Greens: "10,000 green jobs created since March"?

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

Again the salient point is that the ESB is providing the jobs and the Greens are playing politics with it. If you find that acceptable then who am I to argue?

Hang on. First you try to argue that the jobs were planned before the Greens got into power. And now that I've proven that to be false, you're now trying to argue the line that the ESB are under no influence from the government. Are you aware that the ESB was the first state body to be set up after independence and today is a semi-state compay. And you're going to argue that ESB, as a semi-state body, receives no direction from the government? Or are you going to go onto a new line?

is_that_so wrote: »

Higher emissions bad for the environment. High emissions = Fines under Kyoto, ie more costs. Higher imported energy costs = need for other solutions. Not that hard really.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your original post.

is_that_so wrote: »

The point here is that the Greens have continually attempted to give the impression they've come up with all of these policies, under the category of all the things they've achieved. One thing I will give them credit them for is fantastic spin.

You have yet to provide any proof that they haven't been the impetus behind these policies. Indeed, you've yet to provide any evidence to back up your argument. You just keep saying that the Greens didn't come up with them - you'll have to do better than that.

is_that_so wrote: »

Indeed so why have most of your posts here focussed almost exclusively on the single issue most closely associated with them?

Sorry but this is just ridiculous. The Greens have policies in all the areas of the other major political parties. They also happen to be the only party that has a decent environmental policy, that is one of the core foundations to their ethos. Just because we're discussing that in particular doesn't mean that their policies in the other areas don't exist.

is_that_so wrote: »

Again you're misreading my posts.
My point is that none of the Green ministers would function effectively outside their current ministries. This has nothing to do with policies, which I didn't mention at all.

Sorry, I'm finding them difficult to understand at times - no offense, just miscommunication.

is_that_so wrote: »

This leads me to the niche parties. SF have policies to beat the band, the Socialist Party have their own lists but, politically, they like the Greens, are still niche parties in that certain types of voters will support them.

You still haven't proven that they're a niche party. You just keep repeating it but that doesn't make it true.

is_that_so wrote: »

As for the soft option, this just means that certain types of voters, especially in Dublin suburbs, where the Greens have most of their TDS, who have a slight fondness for the environmental side of the party. It also allows them to make a protest vote and not vote for FF/FG without having to pick parties further to the left. It is the soft left feel to the Greens that I am referring to. These are the type of voters who will give the Greens a lower preference which are essential to them getting elected.

Fair enough, I'm sure there are some people who feel like that and some that don't.

is_that_so wrote: »

The Green core vote will never be big enough and their perceived behaviour to date is likely to reduce those transfers and therefore produce a reduced number of seats.

Im glad you added the word 'perceived' into your sentence because I really feel that politics is too often separated from the reality on the ground.

As for the future of the Greens, can I have a loan of your crystal ball for the lotto tomorrow night?

is_that_so

There is nothing in any of this about proof. It is about belief. You quite obviously feel that the Greens are justified in their claim and I don't.

While your posts suggest that you want to defend the Greens at all costs you either do not know or care who votes for them, why they vote for them, why those continued transfers are essential and most important of all how those voters perceive what the Greens stand for.

As regards my own posts you appear to consistently misread or misunderstand them, even when I full clarify them, yet this doesn't stop you offering conclusions on things I didn't say. When I challenge you you claim they are not comprehensible. I can only assume that you don't understand what I am saying or that you choose not to. Your demand for proof above is particularly absurd and shows a serious lack of understanding of Irish politics and where the Greens fit into it.

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

There is nothing in any of this about proof. It is about belief. You quite obviously feel that the Greens are justified in their claim and I don't.

Sorry but that is nonsense. To argue that the claims that any party makes are all relative, about "belief" and do not depend on any proof is just silly. I've clearly refuted your arguments in relation to ESB and now that it's clear you were wrong, you've decided that proof isn't needed...!!

is_that_so wrote: »

While your posts suggest that you want to defend the Greens at all costs you either do not know or care who votes for them, why they vote for them, why those continued transfers are essential and most important of all how those voters perceive what the Greens stand for.

This discussion isn't about who votes for the Greens or why. It's about the justification for the claims that the Greens make. You've started off down the path of analysing who votes for the Greens and I don't really know why. You're right that I don't have a deep understanding of who votes for the Greens but that isn't exactly central to this discussion. What I do have is a very clear understanding of the issues facing Ireland today and what the different parties have promised and delivered.

Your attempt to paint me as some sort of political ignoramus on an irrelevant side tangent is a bit pathetic.

is_that_so wrote: »

As regards my own posts you appear to consistently misread or misunderstand them, even when I full clarify them, yet this doesn't stop you offering conclusions on things I didn't say. When I challenge you you claim they are not comprehensible. I can only assume that you don't understand what I am saying or that you choose not to. Your demand for proof above is particularly absurd and shows a serious lack of understanding of Irish politics and where the Greens fit into it.

Unfair. Parts of your posts do not make sense and I have apologised when you have (still unclearly) said that I misunderstood them.

