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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Time for an 'alternative' Green Party?
Comments
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »If that were true, then it is even more shameful that politicians worldwide have made relatively little progress in dealing with the challenges.
.
there are many technologies available today such as nuclear power, that can be used to replace fossil fuel and buy us much needed time to convert to renewable energies
i have a huge problem with current energy policy in most western countries, where 10-20% rates of renewable power are hailed as "miraculous" while ignoring that the rest is usually produced in highly polluting power plants (of which i had the experience of working in
)
thats only one of existing technologies available today but for variety of reasons no politician will say "you know what we can cut our carbon emissions to near zero by building a nuke plant, and then building up our renewable capacity", and of course the Greens are opposed to nuclear power even tho it can help greatly reduce emissions
theres research looking into the feasibility of using the bacteria in kangaroos gut (kangaroos dont produce methane
) in cows, but of course the Greens would call that Frankenfood, and that doesnt even involve the GM wordP. Breathnach wrote: »What do you mean by "simpler"? I do not see myself as a paragon, but I have made some choices in lifestyle that are intended to lessen my impact on the environment. I think that most people of green sympathies would approve, although some of the more extreme proponents might be highly critical of my lifestyle.
the problem with this world is overpopulation
we simply can not all become more sustainable and still have a reasonable standard of living, especially if the Greens oppose any technologies that would help solve the problems as mentioned above
hows this for a conundrum, we obviously cant reduce world population since that would be genocide and just plain wrong on so many levels, if the rest of the world rises even close to our standard of living then the planet is ****ed, and the greens in the western world are resisting attempts to address these issues with technologies available now, and preventing research that might help us all
damned if you do, damned if you dont0 -
-
You'll find that every Green party worldwide advocates cutting down on meat (ideally, cutting out meat) for exactly that reason. The result is that they're derided as 'hippy vegetarians'.
Scofflaw
and thats why the Greens are seen as authoritarian, they want everyone to have same lifestyle as them and would use all sorts of taxes and laws to force their way on other people, thats not much different from many other authoritarian organisations such as communists or just about any organised religion
i have a huge problem with other people telling me what to do, but then the same people sticking spuds in ears and singing "lalalala" when presented with solutions which can solve many environmental problemsIt's comforting to know that climate change can be "solved relatively easily", although a little curious that so much effort has been put into it by so many non-Greens worldwide who apparently lack your ability to see the simple solutions.
because to authoritarian organisations "simple" solutions are an alien concept, especially if these solutions go against the ideological grainSorry, but that's utter rubbish, ei.sdraob. I'm not even slightly interested in dragging people back to the Stone Age, and I've been a Green voter pretty much all my life. On the contrary, I'm interested in ensuring a future for my child that doesn't involve being plunged back into a "simpler" existence because environmental constraints have been wilfully ignored.
firstly i gave preference to the Greens before, once again i find their goals admirable, but they are going arseways about achieving these goals
secondly by refusing to accept solutions available now and to fund research the Greens are ensuring that the future generations are ****ed, its all well and good building windmills but at the rate were going we wont have 100% renewable power available for decades to come while the climate continues changing and the likes of Moneypoint continue to burn mountains of coals so me and you can reliable have this conversation
speaking of future generations it was nice of the Greens to sign onto NAMA :mad:0 -
No, the problem is we are not living within the planet's ecological limits and the people causing most of the problems are the wealthy few, not the poverty-stricken many. The idea that population is the problem is simply an attempt to deflect attention away from our unsustainable lifestyles and back onto poorer countries whose per capita emissions and pollution records are far, far below our own.
the poverty stricken many want to have the same lifestyles that we do, they have many many large issues to worry about other than CO2
what was the cost of bringing that standard of living in that Swedish village? what is the population of that village? how will that scale to the city level?? how much will it cost for everyone in world to achieve same lifestyle??As for accusing the Greens of being Luddites, there is an on-going public debate about nuclear and the pros and cons are not as clear cut as you seem to want them to be. There are many very pro-technology environmentalists, most famously perhaps Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) who do not consider nuclear to be a viable alternative.
