Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Green Party been Wiped out locally
Options
Comments
-
we are being promised a carbin tax to "save the world". Wjhy not ask the people if they want a carbon tax by putting it to vote.
Because that's not the Green way.. we're getting it because it's what THEY want and as usual, John Gormley knows best and we know nothing! Same with the bulbs, that initiative would have been voted down as well. The bulbs are more polluting than regualr bulbs to dispose of and they are basically crap anyway. You'd be blind trying to read by the light of those things. Someday we'll all erect a huge statue to John Gormley for saving our souls.. nice man!0 -
http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy-efficiency/eu-switch-traditional-light-bulbs-2012/article-177880
EU national representatives voted yesterday (8 December) to phase out energy-guzzling incandescent light bulbs and inefficient halogen bulbs between 2009 and 2012 in an effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy security.
I think you're ascribing powers to Mr Gormley that he may want, but doesn't have.
Don't believe the hype.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
We have the highest per capita emissions in Europe. It's very easy to point to countries with large demographics, ignore the more relevant per capita statistics and say it's not our problem.Maybe the greens should travel to China and the States to see those massive skyscrapers lit up like christmas trees. Now, there's where the change is needed.
Not a small domestic home in Ireland
Then there is the issue of having a moral ground to stand on when seeking global consensus on GHG emission reductions.
Because the Greens are in government :rolleyes: Also we live in a representative democracy where not every decision that you happen to disagree with is put through the palaver and expense of a referendum.If only 2% of the population voted for these "greenies" how come they get so much media promotion. I mean everyday we are bombarded with greenie propaganda, we are being promised a carbin tax to "save the world". Wjhy not ask the people if they want a carbon tax by putting it to vote.
They also get into the news because they are very active in their departments. Eamon Ryan alone has ahd several major announcements over the last few months, including the publication of Ireland's National Energy Efficiency Action Plan and intent to soon publich national Green Public Procurement Procedures.
Oh yeah, and environmental issues, such as pollution, resource management and energy supply/security are of major concern.
Please explain where the "greenie propaganda" is.
So basically you just want a populist government that gives us nothing but rainbows and kittens. You realise that this world isn't like that? If we never got anything we didn't want, we would have no taxes, no restrictions on anything and basically this world would be a mess.Because that's not the Green way.. we're getting it because it's what THEY want and as usual, John Gormley knows best and we know nothing! Same with the bulbs, that initiative would have been voted down as well. The bulbs are more polluting than regualr bulbs to dispose of and they are basically crap anyway. You'd be blind trying to read by the light of those things. Someday we'll all erect a huge statue to John Gormley for saving our souls.. nice man!
I love the constant references to the cycling scheme and lightbulb ban on here. They're probably the two smallest initiatives of the Greens! Try talking about the smart grid, interconnectors, renewables, hydro, green procurement, electric vehicles, energy efficiency, retrofitting or distributed generation for a change.0 -
I think you're ascribing powers to Mr Gormley that he may want, but doesn't have.
Don't believe the hype.
I'm not believing the hype but he was doing a solo run on this already, until it became obvious that the EU were adopting this as a directive anyway. He then dropped his own initiative as it was going to be implemented anyway. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the EU hadn't adopted this, he still would have carried out this initiative in his own right.0 -
Highest per capita or not, it's still minuscule compared to others and our pollution levels are far from detrimental to the planet. It's micro bloody scopic.
Edanto, the light bulb policy is a joke. I know about it and I think it's
a joke, just like the party!0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you're ascribing powers to Mr Gormley that he may want, but doesn't have.
Don't believe the hype.
Yes - didn't the greens want to introduce this here first with much trumpet-blowing even though they knew EU legislation would be coming down the tracks?:pac:
edit- I actually agree with the idea but to me its an illustration of the greens fondness for grandstanding over minor issues, planting their flag on some molehill & claiming they conquered everest...0 -
walshb, here's a quick one for ya. Roughly, what's the difference in carbon production per capita between the US and China? And if you think change is needed, how would you propose that we go about it? As in - how can you and I influence other governments? Is there any way other than influencing our own government first?
It's glaringly obvious that you didn't even look at the GP policy webpage, let alone read them or have a think about them.
"According to the United Nations, US individual greenhouse gas production comes out at 20 tonnes per person per year, compared to 3.2 tonnes per person in China each year. The world average is 3.7 tonnes."
