Green party - Imposing their morals on us?

jamesblonde

ven0m wrote: »

Next time you see a green party member on your door, ask them why they do no motion for campaign & electrion posters to be made illegal, as they also create litter, & often use non-biodegradable materials including the cable ties, not to mention dirty big vans being used to drive 20 yards at a time from lamp-post to lamp-post to put them up, which are all un-neccesary vehicle journeys.

I said this to the green in my area & he slammed my own sliding door on me at election time this year without giving me an answer. I complained to the green party HQ & Trevor Sargent personally rung me to apologise.

This is a party who cannot even stand over it's own policies on 'being green'. Even when it comes to their own I.T. infrastructure, they are one of the less green I've ever seen. They use systems with poor green ratings. I'll bet various parts of my anatomy to the fact they do NOT have a 'black-out' policy for their offices after hours & I will also bet their electricity bill is with the ESB & not something like Airtricity or another green power supply company .....

I've no time for the green party. I've little time for political parties - but even less time for them & their hypocrisy.
:::: ven0mous ::::

You obviously have way too much time on your hands for complaining.
Why not try and do something constructive with your life?
Green policies are about improving the world for *everybody* (including you). That also includes future generations. Other Irish parties have no notion of long-term policies, only building on the lake and lining their pockets while they're at it.

justcallmetex

Thinkin back to the time when nobody believed or gave a toss about "global warming" was great when you were being advised to change to low energy bulbs cause they'll save you money or get better insulation cause it'll save you money. Now it's do X,Y and Z and pay tax on it too

In case you've not worked it out I really don't buy in to man made global warming if anybody is interested heres some interesting food for thought:

http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm

ven0m

gerky wrote: »

Theres a lot of stuff being said in this thread without anything to back it up.
As regards emissions industry isn't the biggest emitter agriculture is(about 28%) then energy(about 22%) then transport(about 20%) then industry(about 17%).

Actually - the data centre industry is. It accounts for 2% of world industry yet contributes to more than 28% of carbon emissions through its power draw. It is an industry accepted fact.



:::: ven0mous ::::

ven0m

jamesblonde wrote: »

You obviously have way too much time on your hands for complaining.
Why not try and do something constructive with your life?
Green policies are about improving the world for *everybody* (including you). That also includes future generations. Other Irish parties have no notion of long-term policies, only building on the lake and lining their pockets while they're at it.

I complained as I had a politician damage my property. I think I had a right to, or do you think it's acceptible for someone to knock on YOUR door & then damage it because you ask a perfectly resonable question?


Please leave personal attacks out of it.



:::: ven0mous ::::

Setun

I think the main stroke of genius with the greens election campaign for me was that they actually led us to believe they weren't a mob of capitalist double-standard hypocrites.

Sell. Outs.

Blitzkrieger

Why are all the people calling us moaners for criticising the greens doing nothing but moaning at us?

Victor

RobAMerc wrote: »

Green party - Imposing their morals on us?

So when you are engaged in the Robbery of A Mercedes aren't you imposing your morals on others?

gerky

For starters I’m not moaning I’m just telling you my views which are just as valid as yours.

The figures I used are as far as I know the latest official figures.

And I’m not a big fan of any politician but I consider the greens the best of a bad lot.

I’m not sure how exactly their sellouts they refused government mercs they cycle or use public transport whenever possible and the are bringing in laws and regulations to try and benefit the environment.

If you want them to bring in the big changes that need to be brought in then elect them as a majority, a small fish in a big dirty pond is never going to be able to make huge changes.

dragonkin

Although CFLs are more complicated and require more components to make one lasts much longer than an incandescent bulb. So in terms of manufacturing is one CFL worse than say 3 incandescents including separate packaging and shipping.
Where are the facts I had a look but couldn't find much info.

I recommend people read the IPCC Summary if they are not completely convinced of the impact of man on global warming.