Yes, god, demanding proof to back up your claims is just so unreasonable. :rolleyes:

This ad hominem crap is always the last resort of a debater who knows she's beaten.

wilson10

I just want a breakdown of where these jobs are, simple as that.

Darsad

Taconnol

You are proof were it needed that the Greens are the closest thing to a political cult and you my friend give all the indications that you are a very easily influenced / brain washed individual.

How you can claim a carbon levy as a positive in the current economic mess we are in when we are already taxed to high heaven on carbon based products. The carbon levy will not operate seperatly and the funds generated from it will be put into central coffers so its just an extra tax that your party will try to hide behind.
This is the same party ill add who,s two cabinet ministers voted to remove the medical card for the over 70,s without knowing or asking what the income threshold was , and then were stupid enough to use this fact as a defence .

Darsad

wilson10 wrote: »

I just want a breakdown of where these jobs are, simple as that.

There are no such jobs as you pointed out earlier it is electioneering clap trap from a party full of inept fools !The problem is if they repeat it enough some people may actually believe them.

Macha

First, you need to decide on the definition of a green job. The generally accepted view is that there are direct jobs (eg O&M personnel for wind turbines) and then indirect jobs (eg employees of companies that produce components). Both are considered green jobs.

I can give you some as a start:

16/04 - 3,700 green jobs announcement by ESB
13/05 - €13m green waste fund announced, no specifics of job creation offered.
15/05 - 250 jobs announced by C&F, Athenry for manufacturing of wind turbines
18/05 - 100 jobs announced by Moffett, for wind energy
19/05 - 180 jobs announced by Biospark, Claremorris for bio-processing
03/06 - 150 jobs announced by Galetech Energy for wind farms

SAP announced 100 new jobs and Siemens announced 60 jobs. Both companies are heavily involved in smart grid technology.

That's 4540 there and that's just the ones I can remember plus, these are just the direct jobs.

You can look at projected studies on green jobs released by the EWEA, Copenhagen Climate Council and DG for Energy to see that huge numbers of jobs are expected in future.

But to be honest, you would have to ask the Green Party for a breakdown. I think I might ask them myself. If/when I get a reply, I'll post it up here.


Darsad - see my above comment on ad hominem attacks. It would be more interesting if you stop your wailing and spitting and actually engage in some decent debate, instead of just throwing out jargon and buzz words. I don't believe I even mentioned a carbon levy anywhere in this thread.

I am not a member of the Green party.

edanto

Darsad, are you purppsefully ignoring the information in this thread?

e.g. The ESB jobs.

Darsad

taconnol wrote: »

I can give you some as a start:

16/04 - 3,700 green jobs announcement by ESB
13/05 - €13m green waste fund announced, no specifics of job creation offered.
15/05 - 250 jobs announced by C&F, Athenry for manufacturing of wind turbines
18/05 - 100 jobs announced by Moffett, for wind energy
19/05 - 180 jobs announced by Biospark, Claremorris for bio-processing
03/06 - 150 jobs announced by Galetech Energy for wind farms

.

Again I cant engage in decent debate because these jobs simply have nothing to do with the green party so stop claiming them as such !But what the greens have done is cost this country multiples of the above in job losses in the motor industry alone .

Macha

Darsad wrote: »

Again I cant engage in decent debate because these jobs simply have nothing to do with the green party so stop claiming them as such !But what the greens have done is cost this country multiples of the above in job losses in the motor industry alone .

If you accept that the Greens have the power to "cost this country" thousands of jobs, then you must also accept that they have the power to creat jobs. It looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

Also, you are aware of the whole property bubble issue and the ramifications of it's burst??! And you are aware that the property bubble has been building since the early 200s, long before Greens were in power and that it was largely a directly result of FF/PD policies in relation to developer tax breaks, planning laws and regulation of the banks??

is_that_so

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but that is nonsense. To argue that the claims that any party makes are all relative, about "belief" and do not depend on any proof is just silly. I've clearly refuted your arguments in relation to ESB and now that it's clear you were wrong, you've decided that proof isn't needed...!!

I think you are missing the point completely here. Consider these headlines.

1. ESB creates 3,700 jobs
2. Government creates 3,700 jobs
3. Government creates 3,700 green jobs

For me the only fact or truth here is number 1. One can quite easily "prove" that it is true by highlighting the increase in the number of employees that arise out of that "job creation".

You appear to accept 3 as true and quite probably 2. 2 & 3 are political claims which try to benefit those mentioned. One cannot prove or disprove 2 &3 without getting into the question of how much one believes in the truth of those statements, i.e "I don't believe them to be true because it is my belief they are politically motivated". If you can't see that then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your list of jobs created owes nothing to the Greens any more than jobs previous governments have claimed. It is part of a party's self-promotion and a typical political device used by politicians to get re-elected. It is in this context that I think it is "absolute nonsense".

taconnol wrote: »

This discussion isn't about who votes for the Greens or why. It's about the justification for the claims that the Greens make. You've started off down the path of analysing who votes for the Greens and I don't really know why. You're right that I don't have a deep understanding of who votes for the Greens but that isn't exactly central to this discussion. What I do have is a very clear understanding of the issues facing Ireland today and what the different parties have promised and delivered.