So, the U.S. is higher per capita, but when you factor in that the Chinese population is approx 4 times that of the U.S., you can see that both are getting pretty close in overall pollution levels and China do pollute more overall than the U.S.0 -
@squonk You have it backwards in your head. I can't do anything about that except suggest that you research the timeline before you keep repeating something that's wrong. Yes, he had been mentioning it long before the decision on Deb 8th last year, but the policy is one that has been on the EU agenda for a long time.
@walshb Twice I've invited you to scrutinise the GP policies, and maybe start a debate on the pros and cons of the policies. Each time you just reply with some light hearted comment. You and I previously argued about Overseas Aid policy and I had a similar experience so I'm not interested in repeating it.
Let's just agree that you think the GP is a joke, accept that you won't read their policies and debate them and say goodbye to each other.
EDIT: Thanks for looking up those Carbon numbers and doing the maths. So now we know the scale of the problem and we can see that in the US the most effective solution will involve reducing per capita use, whereas in China we would be looking more for ideas to make sure that per capita use doesn't increase any more, if possible.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
So the US are somehow more to blame because they are a larger nation-state and happen to have a larger population?"According to the United Nations, US individual greenhouse gas production comes out at 20 tonnes per person per year, compared to 3.2 tonnes per person in China each year. The world average is 3.7 tonnes."
So, the U.S. is higher per capita, but when you factor in that the Chines population is approx 4 times that of the U.S., you can see that both are getting pretty close in overall pollution levels
Sure using your logic every single person/household/village/town/country can say it isn't their fault. It is a COLLECTIVE responsibility and as responsibility goes, we're not doing too good at 17 tonnes per capita.
You also haven't address the issue of the moral ground.0 -
So the US are somehow more to blame because they are a larger nation-state and happen to have a larger population?
Sure using your logic every single person/household/village/town/country can say it isn't their fault. It is a COLLECTIVE responsibility and as responsibility goes, we're not doing too good at 17 tonnes per capita.
You also haven't address the issue of the moral ground.
More to blame than us? Yes, they are. And so are China and India. No matter
what spin is put on it, population, size of country etc, they emit far far far more pollution into the earth. So, if I as a householder have all my lights on every second of every day and the heating, they will still be emitting more than me.
We are 17 tonnes per capita? Okay, the U.S. are 20 plus and Australia are higher
than the U.S per capita. We are a very condensed little country, but on the grand scale, we are minuscule to the big boys!
Saving the planet is a business and a money spinner, nothing more and those claiming to want to save it are more interested in the monetary aspect and the ego tripping0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Sorry but you have put no effective argument other than re-iterating the fact that as an individual you emit less energy than a nation (wow, thanks for the insight).More to blame than us? Yes, they are. And so are China and India. No matter
what spin is put on it, population, size of country etc, they emit far far far more pollution into the earth. So, if I as a householder have all my lights on every second of every day and the heating, they will still be emitting more than me.
You call it 'spin' but you don't seem to be able to put up a decent argument against it.
Wow hooray us! Where's our medal?? We have slightly lower emissions than the home of the Hummer.We are 17 tonnes per capita? Okay, the U.S. are 20 plus and Australia are higher
than the U.S per capita. We are a very condensed little country, but on the grand scale, we are minuscule to the big boys!
Wow you found 2 countries with higher emissions. And?
:rolleyes: Care to back that up? Are you now going to single-handedly refute anthropogenic climate change, peak oil, the impacts of pollution, the importance of biodiversity and the depletion of natural resources?Saving the planet is a business and a money spinner, nothing more and those claiming to want to save it are more interested in the monetary aspect and the ego tripping
Go for it (in the Green Issues forum, thanks).0 -
Saving the planet is a business and a money spinner, nothing more and those claiming to want to save it are more interested in the monetary aspect and the ego tripping
r i i i g h t. A money spinner, eh? Not at all motivated by wanting their children and grandchildren to live in a time without wars for resources or catastrophic climate change.
You have an incredible ability to twist things to take the p1ss out of people you don't agree with.
taconnol - honestly I wouldn't bother replying anymore to comments that are just being made to agitate us. Let's just let those ones go by, ignored, and engage with constructive ones.0 -
Sorry but you have put no effective argument other than re-iterating the fact that as an individual you emit less energy than a nation (wow, thanks for the insight).
