Green Party candidate makes howler on Pat Kenny this morning

ShooterSF

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Good point fred, it's called tactical voting. Vote for the candidate(s) you prefer then vote all the way down the list for candidates other than the ones you don't want to get in i.e. if you don't want FF or Greens to get in then vote for your preferred candidate(s) and then for everyone else bar them. This makes sure they don't get allocated any transfers, or more importantly that transfers go to their rivals.

That's exactly what I do.

loobylou

spank_inferno wrote: »

Mea Culpa folks..... I voted in the last general election for my local green candidate but I have seen the error in my ways.

But in my defence I voted green in the hope of them forming a coalition with FG & Labour to deliver a new government with a strong emphasis on envirionemtal protection and energy reform.

So picture me on my knees , arched backwards roaring at the sky "how could I have been so blind"

I wanted a government that would make the big decisions itself on the environment, but all we got was nanny state interference , telling me what car I should drive, what Light bulb I should use....

I wont make the same mistake again!

Thanks for posting that, it was exactly my position too. In fact my vote for the greens was also because they were the only party that expressly ruled out a coalition with FF.
Never will I vote for them again

bijapos

Before anyone jumps on me for this let me say that I have NEVER voted for the Greens, BUT, with the amount of people who I have spoken to, who write here and on other forums who state something along the lines of "I-voted-for-the-Greens-last-time-but-wont-be-doing-it-this-time" it would seem that the Greens should have a hell of a lot more seats in the Dail than the 6 they do now. :P

Btw, might vote for them in the locals this time

Joey the lips

bijapos wrote: »

Before anyone jumps on me for this let me say that I have NEVER voted for the Greens, BUT, with the amount of people who I have spoken to, who write here and on other forums who state something along the lines of "I-voted-for-the-Greens-last-time-but-wont-be-doing-it-this-time" it would seem that the Greens should have a hell of a lot more seats in the Dail than the 6 they do now. :P

Btw, might vote for them in the locals this time

I love when someone cops the madness of boards. If boards was life we would have prostitution, cannibas and no churches in life. Thank god its full of mad people.

btt: I would vote greens only that they are daft! The only good green is patricia mckenna.

squonk

Well I voted Green some way down in my prefs last time as I voted for the parties that I wanted to see replace the existing govt in the hopes that that would happen, and in the belief that the Greens would not go into coalition with FF. I was wrong and was very disappointed with what happened after that. I'd have maybe forgiven them had they turned out to be a relevant goventment party, but instead I've got CFL bulbs shoved down my neck, ridiculous talk of carbon levies which are going to cost me money for something I don't want. Dublin Bus is shedding services, I could go on. The one time Gormless had a chance to stand up and be counted over the incinerator in South Dublin, he backed well away very quickly on the orders of his bosses, and Trevor Sergeant, the only passable politician out of the whole lot of them has been assigned to the political equivalent of the hebridies. As a party they deserve to be wiped out. They are totally useless and I'm very much hoping that the majority of the electorate are of the same opinion as myself this time round.

MikeC101

Joey the lips wrote: »

If boards was life we would have prostitution, cannibas and no churches in life.

Yeah, because it's not like prostitution or "cannibas" exist in life. Only on boards.

No churches? In fairness, what are you on about?

But anyway, back to the topic.

If I'd voted Green, I'd be feeling pretty betrayed by the Green leadership right now, and it would take a lot for me to ever trust them again.

Darsad

squonk wrote: »

As a party they deserve to be wiped out. They are totally useless and I'm very much hoping that the majority of the electorate are of the same opinion as myself this time round.

Hear Hear !! although certain people on this forum wont have anything negative said of the Greens .

spank_inferno

Some of us may come across as harsh on the greens and for that I do apologise.

I wont be voting for them again, but its not like I've ever voted FF in my life anyway.
If I feel you have done a bad job I will vote against you.
Personally I'm driven by pragmatism rather than idealism.
And considering all our major parties are slap bang in the centre, it makes no odds anyway.

DublinWriter

Say what you like about Pat Kenny, but he's really a very adept political interviewer. I'd rate him far higher than Paxman and it's nice to see that he's returning to his 'core-business'.

He nailed one of the bankers recently when the banker said that politicians shouldn't run banks and PK said something along of the lines of "...and think that you've been doing a good job yourselves?".

Grudaire

Darsad wrote: »

Hear Hear !! although certain people on this forum wont have anything negative said of the Greens .