The reality is that people are going to have to make changes, often inconvenient changes. The Government will have to take a role as it is against peoples natural inclinations or interests to make these changes so they need to be made at a measured pace.

CFLs substantially reduce emissions and should be used.

Higher emission cars are more damaging to the environment therefore impacting negatively on me and future generations so I am fully in support of any incentives to stop people using them. Similar logic to putting smokers outside the pub. Although I do agree that more needs to be done but you have to start somewhere.

I agree there are a lot of 'facts' being branded around here with no data to back them up.

Lord Nikon

Daddio wrote: »

As far as I can see, all the green party have done is brought in new taxes/made certain materials more expensive.

This is probably what every government has done since the beginning of time.

gerky

Here's a link that covers most things regarding CFLs and the myths surrounding them in plain speakingLink

Mweelrea

The greens are making it compulsary to stick big solar pannels on new houses soon.
1:they're fugly
2:they don't actually save much energy



CFL's don't work with dimmer switches


The new carbon tax is just plain annoying.

The Green Party won't get my vote next election.

gerky

Mweelrea wrote: »

The greens are making it compulsary to stick big solar pannels on new houses soon.
1:they're fugly
2:they don't actually save much energy



CFL's don't work with dimmer switches

The new carbon tax is just plain annoying.

The Green Party won't get my vote next election.

You can get CFL's that work with dimmers.

And did you vote for them the last time.



And got any links to back up the compulory solar panel thing.

Mweelrea

You can get CFL's that work with dimmers.-really? thats good!

And did you vote for them the last time.i gave them my number 2 or 3(can't remember)



And got any links to back up the compulory solar panel thing.-give me a few mins

Mweelrea

EDIT: I stand corrected they were trying to get some issue with solar panels in the planning permission guidelines sorted out.
I jumped to conclusions far too early.

gerky thanks for putting me straight on that matter.

gerky

No problem.

gerky

gerky wrote: »

You can get CFL's that work with dimmers.

Where, I need some... Link Please.

Gekko

interesting post by venomous on the IT industry and Intel in Leixlip.

I think there should be a flat tax on diesel and petrol instead of the vrt and car tax increases - that way the more you drive, the more you pay, so it's much fairer.

The ESRI said the other day that it'll basically be impossible to reduce the country's emissions by 3% per year. That target came to be policy as a result of lobbying by green groups as far as I know. Not sure where they came up with the figure but it's supposedly so we can meet a certain target by 2020 or something.

I'm skeptical about the whole CFL bulbs move and I can't see it working practically - there has to be a better way to reduce our energy usage more easily and more efficiently.

This year I'm funding the conservation of either half an acre or an acre of South American rainforest. The organisation, Cool Earth claims one acre will offset 260 tonnes CO2...although to me the figure looks like 100 tonnes, judging by the information on their website. To put that in perspective, the average Irish person supposedly is responsible for about 17 tonnes per year according to UNFCCC figures.

goldenbrown

for members of the public, some of them form a government and then they apply policies....its called government

Conar

The complaints about these changes do seem very similar to the smoking ban nay sayers.
I suspect that once the changes have been made people will wonder why it wasn't always this way.
Not many people complain about the smoking ban or plastic bag taxes any more.

Will the changes cause a negative impact on your life? I would assume no, unless of course you think that you have a god given right to do whatever you want whenever you want in which case you will always find reason to feel hard done by.

Do they have the potential to improve our carbon emmissions or at least start us on the way to a change in how we live? Yes I think so.

The CFL's save money over time so I don't see what peoples problems are. They are more efficient and better for the environment.
They do contain mercury but not enough to ever have to worry about.

The motor tax and VRT is only imposed on new cars purchased after July 1st or cars imported (new or 2nd hand) after the same date.
This means that if you can't afford to change your car it doesn't affect you at all.
If you can afford to change your car then you just need to take into account that it makes more sense to buy a more environmentally friendly car as otherwise it will cost you more.