Your attempt to paint me as some sort of political ignoramus on an irrelevant side tangent is a bit pathetic.

It's called context and goes to the heart of the credibility of the Greens and provides some insight into where they are coming from and what their "policies" are about.

It also provides some foundation to the current polarising effect of the Greens and therefore the reason the OP started this thread. And in that respect I would suggest your lack of understanding is preventing you from seeing this.

Unfair. Parts of your posts do not make sense and I have apologised when you have (still unclearly) said that I misunderstood them.

Yet you still managed to comment on points you clearly didn't understand and did not ask for clarification. I might suggest that this is also unfair.

This ad hominem crap is always the last resort of a debater who knows she's beaten.

You may see it as such but seeing as you have admitted that a lot of it is true it's a bit of a stretch. Eventually one forms conclusions from what someone seems to be saying.

I have no issue with supporters of a party and or supporters defending that party. I do have issues with those who appear to blindly follow a party and demand that we see a situation other than what our own judgement tells us.

I also welcome the idea that jobs are being created in green industries but I take issue with any party claiming to be responsible for it. Politics and political expediency ultimately informs these claims.

briktop

it was 10000 temporary jobs ,
each person was given a scissors to trim blades of grass for John Gormless to walk into Newgrange to hog the solstice , safely without getting morning dew on his sandals.

bye bye greens

you useless b@stards

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

You appear to accept 3 as true and quite probably 2. 2 & 3 are political claims which try to benefit those mentioned. One cannot prove or disprove 2 &3 without getting into the question of how much one believes in the truth of those statements, i.e "I don't believe them to be true because it is my belief they are politically motivated". If you can't see that then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your list of jobs created owes nothing to the Greens any more than jobs previous governments have claimed. It is part of a party's self-promotion and a typical political device used by politicians to get re-elected. It is in this context that I think it is "absolute nonsense".

And you accuse me of not understanding politics. Do you understand the underlying motivations behind a company's decision to locate and create jobs in a certain area? And do you understand the positive or negative role that a government can have through its policies?

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Denmark, Germany and Spain together account for approx. 70% of all wind jobs in Europe? No. It's because those governments actively pursued politices that both attracted FDI and encouraged indigenous companies to branch out into 'green' industries. (Similarly, do you think it was just a coincidence that all the dotcom and pharmaceutical companies decided to set up camp in Ireland? Really?)

There are a huge range of areas where the government can influence green job creation:

Enterprise Policy
- attract FDI from large existing multinationals (eg Siemens)
- identify niche areas, such as nanotechnology and battery technology where we already have expertise and can specialise further
- target emerging technologies in companies with limited international presence
- help build business networks that allow indigenous SMEs to internationalise
- develop market intelligence
- encourage links between university/research centres and business
- encourage innovation.

Then onto Policy/Regulation
- adopt green public procurement guidelines (recently annouced by Minister Ryan)
- ensure correct training and right skills available (Fas just announced green upskilling courses for construction workers)
- ensure access to sufficient credit
- ensure environmental legislation is fully implemented (a key driver)
- tax breaks and subsidies

I could go on. That's just off the top of my head.

is_that_so wrote: »

It's called context and goes to the heart of the credibility of the Greens and provides some insight into where they are coming from and what their "policies" are about.

It also provides some foundation to the current polarising effect of the Greens and therefore the reason the OP started this thread. And in that respect I would suggest your lack of understanding is preventing you from seeing this.

More ad hominem. It really is irrelevant. You say 'context' I say 'tangent'. You try and argue it's relevant because you want to be able to strut around on here and bleat about my "lack of understanding". I am well able to understand the reasoning behing the Greens policies, thanks.

is_that_so wrote: »

Yet you still managed to comment on points you clearly didn't understand and did not ask for clarification. I might suggest that this is also unfair.

At this stage, please stop whining. I've apologised and asked for clarification. Your feigned indignance is getting old.

is_that_so wrote: »

You may see it as such but seeing as you have admitted that a lot of it is true it's a bit of a stretch. Eventually one forms conclusions from what someone seems to be saying.

A lot of what is true? This is what I'm talking about sections that are difficult to understand.

is_that_so wrote: »

I have no issue with supporters of a party and or supporters defending that party. I do have issues with those who appear to blindly follow a party and demand that we see a situation other than what our own judgement tells us.

What's blind about my following of the Greens? Take a look back at this thread at the amount of data and proof I've put up. For all your posting, I've seen little of substance from you.

is_that_so wrote: »

I also welcome the idea that jobs are being created in green industries but I take issue with any party claiming to be responsible for it. Politics and political expediency ultimately informs these claims.

I think this is a result of your refusal to accept the role of government in job creation. See above section.