You call it 'spin' but you don't seem to be able to put up a decent argument against it.
Wow hooray us! Where's our medal?? We have slightly lower emissions than the home of the Hummer.
Wow you found 2 countries with higher emissions. And?
:rolleyes: Care to back that up? Are you now going to single-handedly refute anthropogenic climate change, peak oil, the impacts of pollution, the importance of biodiversity and the depletion of natural resources?
Go for it (in the Green Issues forum, thanks).
I don't need to back up anything. Like I said, you can spin it and twist it anyway you want and use per capita and per person etc; the fact is that Ireland's total compared to many many others is low.
Do I emit as much as a single person in the U.S.? I don't know, but you know what, I don't care to be honest and a lot of those claiming to care are simply band wagoners.
Does Al freaking Gore care? My ar*% he does.
I am very much anti waste and hate to see food and water and electricity wasted, but some of the policies the Greens have been trying to force on householders in this small little country, all to 'save the earth,' are plain bonkers!0 -
I'm a green voter who has voted green no.1 in the last 10 elections or so, including last Friday's.
I'm delighted that the Green party went into govt and has managed to get some of its policies implemented. Obviously some core green voters are pissed off at some of the compromises made. Personally I think the good far outweighs the bad, and I wouldn't vote green if I thought it was just a protest vote.
I very much hope the Greens stay in government for the remainder of the term. Every few months puts more positive policies into operation.
The popular anger at Fianna Fail is a red herring in my view. FF ruined the economy during the previous two terms they had in power - when everyone loved them. FG and Lab did not point out what was happening, but went along with the same rosy predictions that FF were swallowing.
At the moment their efforts to fix the mess are making reasonable headway against what is a very dire situation. FG and Lab would do no better. It is quite possible that the economy will recover before 2012, in which case the "Fianna Gael" crowd will all be flocking back to FF.0 -
ROFLMAO
thanks I needed that.
Fianna Fáil have been responsible for our culture of planning and development corruption, been susceptible to the undue influence of developers when creating national economic policy and made reckless and bad-value deals when it comes to our infrastructure, national resources and healthcare.
I voted Green, and will again, to try and end that.
but you keep supporting the greens putting ff back into power.0 -
Is the probelm with the greens that they are pretty much a party that encompasses the entire spectrum of voters voting on environmentatl issues? Perhaps that's Gormley and Ryan's problem too. Imagine what Labour would be like if we didn't have the Socialist party or the SWP? If Labour represented all these strands, along with it's existing membership I'd imagine Eamon Gilmore would be in a similar position to John Gormley. I would imagine that the Green membership runs the spctrum from the professional environmental activists who turn up at places like Tara, to voters who find GB/Labour/FF just not Green enough for them. Maybe in that case, in order to keep the party membership on side, it's essential for the ministers to make a big deal out of every samll policy implementation that happens? Maybe the party needs to split? What do ye think?0
-
For a start their energy policy instantly rules out nuclear. Are we to believe that we can really sustain ourselves through wind, etc.?Not only did you come into this thread with no examples, other than a cow farting, but you proceed to take the p1ss out of Green policies.
Why don't you do some research about the policies that the Greens are actually promoting (you might find this page useful http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/discussion_documents), read them, have a think, and then come back with some decent arguments instead of the kind of facetious rubbish that the Sun prints.
There are 11 detailed policy documents at the address above, perhaps you will find positions in there to argue against and if so that's just great. But please don't be as lazy to just regurgitate the anti-green spin of someone else.
Just remember that the kind of things you read about the greens (bicycles/light bulbs/cows farting) are the things that it is nice and easy to joke about and ridicule. It's a lot harder to engage with a policy document and say something about it, so you it might take more time that you're prepared to give.
Having regard for the environment does not necessarily mean one has to support the greens.Tell me this.
If only 2% of the population voted for these "greenies" how come they get so much media promotion. I mean everyday we are bombarded with greenie propaganda, we are being promised a carbin tax to "save the world". Wjhy not ask the people if they want a carbon tax by putting it to vote.
Their transport plan mentions the following:
* Extend Luas nationwide - unrealistic even if the budget wasn't in dire straits
* More buses in our cities, towns and villages - so why are we reducing bus numbers?