I do agree with other peoples comments about taxing directly on fuel so the people that drive the most should pay the most but I think thats a while away yet.

Maybe we'll be driving electric cars sooner than we thought though, the new Tesla car will be released next year (assuming they iron out their transmission issues) and its capable of doing 0-60 in less than 4 seconds.
According to their stats they combine the power and performance of a sports car while easily beating the efficiency of the Prius and the likes.
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/electric_power.php
They retail at less the $100k and I can only assume that given time we would be able to see more reductions in price and increases in efficiency.

With regards to the Datacenters. I currently work in one and they are becoming obsessed with ways of cutting down in power consumption so I think the pressure is there and they are responding. Too slowly perhaps but there is movement there.

Anyway to summarise I welcome the changes and hope they introduce more.
All environmental changes that I can think of to date have been very easy to adjust to and have had a positive affect.

L1011

"transmission issues"? We were told in the 90s that 'leccy cars would be even greener due to 'not needing a gearbox, saving weight and complexity' I think the line in the hopelessly optomist schoolbook was....

gerky

Deleted User wrote: »

Where, I need some... Link Please.

I'm not sure where's the best place to buy them as I don't use cfl's with dimmers.
But most of the company's that make cfl's make ones that can be dimmed as in Philips,GE As far as I know the general consensus is it says on the box whether they can be used with dimmers if it doesn't then they cant.

You can get lists on the net of cfl's that can be dimmed here's one shop that sells themlink But your local diy place should be able to get them.

brianthebard

The more I hear about the green party the more I hate them. Bending over backwards so FF could anally rape them they then proceeded to drop any sort of policies like they were old news, gained three ministries (so 75% of their elected TD's are ministers, proportionally worse than the pd's ever were) and give free reign to John Gormley to screw around with all sorts of pet projects. (this isn't the politics forum so I don't think I need to be civil.)

barclay2

brianthebard wrote: »

The more I hear about the green party the more I hate them. Bending over backwards so FF could anally rape them they then proceeded to drop any sort of policies like they were old news, gained three ministries (so 75% of their elected TD's are ministers, proportionally worse than the pd's ever were) and give free reign to John Gormley to screw around with all sorts of pet projects. (this isn't the politics forum so I don't think I need to be civil.)

Is that not a bit of a contradiction? You say they've been anally raped and dropped their policies, yet somehow have free reign at the same time?

barclay2

RobAMerc wrote: »

does anyone else feel the Green party (or more specifically Gormley) are imposing their morals on us under the guise of governance ?

I dont think "imposing" is a fair way of putting it - they, and a party who were prepared to work with them, were elected. Now that they're elected, they're doing a lot of what they promised to do, not imposing their values on us. Why should a political party act any differently? Would you prefer if a party was elected to government and then abandoned their values?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Conar

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What if it rises a lot?
What if it happens suddenly?
Would you really see other people or countries suffer, even if you didn't, just so you don't have to make a few easy life changes?

I reckon they should:
Ban non rechargeable batteries.
Ensure all towns have recycling facilities.
Reduce unneccessary packaging on goods.
Tax/ban unrequested mail....including allowing people to opt out of receiving paper copies of phone bills, bank statements etc.

Little changes like this can all help make a difference without much effort.

I was never a greenie until the last few years but once I started recycling etc I felt embarassed at how wasteful I'd always been.
Maybe having kids also reinforced the point but I think we could be a lot more responsible and if we're wrong about global warming then hey at least we may have learned to be more economic with our resources.

Setun

neuromancer wrote: »

This is probably what every government has done since the beginning of time.

Are there not better ways to urge people to be more environmentally friendly?
Some governments have managed to elevate themselves above the role of taxation believe it or not - the greens are just bringing in these penalties and don't seem to be helping anyone along.

Btw are there substantial grants available for adapting homes to be more eco-friendly? And if there are how much ****e is involved until you can actually get one? Juts curious.

And what happened with the Green's Shannon airport policy? And what is their official policy to Tara Hill etc?

Setun

Conar wrote: »

I reckon they should:

Ensure all towns have recycling facilities.
Reduce unneccessary packaging on goods.
ban unrequested mail....including allowing people to opt out of receiving paper copies of phone bills, bank statements etc.

Seconded. No recycling facilties in my town for a few years now, yet they see no problem with the fact that the population must have at least tripled in the last 5 years and all the green areas have been built on. More waste, less recycling places to dispose of it.

Conar

Daddio wrote: »

Are there not better ways to urge people to be more environmentally friendly?
Some governments have managed to elevate themselves above the role of taxation believe it or not - the greens are just bringing in these penalties and don't seem to be helping anyone along.

Btw are there substantial grants available for adapting homes to be more eco-friendly? And if there are how much ****e is involved until you can actually get one? Juts curious.

And what happened with the Green's Shannon airport policy? And what is their official policy to Tara Hill etc?

Info on the eco-grants here, no idea how many hoops you need to jump through though.

Conar

Conar wrote: »

Reduce unneccessary packaging on goods.
Tax/ban unrequested mail....including allowing people to opt out of receiving paper copies of phone bills, bank statements etc.

I'm of the understanding that it can be more economical to turn the waste paper into brickettes and burn them in your home multifuel boiler than it is to send it for recycling.

For many that trip to the recycling depot will consume far more energy than can ever be reclaimed from the material returned, unless the depot is en-route to another destination.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cooperguy

Conar wrote: »

What if it happens suddenly?

Haha these things never happen suddenly. We're talking about slow changes over many many years

gerky

cooperguy wrote: »

Haha these things never happen suddenly. We're talking about slow changes over many many years

Thats completely untrue these things can happen extremely quickly whats happening now wasn't predicted to happen for decades.

Conar

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know about that. 14m could be devastating for a lot of low lieing countries and I would assume parts of Ireland.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ah cmon, I hardly meant in that time scale.
Over a few years would seem quite sudden to me for changes of that magnitude and quite plausible if Greenlands ice shelf were to go on a big slide into the sea.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm also a fan of Nuclear power but I see no reason not to make the small changes too. I think we need to start cutting back on a lot of things.
Using CFL's, turning of devices on standby, turning off lights in rooms you are not in, all these little things have helped me reduce my electricity bill so it does make a difference.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Maybe you see it as tokenism but I honestly think its a step in the right direction. We have to start somewhere.
I'll continue to try to cut back on energy usage because the more I do, the more I realise how much of my usage was just wasteful.

Deleted User wrote:

I'm of the understanding that it can be more economical to turn the waste paper into brickettes and burn them in your home multifuel boiler than it is to send it for recycling.

Perhaps it does consume more energy in the recycling process, but it also saves more trees. Besides I was saying that they should reduce the amount you get in the first place which would definitely be better than recycling.

Deleted User wrote:

For many that trip to the recycling depot will consume far more energy than can ever be reclaimed from the material returned, unless the depot is en-route to another destination.

That may well be true, but if they were in your town then you could simply walk. It also may encourage more people to recycle.
Recycle centres/zones can contain bins for batteries and clothes and many more things than just bottles and paper.
If I want to recycle batteries or CFL's at the moment I have to drive out to Trim.
I also have to drive to recycle bottles as there's no bottle bank in Enfield.
I'd never just drive to a bottle bank though, I'd only ever bring them along if I'm going to a supermarket with them.

You Suck!

RobAMerc wrote: »

I for one did not vote the Greens in, so my view may be a little tainted, but given the new tax regime for motoring, the banning of ordinary light bulbs in favour of cfl's ( at about 10 times the price) and now Gormley's restricting of the Hunt license, does anyone else feel the Green party (or more specifically Gormley) are imposing their morals on us under the guise of governance ?

I think these boys are trying to replace the Catholic church as our moral guardians or something.

Here, Ffin here, Sir! I salute you!

Your right!, the piety that was once vested in the church has now found new avenues of existence in modern day Ireland and the old wish to tell each other how live still go's strong!

I stopped complaining and left, but I would like to return someday. It's time Ireland discovered the merits of Libertarian philosophy and for once thought about individualism, responsibility and not expecting the govt to dictate how life should be lived. Will never happen, but I can always dream.

And in regards the greens, the german greens are shít cool, ours are a pale imitation. I'm happy to see a green movement, but a movement born out of pragmatism and not piety.

nobodythere

They're not imposing 'their morals' they're just imposing morals.

brianthebard

gerky wrote: »

Thats completely untrue these things can happen extremely quickly whats happening now wasn't predicted to happen for decades.

Thats as much a reason to ignore the scientists who were unable to predict what would happen accurately as it is to believe that global warming is happening. It annoys me so much that people will take scientists "predictions", often ones that are to happen in decades if not centuries, as fact. Not too long ago they were predicting global cooling.

brianthebard

barclay2 wrote: »

Is that not a bit of a contradiction? You say they've been anally raped and dropped their policies, yet somehow have free reign at the same time?

Not really. The greens dropped their complaints about Shannon, allowed the tara motorway project to go ahead (despite what the greens say, it is absolutely possible for them to overturn dick roche's decision), didn't vote against Bertie or Harney, (at the very least they could have abstained)-that's how they dropped their policies. Regards free reign, I mean Gormley's dealing of the hunting licenses, and his crusade against the incinerator in his own parish. There hasn't been a peep out of the other three since they got to power.

Conar

brianthebard wrote: »

Thats as much a reason to ignore the scientists who were unable to predict what would happen accurately as it is to believe that global warming is happening. It annoys me so much that people will take scientists "predictions", often ones that are to happen in decades if not centuries, as fact. Not too long ago they were predicting global cooling.

Yes but the potential consequences of inaction compared to those of action are vast.

Whats the worst that can happen if we're wrong about global warming?
Probably just that we'll have managed to learn how to be much more economic with our resources.

If we are right yet do nothing then we're simply screwed.

I know which wrong choice I'd rather make.

brianthebard

I haven't seen much economy of resources lately.

Conar

brianthebard wrote: »

I haven't seen much economy of resources lately.

Well there's definitely truth in that statement.
I think more and more people are trying to be more economic though.

Maybe its just the people I know but people seem to be more conscious of global warming and are trying to change.

My daughters school is always doing green projects and the like so I think the younger kids will find it all more natural than some of the rest of us.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

fits

No one is trying to halt or slow economic development in poor countries. The talks in Bali talked about providing the technology to developing countries so that they can develop in a greener manner.

At the risk of repeating myself. Theres a whole section in the latest IPCC report devoted to cost benefit analyses of taking measures to mitigate climate change. anyone can read it on www.ipcc.ch

I'm totally convinced of anthropogenically driven climate change, and also convinced that we need to do everything within our power to reduce our GHG emissions... which is why I voted Green this time. (And I'm from a farming background and have hunted in the past). Addressing climate change is far more important than any of these other issues imo.

dragonkin

I think there are two issues here green issues and the impact of peak oil.

Now both have their doubters but assuming for a moment that both are true. Then the decline in available energy supplies will force a reduction in emissions far more efficiently than any form of political action.

Now if you believe in both then what's the point in green policies?
They are extremely important as they are the first lines of defense in a future where energy security will be one of the principal issues. Countries that have put in place policies enabling good energy efficiencies will have a major advantage over those reliant on less efficient methods.

gerky

brianthebard wrote: »

Thats as much a reason to ignore the scientists who were unable to predict what would happen accurately as it is to believe that global warming is happening. It annoys me so much that people will take scientists "predictions", often ones that are to happen in decades if not centuries, as fact. Not too long ago they were predicting global cooling.