it is not about being an alternative in long term
its about using nuclear power for the next 30-40 years while a renewable energy system is build
the dirty path thats now being followed is to continue to burn fuels until the above is achieved
looking at the data, we are far far from achieving the "green" goals and will continue to burn fossil fuels in meantime
4300MW peak demand yesterday at 18:00, wind generated a whooping 40MW
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/systemdemand/
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/
the rest had to be generated by burning carbon based fuels, would it not be better if that generation was done by non CO2 emitting nuclear plant?0 -
-
-
-
@taconnol im not sure why you are trying to argue with me
I agree with most of Greens policies and once again find them admirable
I just have a huge problem with the way the want to go about achieving their aims
and unfortunately the current Greens have left a bad taste in mouths of many people
climate change alone is one issue that needs less idealism and more pragmatism, idealism alone will not solve our problems 0 -
-
I'm nor arguing with you, I am debating your points because I don't agree...@taconnol im not sure why you are trying to argue with me
I agree with most of Greens policies and once again find them admirable
Yes because you want to believe in magical technological bullets and ignore the tools of behaviour modification and think that the Greens just want to ruin people's lives or change their lifestyles as part of a big conspiracy to turn everyone into veggie hippies instead of acknowledging the ecological AND technological limits that everyone on this planet has to deal with.I just have a huge problem with the way the want to go about achieving their aims
Apparently so. Whether that bad taste is justified is another question.and unfortunately the current Greens have left a bad taste in mouths of many people
The insinuation here is that the Greens are being idealistic and not pragmatic, with no evidence to back it up. I will give you one simple example of Green pragmatism in combating climate change that attracted howls of rage and derision: low-energy light bulbs. According to a McKinsey Marginal Abatement Cost study on Ireland, replacing regular light bulbs with low-energy light bulbs was the most cost-effective marginal abatement measure that a government could take.climate change alone is one issue that needs less idealism and more pragmatism, idealism alone will not solve our problems
But, oh it was all part of a Green conspiracy to ruin everyone's lives. You want to talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don't? Just talk to the Greens.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
and thats why the Greens are seen as authoritarian, they want everyone to have same lifestyle as them and would use all sorts of taxes and laws to force their way on other people, thats not much different from many other authoritarian organisations such as communists or just about any organised religion
i have a huge problem with other people telling me what to do, but then the same people sticking spuds in ears and singing "lalalala" when presented with solutions which can solve many environmental problems
It would be fair, then, for me to point out that you're essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" when presented with the fact that your version of the Greens doesn't actually hold for any of the people here who are Greens?because to authoritarian organisations "simple" solutions are an alien concept, especially if these solutions go against the ideological grain
Apparently, some people do have that problem - once they have an idea of how certain people behave, they don't seem to be able to change it in the face of the evidence.firstly i gave preference to the Greens before, once again i find their goals admirable, but they are going arseways about achieving these goals
secondly by refusing to accept solutions available now and to fund research the Greens are ensuring that the future generations are ****ed, its all well and good building windmills but at the rate were going we wont have 100% renewable power available for decades to come while the climate continues changing and the likes of Moneypoint continue to burn mountains of coals so me and you can reliable have this conversation
That I don't deny. There has always been a dangerous streak of Ludditism in the Green Party, as in every party (how many people in the mainstream parties want a return to the "simpler" social values of yester-century?), but that's not really the problem for the current Green Party, because to a large extent those are the supporters who dropped away with Patricia McKenna, and who now accuse the Green Party of betraying its roots.speaking of future generations it was nice of the Greens to sign onto NAMA :mad:
Yes, well, however often one brings that up, it's not going to change the fact that NAMA was the only deal on the table, and would have been what happened no matter who was in government (bar a Sinn Fein majority government).i have a huge problem with the behavior modification aspect of the Greens, i am sorry but these words have fascist connotations and hence the authoritarian streak of the Greens that smells badly
This may come as a shock to you, but government is about behaviour modification. Whenever the government/Dáil passes a law against something, the idea is that people modify their behaviour by no longer doing that thing. Whenever they allow a tax break, the idea is that people modify their behaviour by doing that thing. To ascribe "fascist connotations" to these actions in the case of just one party and not the others (who all do likewise) suggests that what you're offering as evidence is merely justification for an existing prejudice.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
It would be fair, then, for me to point out that you're essentially sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la" when presented with the fact that your version of the Greens doesn't actually hold for any of the people here who are Greens?
unfortunately the ones i met and some of them in this thread are just that
maybe im wrong, at least im willing to admit i might be wrongThat I don't deny. There has always been a dangerous streak of Ludditism in the Green Party, as in every party (how many people in the mainstream parties want a return to the "simpler" social values of yester-century?), but that's not really the problem for the current Green Party, because to a large extent those are the supporters who dropped away with Patricia McKenna, and who now accuse the Green Party of betraying its roots.
