We cant afford the Green agenda !

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.