We cant afford the Green agenda !

Danuogma

djpbarry wrote: »

Methinks you may want to double-check this:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png

Warming may have levelled off slightly over the last few years, but 2008 is still expected to be the 10th warmest year on record.

LOL, it is 2009 now, and bloody freezing.

This is almost Orwellian, the current cooling is masking the warming, apparently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

I really trust those guys:rolleyes:

Faceless bureaucracy? You are familiar with the concept of taxation, aren’t you?

So where would the carbon tax money go?. Answer that truthfully.

Sure, if by “on the whole” you mean it’s cooler now than it was in July.
The term “climate change” was in widespread use even before 1998, the warmest year on record. It was possibly popularised following the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988.

Yes the phrase has been around for a while, it is now more prevalent than the phrase "global warming" correct or incorrect?.

Possibly because public opinion favoured infrastructural projects such as motorways and bypasses. Besides, there’s only so much that can be done in 10-odd years. Having said that, while there’s still a hell of a lot to be done to improve public transport in this country, a lot has improved over the last decade.

Maybe in Dublin things have improved (slightly), public transport in the rest of the country is either woefully substandard or non-existent. Try getting a train from Limerick to Dublin or vice versa, an extortionate fare and nearly always late, there is hardly any incentive to use it. The road network needed to be improved, it was at almost third world levels fifteen years ago (a lot of roads still are), public transport could have been improved also, all we got was token improvements and extortionate fares.

People were still happy to pay ridiculous sums of money for said shoddy housing. Oh wait, I forgot; it’s the banks’ fault for lending consumers the money that they asked for.

People have to live somewhere I suppose, should they have pitched tents in the Phoenix Park instead?. Oh well, most of them are up sh*t creek now, I suppose that will make you happy. The banks got bags-o-free-cash and they will still be nailing people who can't afford their mortgages (death pledges).

You complain about poor public transport that wasn’t “sorted” by FF when the money was available to do it. You complain about the “shoddy housing” developments that FF (apparently) did nothing to improve. Now you proclaim that everyone should be free from “government interference”? So you want the government to intervene, but only when it suits you?

That is what they are supposed to be there for isn't it, government should exist to serve the public, not analyze their lives and interfere where they no right to interfere. Government could have improved public transport and turned the heat up on scumbag developers, that would have been service in the public interest, not interference.

Danuogma

oscarBravo wrote: »

For the purposes of discussion on this forum, I'm going with the scientific consensus. If you're not prepared to engage in political discussion on that basis, stay off this topic.

Danuogma

oscarBravo wrote: »

Moderator note: this isn't the Green Issues forum. Discussion of whether or not climate change is influenced by human activity can take place over there.

For the purposes of discussion on this forum, I'm going with the scientific consensus. If you're not prepared to engage in political discussion on that basis, stay off this topic.

If you want to claim that there's a scientific consensus that human activity isn't a factor in climate change, do it over on Green Issues - but be prepared to defend the assertion with something more concrete than "Google it".

This is my only warning.

Sorry,... We can speak freely as long as it is approved "free speech". Sorry. I forgot.

jank

So you like to stick your head in the sand.
Let me ask what do you think Ireland to do regarding future energy needs?

Danuogma

So you like to stick your head in the sand.

I refuse to go along and agree with a highly politicised movement with a much larger agenda.

jank wrote: »

Let me ask what do you think Ireland to do regarding future energy needs?

I never said that I was against renewable energy, in fact I am all for it as long as the returns justify the outlay. I am also a fan of micro energy generation, everyone should get a slice of the pie.

Here is a good website if you want to check it out:

http://www.otherpower.com/

Darsad

Build a big incinerator and Nuclear power plant problem solved !!

jank

Danuogma wrote: »

I refuse to go along and agree with a highly politicised movement with a much larger agenda.




I never said that I was against renewable energy, in fact I am all for it as long as the returns justify the outlay. I am also a fan of micro energy generation, everyone should get a slice of the pie.

Here is a good website if you want to check it out:

http://www.otherpower.com/

And what is this agenda. Does it involve Tinfoil hats?