its that streak that i have the most issue with, im glad to hear that they are gone now, as was mentioned earlier among the problems with the Green party now is shorterm-ism in politics and infighting once they gained powerYes, well, however often one brings that up, it's not going to change the fact that NAMA was the only deal on the table, and would have been what happened no matter who was in government (bar a Sinn Fein majority government).
im just extremely pissed of about NAMA
nationalization was also on table from what i rememberThis may come as a shock to you, but government is about behaviour modification. Whenever the government/Dáil passes a law against something, the idea is that people modify their behaviour by no longer doing that thing. Whenever they allow a tax break, the idea is that people modify their behaviour by doing that thing. To ascribe "fascist connotations" to these actions in the case of just one party and not the others (who all do likewise) suggests that what you're offering as evidence is merely justification for an existing prejudice.
cordially,
Scofflaw
its not a shock, i realize we live in a society and hence exchange some freedoms for things such as law & order, taxes & infrastructure
we obviously cant live in a complete anarchy and need some form of society
my problem once again (like with anything else) is overdoing it, behavioral modification that is...0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
ei,sdraob, are you aware that the average lead-in time for a nuclear station is 10 years?
And are you familiar with the economics of nuclear power, with variable discount rates and O&M costs?
As you say, let's be pragmatic.
yes im quite aware of that,
mainly thanks to various green / environmental / nimby groups
funny how the Chinese are managing to build these very quickly now in few short years, and are now also the leader in renewable power leapfrogging the west
edit: do note that the Swedish and other Nordic states which you admire have also embraced nuclear power and have plants generating energy....
anyways lets say Ireland builds a plant in 2020 and the plant runs until 2050, we still wont have most of our grid running from completely renewable sources for at least 20-30 years from today, even if we accomplish that then > all well and good so since we would end-up having a valuable resource which we can export for money
once again id rather a nuclear plant making the electricity for few decades while the green tech catches up and takes over than continue to rely on fossil plants who would continue to spit things into the air, as @IrishTonyO above has showed we have a very long way to go before renewable reaches anywhere near 100%, id rather not wait that long
anyways nuclear is just one of many issues/technologies the Greens failed to address or embrace, i dont want to go too much offtopic with it0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Ill make the point again for the third time. It is only proper and democratic that a minor party in a coalition should not be able to implement all of its ideas to the detriment of the ideas of the major party. Do you think that the six Green TDs should decide all the Government's policies?
.
so now that they are in power, the Greens excuse for not doing anything useful is that they dont have enough power?
hence why Green agenda should be a main policy of all parties, removing the need for the Greens altogetherI don't know where you get the lecturing and lying from - the rest of your post just descended into the usual anti-Green rant.
yes sorry for having an opinion, yet again my problem is not the Green aims but implementation, stop trying to pretend as if im anti-Green just because i dont agree with your approach,
im getting rather tired of you calling me all sorts of names in this thread
that lunatic fringe is giving the Green movement a bad name, distance yourselves from themWell done for lumping every environmentalist in together. It's easy to score points attacking the lunatic fringe of any movement but it's also very lazy.
both Sweden and Finland have nuclear reactorsWhere did you mention the Nordic countries? Sorry I missed that.
our target is 20% renewable power by 2020Based on what? Show us your calculations.
i posted links to eirgrid data/graphs earlier in thread, it doesnt look pretty, even if we achieve 20% target by 2020 that still means 80% comes from dirty fuels
thats 10 years from now, id rather that 80% in 10 years come from a nuclear source that doesnt pollute the atmosphere
im also getting tired of repeating myself about my stance on nuclear, i see it as a bridging measure not an end in itself, which you keep ignoringThe Greens didn't ban GM research, they banned GM cultivation! If you understand the basic principles of agriculture, it will be clear that open GM cultivation is effectively a Pandora's box with GM seeds spreading very easily either through air-pollination or insects and animals. Once you start cultivating GM in the open, that's it - it is out of your hands.