Is that aimed at me!? Listen the fact of the matter is that half of the arguments aimed at the greens here are half baked and mad.

If people stuck with the sane arguments (Such as the Greens baking up FF's mad policies, and particularly the bus cuts - then they'd have a point).

Joey the lips wrote: »

I love when someone cops the madness of boards. If boards was life we would have prostitution, cannibas and no churches in life. Thank god its full of mad people.

btt: I would vote greens only that they are daft! The only good green is patricia mckenna.

So you'll definitly not be voting Greens then!?!?

And yea - although use of 'Your Ma' is often to be seen in real life (AH), and ranting that would even put politics here to shame is prevalent in Irish society! (Try any community AGM - we can all learn how a good rant is done!)

DublinWriter

Joey the lips wrote: »

If boards was life we would have prostitution, cannibas and no churches in life.

...and the problem is?

(BTW you left out lolcatz and pron)

10000maniacs

While Natural Gas does emit carbon dioxide, it is the lowest emitter of all of the combustion fuels. So therefore she is to an extent correct. Wood and coal emit twice as much carbon dioxide per energy quota. It is a greener fuel.

irishgrover

10000maniacs wrote: »

While Natural Gas does emit carbon dioxide, it is the lowest emitter of all of the combustion fuels. So therefore she is to an extent correct. Wood and coal emit twice as much carbon dioxide per energy quota. It is a greener fuel.

With respect, that's kind of splitting hairs and completely missing the point. The main issue is that she appeared (rightly or wrongly) to be completely unaware of the fact that gas is a carbon fuel, and hence came across as a complete muppet, not unlike Sarah Palin in her infamous TV interview...

Darsad

Cliste wrote: »

Is that aimed at me!? Listen the fact of the matter is that half of the arguments aimed at the greens here are half baked and mad.

Half baked and Mad just like the cult sorry party you are an apologist for / member of !

10000maniacs

irishgrover wrote: »

With respect, that's kind of splitting hairs and completely missing the point...

Well, I'm not actually. She said its a green fuel. Well it is. Its a lot greener than coal, oil or turf. Not as green as hydro or wind, but its still a green natural asset for this country.
I think she was set up by the panelists and presenter. I'm not a Green or FF supporter, but I holler when I see something that stinks of a farcically biased setup situation.

Grudaire

Darsad wrote: »

Half baked and Mad just like the cult sorry party you are an apologist for / member of !

*facepalm*

Grudaire

In fact at this stage triple facepalm would also apply

10000maniacs wrote: »

Well, I'm not actually. She said its a green fuel. Well it is. Its a lot greener than coal, oil or turf. Not as green as hydro or wind, but its still a green natural asset for this country.
I think she was set up by the panelists and presenter. I'm not a Green or FF supporter, but I holler when I see something that stinks of a farcically biased setup situation.

"Unlike other fossil fuels, natural gas is clean burning and emits lower levels of potentially harmful by-products into the air, making it one of the lowest polluting fossil fuels available." - from the Bord Gáis Website.

And Bord Gáis have 16% renewable as well: Graph!

But it's not 'Green' per se.

P. Breathnach

10000maniacs wrote: »

Well, I'm not actually. She said its a green fuel. Well it is. Its a lot greener than coal, oil or turf. Not as green as hydro or wind, but its still a green natural asset for this country.

Don't push the defence too far. Gas can be described as a clean fuel, and for that reason I favour it over other fossil fuels. But I don't favour it over wood (I have just had a wood-burning stove installed, and environmental concerns influenced that decision) because the carbon in wood is more or less current carbon as distinct from carbon that has been fixed so that it would not re-enter the atmosphere without our intervention.

I think she was set up by the panelists and presenter. I'm not a Green or FF supporter, but I holler when I see something that stinks of a farcically biased setup situation.

I heard the broadcast. I didn't think it was a set-up. She made a mistake. I think she recognised almost as soon as she said it that she had made a mistake (there was a short, but telling, pause). She didn't seem to have the presence of mind to recover the position. That's all. No big deal.

10000maniacs

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But I don't favour it over wood ....because the carbon in wood is more or less current carbon as distinct from carbon that has been fixed so that it would not re-enter the atmosphere without our intervention.

Sorry to be pedantic here but this needs to be said. Wood emits 1.7 times more carbon into the atmosphere per kWh / kgfuel.
So while that wood stove you use is saving you money probably, it is doing nearly equal damage to two gas stoves emitting double the heat energy .

P. Breathnach

10000maniacs wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic here but this needs to be said. Wood emits 1.7 times more carbon into the atmosphere per kWh / kgfuel.
So while that wood stove you use is saving you money probably, it is doing nearly equal damage to two gas stoves emitting double the heat energy .

I have no problem with pedantry.

The carbon in most timber is in a cycle; it re-enters the system as the timber decays. That's why I say that it is more or less current. By burning it, I bring forward its re-entry into the system. The carbon in fossil fuels has been effectively removed from the cycle, and by burning the fuel we are re-introducing it.

10000maniacs

What?
Wood decay does not introduce carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
It introduces carbon dioxide. And over periods of hundreds of years.
Burning wood introduces carbon monoxide immediately into the atmosphere.
Carbon monoxide is a highly toxic gas, whereas carbon dioxide is harmless.
Group certificate biology & physics.:rolleyes:

irishgrover

10000maniacs wrote: »

Well, I'm not actually. She said its a green fuel. Well it is. Its a lot greener than coal, oil or turf. Not as green as hydro or wind, but its still a green natural asset for this country.
I think she was set up by the panelists and presenter. I'm not a Green or FF supporter, but I holler when I see something that stinks of a farcically biased setup situation.

I think there is little to debate about whether or not gas is 'better' than other fossil fuels.
However I would completely disagree with your view that she was set up. The point of the OP and the point that I would make is that she genuinely sounded like she had no fu(king clue whatsoever what she was talking about. She mentioned the wind farm being set up in the west of Ireland (completely factually incorrect), and then starting pre-fixing verbal muck with the word green, green energy, green jobs, green future blah blah blah......and then, again in my opinion, she very clearly seemed to demonstrate that she did not realize that natural gas was a fossil fuel.
Maybe that was not the case, maybe she is very intelligent, maybe she just had a bad day... but the point is, she dug her own hole, was not stitched and came out looking like a great big green gob****e

gizmo555

10000maniacs wrote: »

What?
Wood decay does not introduce carbon monoxide into the atmosphere.
It introduces carbon dioxide. And over periods of hundreds of years.
Burning wood introduces carbon monoxide immediately into the atmosphere.
Carbon monoxide is a highly toxic gas, whereas carbon dioxide is harmless.
Group certificate biology & physics.:rolleyes:

Burning gas, like burning wood produces some carbon monoxide but mostly carbon dioxide, provided there is an adequate supply of combustion air. In the atmosphere, carbon monoxide oxidises into carbon dioxide.

Group cert chemistry . . .

irishgrover wrote: »

However I would completely disagree with your view that she was set up. The point of the OP and the point that I would make is that she genuinely sounded like she had no fu(king clue whatsoever what she was talking about. She mentioned the wind farm being set up in the west of Ireland (completely factually incorrect), and then starting pre-fixing verbal muck with the word green, green energy, green jobs, green future blah blah blah......and then, again in my opinion, she very clearly seemed to demonstrate that she did not realize that natural gas was a fossil fuel.

+1

10000maniacs

gizmo555 wrote: »

Burning gas, like burning wood produces some carbon monoxide but mostly carbon dioxide, provided there is an adequate supply of combustion air. In the atmosphere, carbon monoxide oxidises into carbon dioxide.

Group cert chemistry . . .

I never said that carbon dioxide wasn't produced in combustion.
Read the full thread before replying, otherwise people will think you are stupid.:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

gizmo555 wrote: »

Burning gas, like burning wood produces some carbon monoxide but mostly carbon dioxide, provided there is an adequate supply of combustion air. In the atmosphere, carbon monoxide oxidises into carbon dioxide.

Group cert chemistry . . .

That saved me the trouble of checking, thanks. I don't have a group cert.

gizmo555

10000maniacs wrote: »

Read the full thread before replying, otherwise people will think you are stupid.:rolleyes:

Thanks for the advice. Don't use the term "physics" when you mean "chemistry", otherwise people will know you are ignorant.

10000maniacs

gizmo555 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice. Don't use the term "physics" when you mean "chemistry", otherwise people will know you are ignorant.

I take it you have no rebuttal then?

gizmo555

10000maniacs wrote: »

I take it you have no rebuttal then?

To what?

Biffo The Bare

I for one have attended Physics, Chemistry and Biology for my Inter Cert, and I have to go with 10000 maniacs on this point.
Burning wood v Decaying wood. Come on Gizmo, Group Cert is too advanced for this nonsence.