You are not against renewable energy so long its the cheapest form? Well we have been following this rule for the last 50 years and look where it is getting us. There has to be a large outlay at the begining but the ROI should not be meassured just in fiscal terms.

About the website, do you think governments should give grants/tax breaks to those that want to generate their own power? Do you think there would be a will for people to change if these costs are still really high and cheap gas/oil is still available to many?

Matt Holck

Darsad wrote: »

The Greens are scaremongers !

hot summer = Global warming
Cold Summer = Global warming
wet summer = Global warming
dry Summer = Global warming

Ryan and Gormley and the rest of their party should head off to India or china for good and see real pollution and Carbon emissions.Changes made here dont register on any scale they simply ruin our economy

how are they ruining the economy?
'cause some filters need to be stuffed down chimneys?
'cause some houses need to be insulated?

Matt Holck

jank wrote: »

And what is this agenda. Does it involve Tinfoil hats?

You are not against renewable energy so long its the cheapest form? Well we have been following this rule for the last 50 years and look where it is getting us. There has to be a large outlay at the begining but the ROI should not be meassured just in fiscal terms.

About the website, do you think governments should give grants/tax breaks to those that want to generate their own power? Do you think there would be a will for people to change if these costs are still really high and cheap gas/oil is still available to many?

It's a matter of capital investments.
Logically, a renewable energy source would be virtually free
once the power plants are built.
Maintenance is a secondary cost

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

How much will that cost us I wonder?

A huge amount if it is planned and built by our incompetent shower, thus I would propose lets say Hong kong project management and French builders.
For once then we might have something proper (safety important and the French have good record with their huge nuclear industry) and within a preset budget and timescale (what was achieved in Hong Kong aiport development pre handover was beyond believe).

CtrlSource wrote: »

Nuclear has been a big issue in this country for decades (Windscale and Sellafield, not to mention Chernobyl). i'm still very suspicious of it, even though some eminent research seems to indicate that modern plants are a safer.

However, the issue of radioactive waste and what we'd be leaving successive generations to deal with is reason enough for me to continue to say no to it

BTW, Windscale and Sellafield are the same place. They jyust kinda name changed becuase of the bad publicity. Chernobyl tends to viewed badly by every nation :rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

So there are no CO2 emissions associated with the construction, maintenance, fuelling and decommissioning of a nuclear power plant?

Yeah a bit like the CO2 emmissions you will get putting in place all those thousands of wind farms and all thsoe wave generators. How will people get to their often proposed inexcessible locations to maintain them, walk ?

I used to believe the green party in this country are a bunch of clueless do gooders, but now I believe they are a bunch of clueless do gooders who sell out most of their principles although they yet hang on to their superior attitude that they know best.

CtrlSource

jmayo wrote: »

BTW, Windscale and Sellafield are the same place. They jyust kinda name changed becuase of the bad publicity. Chernobyl tends to viewed badly by every nation :rolleyes:

i am aware of that. The 'bad publicity' you refer to is also known as the Windscale fire

Danuogma

jank wrote: »

And what is this agenda. Does it involve Tinfoil hats?

*drumroll* Its the way you tell em.:rolleyes:

You are not against renewable energy so long its the cheapest form? Well we have been following this rule for the last 50 years and look where it is getting us. There has to be a large outlay at the begining but the ROI should not be meassured just in fiscal terms.

The output should justify the outlay within a reasonable period of time (say 15-20 years) if it doesn't then what is the point?. The notion that renewables should require mega bucks to set up in the first place is a convenient one, the company's involved sure aren't complaining. If this country had the foresight to set up its own production facility's then it would save a hell of a lot of money and create employment at the same time.

About the website, do you think governments should give grants/tax breaks to those that want to generate their own power? Do you think there would be a will for people to change if these costs are still really high and cheap gas/oil is still available to many?

No, If people generate their own power then that is the benefit, if they generate surplus power they should be able to sell that back to the grid.
The website that I linked to illustrates that a huge amount of money is not required to set up an efficient domestic system with salvaged and recycled materials. The less government red tape the better.

Matt Holck

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3273589

jank

Danuogma wrote: »

*drumroll* Its the way you tell em.:rolleyes:



The output should justify the outlay within a reasonable period of time (say 15-20 years) if it doesn't then what is the point?. The notion that renewables should require mega bucks to set up in the first place is a convenient one, the company's involved sure aren't complaining. If this country had the foresight to set up its own production facility's then it would save a hell of a lot of money and create employment at the same time.



No, If people generate their own power then that is the benefit, if they generate surplus power they should be able to sell that back to the grid.
The website that I linked to illustrates that a huge amount of money is not required to set up an efficient domestic system with salvaged and recycled materials. The less government red tape the better.

I agree largely what you are saying so whats your rant?

Dudess

jank wrote: »

Green is the new economy. We either embrace it or get left behind.

Yeah, the jobs are in renewable/sustainable energy. I know engineers in this field who are being flooded with job offers.

Danuogma wrote: »

Sorry,... We can speak freely as long as it is approved "free speech". Sorry. I forgot.

Yeah exactly. This isn't a state website, this is a private enterprise, therefore not obliged to be a democracy.

BroomBurner

jmayo wrote: »

I used to believe the green party in this country are a bunch of clueless do gooders, but now I believe they are a bunch of clueless do gooders who sell out most of their principles although they yet hang on to their superior attitude that they know best.

They harldy "sold out". All across Europe, the Green parties that got to power were quickly out of power shortly after. They don't last, they know they don't last. The Green Party was set up by, and voted for, people who believe in having ideals. This isn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

They are trying to get as much through as possible before they are finished. Also, they are trying to secure their government pension (which they'll get for being in power for 2.5 years). These points mean that they have to compromise, just like everyone else in the world has to do on a day-to-day basis.

As for saying that the Green Agenda will cripple the Irish economy, that is just plain ridiculous.
If we can make our own energy and have enough to export, surely that is a good thing?
If we can reduce our dependence on over-seas energy that is open to international disputes, hence keep our economy in operation, surely that is a good thing?
If we have to pay more for our CHOICE to buy a car that is neither necessary (Chelsea Tractors, as opposed to farm jeeps), nor good for the environment we hope to leave our children, surely that is a good thing?

They are just a couple I can think of straight off.

djpbarry

Danuogma wrote: »

So where would the carbon tax money go?. Answer that truthfully.

Into the state coffers? Where’s the big mystery?

For the record, I have never stated that I would blindly support a carbon tax, or any other tax for that matter.

Danuogma wrote: »

Maybe in Dublin things have improved (slightly), public transport in the rest of the country is either woefully substandard or non-existent. Try getting a train from Limerick to Dublin or vice versa, an extortionate fare and nearly always late, there is hardly any incentive to use it.

I get trains from Dublin to Maynooth, Naas, Cork, Limerick, Carlow and Wexford on a fairly regular basis. Sometimes the trains are a bit late, sure, but I’ve only experienced a cancellation once (to date – fingers crossed it’ll be the last). The only fare which I would describe as expensive is Dublin-Naas. Just checking some other return fares online now:

Dublin-Cork: €40
Dublin-Carlow: €18
Dublin-Limerick: €44

I really don’t think those fares can be described as “extortionate”. I spend a good deal of time in the UK and if it’s extortionate rail fares you’re looking for, then look no further than Old Blighty.

Danuogma wrote: »

The road network needed to be improved, it was at almost third world levels fifteen years ago (a lot of roads still are), public transport could have been improved also…

With what? Monopoly money? I’d be the first to admit that successive Fianna Fáil governments have squandered taxpayers’ funds, but realistically, how much more could have been achieved?

Danuogma wrote: »

People have to live somewhere I suppose, should they have pitched tents in the Phoenix Park instead?

Indeed people do need to live somewhere, but when did the need for a place to live automatically translate into “I need to buy a shoebox for €500,000”? I find it hard to believe that I (along with other people I know) am the only person in this country who thought renting and saving was a viable alternative to getting burdened with a mortgage I couldn’t afford.

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

A huge amount if it is planned and built by our incompetent shower, thus I would propose lets say Hong kong project management and French builders.

The Luas was built by Ansaldo (Italy) and MVM (Australia). The Port Tunnel was built by a Japanese-British-Irish consortium. Both projects were completed behind schedule while the cost of the Luas vastly exceeded initial projections. In short, employing non-Irish (or Irish, for that matter) contractors guarantees nothing.

But that’s all beside the point. I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that nuclear is a cost-effective option for Ireland to pursue, relative to the alternatives.

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah a bit like the CO2 emmissions you will get putting in place all those thousands of wind farms and all thsoe wave generators.

Are the CO2 emissions associated with nuclear generation lower? I don’t think so.

jmayo

BroomBurner wrote: »

They harldy "sold out". All across Europe, the Green parties that got to power were quickly out of power shortly after. They don't last, they know they don't last. The Green Party was set up by, and voted for, people who believe in having ideals. This isn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

They are trying to get as much through as possible before they are finished. Also, they are trying to secure their government pension (which they'll get for being in power for 2.5 years). These points mean that they have to compromise, just like everyone else in the world has to do on a day-to-day basis.

As for saying that the Green Agenda will cripple the Irish economy, that is just plain ridiculous.
If we can make our own energy and have enough to export, surely that is a good thing?
If we can reduce our dependence on over-seas energy that is open to international disputes, hence keep our economy in operation, surely that is a good thing?
If we have to pay more for our CHOICE to buy a car that is neither necessary (Chelsea Tractors, as opposed to farm jeeps), nor good for the environment we hope to leave our children, surely that is a good thing?

They are just a couple I can think of straight off.

Yes they sold out, lets see some of the things they said they would do and actually garnished votes for.
1. Do something about Tara, of course they can blame Roche for that one...
2. Shannon stopover
3. Ringsend Incinerator
4. Education
5. Going to bed with Bertie, oh forgot Sargant took the drastic step of resigning, but yet took ministerial position :rolleyes:

I do not agree with some of their stances on these issues, but at least they used to have principles and stick to them.
I could see them compromising on some principles, but backing bertie's cosy little ff/developer cartel was one big sell out.
Then they compound it by continuing to back biffo and his policies or lack of.
What have they got in return, a tax incentive to use bicycles and a carbon tax.

If you think we can make enough energy to be sustainable, nevermind export, from wave technology and wind, then you better be prepared to cover the country and our shorelines in both wind farms and wave farms.

djpbarry wrote: »

The Luas was built by Ansaldo (Italy) and MVM (Australia). The Port Tunnel was built by a Japanese-British-Irish consortium. Both projects were completed behind schedule while the cost of the Luas vastly exceeded initial projections. In short, employing non-Irish (or Irish, for that matter) contractors guarantees nothing.

But that’s all beside the point. I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that nuclear is a cost-effective option for Ireland to pursue, relative to the alternatives.
Are the CO2 emissions associated with nuclear generation lower? I don’t think so.

I am not just talking about the contractors, I mentioned foreign project managers as well.
I know the planning process would also need to be overhauled when projects of national importance are being developed.
The only concern would be that the system could not be hijacked by our poltical representatives and council employees in order to feather their nests with handouts from developers.

Our history of delivering major infrastructure projects over the last 20 years has been pathetic.

At least with nuclear we might not be at the mercy of some lunatic in the middle east, be it a home grown one or an invading texan, or at the mercy of the latest czar who thinks he is Stalin's successor.

Are we going to be burning the uranium ?

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

Yes they sold out, lets see some of the things they said they would do and actually garnished votes for.
1. Do something about Tara, of course they can blame Roche for that one...
2. Shannon stopover
3. Ringsend Incinerator
4. Education
5. Going to bed with Bertie, oh forgot Sargant took the drastic step of resigning, but yet took ministerial position

That’s a pretty vague list. I could go into each of these in detail, but I don’t really have the time. Besides, it would send the thread off in a variety of different directions, so let’s stick with energy policy, shall we?

jmayo wrote: »

Our history of delivering major infrastructure projects over the last 20 years has been pathetic.

It ain’t been good, no. But assuming that non-Irish contractors and project managers will solve all problems is a touch naïve, to say the least. There have been plenty of infrastructural projects the world over with no Irish involvement that have been plagued by problems.

jmayo wrote: »

Are we going to be burning the uranium ?

I don’t believe so, no. But perhaps you could step off the nuclear bandwagon for just a moment and consider the large amounts of energy required to, for example, mine and refine uranium:

Oxford Research Group wrote:

The extraction of uranium from its ores as found in the ground consumes lots of energy, chemicals, materials and equipment. The energy requirements of uranium recovery depend on the ore grade: the lower the grade, the more rock has to be processed, the more energy is consumed, hence the more CO2 is emitted.

If we assume a gas-fired power station emits 100% CO2, then nuclear power using today’s average ore grade of 0.15% would emit approximately 30% CO2. As the ore grade declines, the CO2 emissions increase. At an ore grade of between 0.01 and 0.02% U3O8, CO2 emissions from nuclear power equal that of a gas-fired power plant.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf

Húrin

Danuogma wrote: »

The carbon tax would be more accurately described as a tax on life, after all we all emit CO2, the day we stop is the day we die.After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century, that doesn't seem to matter, the politicised "global warming" agenda gets pushed ahead regardless. Industry is leaving this country faster than Brian Clown can say "going forward", that also doesn't seem to matter, Green FF are pushing the tax on life plan regardless.

This carbon tax con is a fallacy based on an shoddy theory, the "scientific consensus" that some people bleat on about doesn't exist.

Well, what if the anthropogenic global warming theory turns out to be true, as these lads think? Wouldn't we be rightly screwed if we didn't try to mitigate it?

Where is the evidence that the non-existent carbon tax is causing industry to leave the country?

Húrin

I don't think that a carbon tax that is not given right back to the people is a good idea at the moment. It would damage the economy as not enough people would be able to pay it. Remember, it is only one of many ways of mitigating CO2 emissions that need to be implemented. If a tax is the first thing, then the party that implements it might not get a chance to legislate the rest if they're thrown out of office.

Danuogma wrote: »

the alarmists wrong and their apocalyptic warming predictions failed to materialise? .

More "the debate is over", we have "scientific consensus" blather. Slogans slogans slogans, we will win the war with slogans :rolleyes:.

They will leave even faster if they have to pay a carbon tax, no doubt about it.

WAR
APOCALYPSE
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

But it's the guys who advocate action about climate change who are alarmists. :pac:

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

It ain’t been good, no. But assuming that non-Irish contractors and project managers will solve all problems is a touch naïve, to say the least. There have been plenty of infrastructural projects the world over with no Irish involvement that have been plagued by problems.

But that is the same cop out FF use, when they state sure the other crowd would be just as bad.
Why do we have to compare oursleves against the worst and not the best.
Irish people have been involved in successful projects all over the world but yet when we try to do any here the y are a disaster.
A lot of it has to do with planning, or lack of and also no proper ongoing management.
Would you build a house in the manner some of our projects have been delivered ?

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t believe so, no. But perhaps you could step off the nuclear bandwagon for just a moment and consider the large amounts of energy required to, for example, mine and refine uranium:

My reason for stating nuclear as an option is I don't believe alternative methods, wind in particular, will meet our energy requirements.
So do we continue to rely on fossil fuels or actually plan for a contingency ?

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

But that is the same cop out FF use, when they state sure the other crowd would be just as bad.

I am not excusing the delays and budget overruns, I am simply stating that employing non-Irish contractors, etc. is no guarantee of a problem-free project.

jmayo wrote: »

My reason for stating nuclear as an option is I don't believe alternative methods, wind in particular, will meet our energy requirements.
So do we continue to rely on fossil fuels or actually plan for a contingency ?

I have never said that nuclear should not be considered as an option, but there seems to be a growing number of people who regard the nuclear option as the silver bullet. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that for every staunch anti-Nuke blathering on about Chernobyl, there is an equal and opposite pro-Nuke glossing over any cons associated with a nuclear energy policy.