I have absolutely no problem with GM research as long as it is properly contained. I would, however, make the point that GM has not lead to greater yields in edible crops and for me the rush into GM is yet another example of a desire for a technological silver bullet rather than stepping back and looking at our agricultural system in a holistic way.
replace the word GM with any technology which has a potential to do bad, good thing the Greens weren't around when the wheel was invented (vehicles kill people) or industrial revolution occurred (steel and chemicals kill people)No one is talking about evil or good. I'm talking about advantages and disadvantages. We must weigh up the pros and cons before of all our options instead of just putting blind faith in the latest technology
nuclear power is not new technology, and it has a clear advantage of allowing us to shed most of the Irelands carbon emissions while a renewable energy grid is createdSuperfreakonomics is a perfect example of pie-in-the-sky geo-engineering wishful thinking.
you should read that book its quite interesting
and that "pie in the sky" has occurred in 1991 and is called Krakatoa volcano which was widely measured and analysed and did reduce worldwide temperature by 1-2 degrees C for few years
the same can be replicated (minus the volcanic destruction) by hanging a garden hose of helium balloons and pumping small amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, reducing temperatures worldwide and buying us time to implement Green policies, whole project would cost less than 100million a year to run, small change by Irish standards of money wasting
you continue to wave off engineering and science with your hand, which is very ironic since if it wasnt for science and engineering/technology you would not be sitting there now typing your posts
that anti-science part of the Green movement really really irks me off and just highlights that some people care more about ideals than implementing them, Scofflaw referred earlier to this lot as Luddites
any future Green movement which focuses on "behavioral modification" while ignoring science and technology is doomed to failure, many other political movements have tried "behavioral modification" I heard "behavioral modification" is working our great for North Koreans 0 -
-
-
-
You are being incredibly unfair by saying that the Greens have not done anything useful. I don't know whether it is simply because you are unaware of what has been achieved.so now that they are in power, the Greens excuse for not doing anything useful is that they dont have enough power?
Personally, I see that as the main function of a Green party. As already stated, I would love what you say to happen, as it seems to have in some Scandinavian countries.hence why Green agenda should be a main policy of all parties, removing the need for the Greens altogether
No need to apologize, just don't take the debate so personally. I doubt there are many people who wouldn't want clean air, water etc etc. Implementation is what it's all about.yes sorry for having an opinion, yet again my problem is not the Green aims but implementation, stop trying to pretend as if im anti-Green just because i dont agree with your approach
And I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I haven't called you names, I've attacked your posts. And if you have a problem, you know where the report button is. I would remind you that you are the one that pulled out the "fascist" tag.im getting rather tired of you calling me all sorts of names in this thread
Wow, thanks for the advice - I'd never thought of doing that.that lunatic fringe is giving the Green movement a bad name, distance yourselves from them
Do you know Sweden has had a successful referendum calling on the removal of nuclear power?both Sweden and Finland have nuclear reactors
The proposed target is 16% but it breaks down differently depending on the sector. You also have to look at energy efficiency measures and their impact on carbon emissions (and other pollution indicators).our target is 20% renewable power by 2020
ei.sdraob, you are confusing renewable energy targets with renewable energy in electricity. Our RES-E target is 40%.i posted links to eirgrid data/graphs earlier in thread, it doesnt look pretty, even if we achieve 20% target by 2020 that still means 80% comes from dirty fuels
Yes sorry. I actually quite like the idea but the 10 year lead in time kind of scuppers the idea for me.im also getting tired of repeating myself about my stance on nuclear, i see it as a bridging measure not an end in itself, which you keep ignoring
This is hilarious.replace the word GM with any technology which has a potential to do bad, good thing the Greens weren't around when the wheel was invented (vehicles kill people) or industrial revolution occurred (steel and chemicals kill people)
I haveyou should read that book its quite interesting
Yes, and this has been dismissed by engineers as well. God, do you really think everyone is so stupid that if a project like this were possible of solving the problem we would all just be ignoring it??!the same can be replicated (minus the volcanic destruction) by hanging a garden hose of helium balloons and pumping small amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, reducing temperatures worldwide and buying us time to implement Green policies, whole project would cost less than 100million a year to run, small change by Irish standards of money wasting
This is getting quite amusing. I'm not waving off technology, I'm recognizing it's limits.you continue to wave off engineering and science with your hand, which is very ironic since if it wasnt for science and engineering/technology you would not be sitting there now typing your posts
Nonsense, you just like dismissing us all as Luddites because it suits your position. You like to put these throw away comments at the end of your posts but really, you don't make the argument to support it in the body of your post.that anti-science part of the Green movement really really irks me off and just highlights that some people care more about ideals than implementing them, Scofflaw referred earlier to this lot as Luddites0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement