondary effect of enriching someone who is in a more productive or cleaner business. To repeat, this is why some fractions of capital sometimes have a commercial interest in some socialist policies.

cavedave

Investment capital flowing into renewable energies such as wind power climbed ... to a record $100 billion in 2006,

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-21-04.asp

I still find it hard to believe that people who believe in the market economy have no representation in the Irish environmental movement

Múinteoir

cavedave wrote:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-21-04.asp

I still find it hard to believe that people who believe in the market economy have no representation in the Irish environmental movement

On what basis do you assume there are none? Off the top of my head, two of the Green TDs ran their own private businesses before being elected to the Dáil i.e. Mary White and Éamon Ryan. This idea that everyone in the Green movement is a scruffy crusty with a big beard and long hair who lives on the dole, is a load of rubbish.

cavedave

On what basis do you assume there are none?

on the basis of the green party policies (not principles) which as stated in the original post include an end to
• The depopulation of the countryside and over-crowding in the cities.
• Land and property speculation.

If i am wrong and I can as a slightly right wing (as in market economy) extreme libertarian join the green party then i will sign up

monument

Akrasia wrote:

Left/right labels ... (and to be honest, they're an extremely antiquated way of looking at politics).

Thread over.

Akrasia

cavedave wrote:

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-21-04.asp

I still find it hard to believe that people who believe in the market economy have no representation in the Irish environmental movement

Investment of 100 billion in wind energy in a year is equivilent to less than the amount we spend on oil in 1 day. (80 million barrels a day at 70 dollars a barrel plus the price of going to war to secure the oil and the various other oil related industries) And a lot of that investment in Wind has arisen because governments are investing in research and manipulating markets to make wind more attractive to investors

cavedave

is equivilent to less than the amount we spend on oil in 1 day

That is a fair point

Jackie laughlin

Muinteoir,
Is there some Green desire to see themselves as a persecuted minority? Cartoonists portray Green supporters in the way you describe but they're having a laugh. The rest of us know - however vaguely - Green members and supporters who don't fit such a bizarre stereotype.

I am a socialist because I REALLY DO believe in a mixed economy. Let the market be free until intervention becomes necessary. Very many people in business support this approach. A free market will ENSURE global warming.

The greens, in trying to pretend that they've found some new politics which avoids taking sides, capitalise on those voters who assume the Green Party to be seriously concerned about global warming when in fact the Party merely expresses concern and is highly unlikely to risk alienating anyone by adopting the necessarily divisive policy.

cavedave

A free market will ENSURE global warming.

So we do not need to worry about the "Schwabe" sunspot cycle? And ice ages are the thing of the past? :rolleyes:

Jackie laughlin

Dave,
Far be it from me to stop you fretting over sunspots and whatever evidence you can find that we are entering another ice age.

I've lately and reluctantly become convinced of the reality of man-made global warming and the Green Party certainly do not impress on this issue.

cavedave

I also believe in man caused global warming. AndIi mean believe as I am too stupid to understand climatology.
I also know the earths temperature has changed throughout history and that due to this fact the following statement is false

A free market will ENSURE global warming.

You cannot ensure anything when it comes to global climate. If the sun dissappeared tomorrow the free market would not be able to ensure global warming.

Jackie laughlin

Cavedave,
The technical evidence and arguments are not difficult.

Yes, the earth has cycled through warming and cooling before. It does not follow from this that the statement, "A free market will ENSURE global warming", is false.

I'm sure you'll be able to cope with the idea that reasonable certainty doesn't have to take account of the sun going out or, as you fear, disappearing.

jjbrien

I got emailed this from FG if its true its very worrying:

Are Greens proposing 33 cent hike on each litre of petrol?


The Government Taxation policy, outlined this morning (Monday) on RTE Radio by Trevor Sargent, will hike the price of petrol by a staggering 33 cent a litre Fine Gael Finance Spokesman Richard Bruton TD has said. This is the equivalent of €1.50 per gallon

During his interview on RTE's Tom McGurk Show, the Acting Green Party Leader said that his Party's policy to increase fuel tax instead of charging VRT is still 'all part' of the tax review strategy of the Programme for Government and forms 'an important bit'.

"Any Government taxation policy that will increase the price of a litre of petrol by 33c will cause serious concern across Irish businesses and in Irish homes yet that is exactly what Trevor Sargent seems to be suggesting.

"When questioned in the media about where he would find the revenue to replace the abolition of VRT, Trevor Sargent's response was crystal clear:

Tom McGurk: "Would you take the tax off fuel or add the tax to fuel or where would that revenue come from?"
Trevor Sargent: "Yeah, that would be added."

"On the basis that VRT receipts came to €1,292m in the same year, abolishing VRT at the same time as hiking excise duties would require an additional increase of at least 33 cent. The current rate of excise on unleaded petrol is 43 cent per litre so completely switching taxation from VRT to excise duties on petrol would almost double the tax levied.

"The Green Party Leader was at pains to point out that this policy 'is still part, if you look at the Programme for Government, a tax review strategy of which that [increasing fuel tax at the expense of VRT] is a very important bit.'

"Is Trevor Sargent speaking on behalf of his Fianna Fáil colleagues and, if so, they must immediately spell out their tax hike policy, what it entails and when they intend to introduce it. The Irish electorate are used to taxes by the backdoor from Fianna Fáil governments and this fuel tax increase suspiciously looks like the latest attempt to hit people in their pocket.

"What is equally worrying, however, is just how divorced from reality the Green Party Leader seems to be about the impact of such a policy as he went onto say: 'We are only talking about a couple of cents here, we're not talking about a major difference in petrol price."

"Almost doubling fuel tax will make a major difference in petrol price as well as affecting Ireland's competitiveness and an immediate clarification from Fianna Fáil and the Greens is now needed."

Some of the greens policy dont make sence I would like if they made availible the bio alternitive to unleaded as its really cheap but I dont see this happening.

Jackie laughlin

Bio-fuel can become part of the answer but not THE answer. There is not enough land to grow the material needed to replace petrol. Moreover, making bio-fuel uses energy. It will be a small part of the solution. Indeed, the solution will have to be the sum of many small parts.