* Support cycling - how many proper cycle lanes have been built in the last two years?
* Encourage less flying - so how do we get to our conferences in Bali?
The taxation policy states:
cough NAMA coughThe establishment of a system for systematically, regularly and rigorously assessing, auditing and reviewing tax expenditures. Furthermore:
- The advice upon which the Minister bases his decisions on the introduction, continuation or termination of each relief should be published, in order that the process is transparent.
- A full Cost/Benefit analysis for all proposed tax reliefs, taking into account the full economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of each proposal must be undertaken. The continuation of a relief must be socially, environmentally and economically justified.
- Sufficient information must be available to those involved in such a process in order that they can answer the questions posed above.
- All reliefs must be time-limited.
It goes on to say
Now, how many people have been added to the tax net through the introduction of the recent levies (and lets call a spade a spade!)?Currently, if a person’s earnings are not sufficient to use his or her full tax credit(s), then he or she does not benefit from any tax reductions introduced by the Government. This reduces the incentive for the unemployed to take up low-paid work, trapping many in unemployment. Also, much valuable unpaid work in the community goes unrewarded at present.0 -
Maybe the party needs to split? What do ye think?
You make a good point about the diversity of the members/supporters, but I would imagine the same applies to all political parties. Surely not all of the members of any party would agree on every policy.
The Greens are just learning how to be a political party, compared with Fianna Gael (tip of the hat to Fintan O'Toole for the new phrase)... finding out for the first time what it's like to be in government and how to deal with the challenges.but you keep supporting the greens putting ff back into power.
I support the Greens with the intention of getting a Green government. Admittedly it may take a decade before they have enough experienced people to be able to properly run all government departments, but if it happens I'll be confident that none of the Green ministers are beholden to corporate or developer/landowner lobbies.
Even with an election tomorrow, it would probably return a FG government. See Fintan's article for reasons why that wouldn't make much difference.
I don't think the Green Party should split. I do think that the people that are pro the notion of sustainable (instead of destructive) economics should align together and join up with the Greens, even if that means burying some hatchets.
Idealised politics seems to be the art of people that disagree on some things agreeing on other things and being able to co-operate to implement them.
Fintan O'Toole's article
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0609/1224248419889.htmlFintan wrote:These are not insignificant events. The fact remains, however, that the old two-hander – let’s call it Fianna Gael – is in pretty good shape.
In the local elections, Fianna Gael is on 58 per cent of the vote. That is certainly low but we’ve seen this kind of result in a local election before – the last one. In 2004, Fianna Gael got 59 per cent. By the time of the 2007 general election, it was back up to almost 70 per cent – pretty much its average level through the history of the State. So any talk of a seismic shift in Irish politics is, at best, premature. A swing between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is not an earthquake. It’s a gentle quiver. Its implications are about as revolutionary as Ryan Tubridy replacing Pat Kenny on The Late Late Show.
@kbannon Those policies are what the GP stand for. Luas nationwide presumable refers to Cork & Galway for starters. NAMA is a horrible beast, but I see the midnight bank guarantee as worse. If we had a Green government, you would see those policies implemented as stated.
Obviously in a coalition those kind of things HAVE to be negotiable, and in a coalition when you have less than 10% of the seats you only get to call 1 in 10 of the shots. They are picking their battles. And need help. If you like what they stand for, then vote for them.
wrt nuclear, some people I know in the GP support Fusion, but obviously that technology is only in testing. If you want to convince them to support nuclear, you could contact Nuala Ahern, she's on the website as the contact for the Nuclear policy group.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
-
but if it happens I'll be confident that none of the Green ministers are beholden to corporate or developer/landowner lobbies.
.
Please dont make me vomit ! The greens with a majority in government they would not have to worry about about any of the above because there would be no such people left ! The more I read you and the other apologist in this thread for the greens the more i realise just what a bunch
fruit cakes they attract.0 -
Advertisement
-
so did you support the greens putting ff back in power?, fg in power wouldn't make much of a difference it would get rid of a party thats been in power for what 12 years straight and by your own account is corrupt and reckless with the country.
do you think privatising all our services will save the environment, that what the pdgreens think.
where exactly is the 'trade off' in use of shannon for refuelment of torturers edanto, the greens are government its their problem now, not just their ministries.0
Advertisement