Are you serious, For starters there is no doubt that global warming is happening the only sliver of doubt is whether its man made and theres few if any legitimate climate scientist's that don't believe we are at least playing a big part in it.
And if you don't believe legitimate scientists than you have problems that I can't help.

Macha

OK first thing. There is no such thing as peak oil. The stuff just isn't running out. The current price hike is due to market speculation. That's all.

Nuclear is not a good idea for a country as small as Ireland. One nuclear reactor would provide us with all the power we need and therefore would remove any incentive to invest in truly renewable energies such as wind and wave (we are one of the countries with the biggest potential in these). Two, if we started building a nuclear reactor now, it wouldn't be operational until 2020. It just takes too long.

As for those complaining about the Green party, it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. People are whining about the policies they have managed to pass and then whining that they haven't done anything.

The problem is the average person only relied on the media for information on these things and thus gets a warped view. Did anyone hear about the new Water Pollution regulations that came into effect in October that mean that local authorities can noe be prosecuted for pollution water? NO! Why? Because it isn't sexy and so the papers only mention it briefly.

There is so much misinformation out there it's ridiculous. For example, Gormley's concerns over the hunting licence are that hunters will only go after the big strong deer & stags, not the weak, sick or old deer. This weakens the pack and reduces the strength of the pack as a whole. If the deer were being hunted by their natural predators ie wolves (that we wiped out), the wolves would only go for the weak, sick, old ones - thus keeping the pack strong. See? Now it makes sense.

As for the Greens imposing their morals...people who make that comment clearly don't understand politics. Everything is a moral decision if you want to look at things that way, including the decision to do nothing. Putting the label 'morals' on the Greens policies is just and easy way to dismiss them as being anti-liberal. Whereas I would consider that people who live unsustainably are the most selfish people in the world. (I include myself in there).

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

Nuclear is not a good idea for a country as small as Ireland. One nuclear reactor would provide us with all the power we need and therefore would remove any incentive to invest in truly renewable energies such as wind and wave (we are one of the countries with the biggest potential in these). Two, if we started building a nuclear reactor now, it wouldn't be operational until 2020. It just takes too long.

Those aren't very good arguments against nuclear. It's not like renewable energy sources are ready to roll out in a far shorter timeframe and there is no way that a single source for electricity would ever be an option for the grid. At worst if we have an over-supply from a combination of nuclear and renewable sources we could easily sell it on abroad because, being such a small country, what's a big surplus for us is a mere drop in the ocean for our neighbours.

The single biggest problem with nuclear is finding a place to put the thing in the first place.

Macha

nesf wrote: »

Those aren't very good arguments against nuclear. It's not like renewable energy sources are ready to roll out in a far shorter timeframe and there is no way that a single source for electricity would ever be an option for the grid. At worst if we have an over-supply from a combination of nuclear and renewable sources we could easily sell it on abroad because, being such a small country, what's a big surplus for us is a mere drop in the ocean for our neighbours.

The single biggest problem with nuclear is finding a place to put the thing in the first place.

Um yes they are ready to roll out. It's a matter of political will. And you just have to compare Ireland's White Paper on Energy to that of another country, such as Sweden so see the total vacuum of political will for renewable energies in Ireland.

'Oh, we'll invest and aim for a pathetic capacity of 500MW of ocean energy by 2020'. The EU Energy Commissioner has already criticized Ireland for being so half-assed about it all, as he should. We're pathetic and deserve the massive fines under the Kyoto protocol that we will start to amass, starting in about....8 days.

nesf

taconnol wrote: »

Um yes they are ready to roll out.

Not on anything but a complimentary basis over the short term though, ie by 2020. To dismiss nuclear because it won't be ready by then is disingenuous.

We are investing in wind power etc (though I agree there isn't enough investment) but this automatic dismissal of nuclear is pointless.