Time for an 'alternative' Green Party?

View

taconnol wrote: »

This is the level and quality of debate I expect on Politics.ie.

P.ie is much, much worse. There are inmates in some of our mental institutions with a better grasp of reality than some of the posters on it.

thebaldsoprano

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, though, while a lot of people complain about NAMA and the support for the banks, there don't seem to be a lot of other options on offer from anyone else, and both NAMA and the bank supports are required as a result of the policies of the previous decade. (Nor does NAMA bail out the developers - it bails out the banks.)

I take your point about NAMA, unfortunately the other parties didn't offer much in the way of credible alternatives. However that still leaves the original bailout and the lead up to it. Any counterbalance to FF that the Greens might have provided as the minority coalition partner was non existent.

Scofflaw wrote: »

A lot of the complaints against the current party, I have to say, appear to be the result of them going into government at all with anyone but a rainbow coalition of ABFF parties. That's a fair charge if your only interest in the Greens is that they're not Fianna Fáil, but is otherwise pretty meaningless.

That's a fair point alright, and one that applies to me. I wasn't happy with what FF & Co were doing to the country, didn't see much in FG, and voted for Gormley partly as a protest vote and partly in the hope that they may get some environmental policies implemented. While they have done the latter, it's been at the cost of buying into the FF machine which IMHO is far too high.

Scofflaw

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

I take your point about NAMA, unfortunately the other parties didn't offer much in the way of credible alternatives. However that still leaves the original bailout and the lead up to it. Any counterbalance to FF that the Greens might have provided as the minority coalition partner was non existent.

At that point, though, the Greens were barely on the scene, and weren't even required to make up the government majority. Referring to them as "the minority coalition partner" makes them sound like Labour. Our expectations of what a minority party should be able to achieve in government seem to be based on either Labour in the Rainbow (who held 40% of the seats), or on the PDs, who despite being economically in line with the zeitgeist and Fianna Fáil gene pool, actually failed to get most of their policies implemented.

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

That's a fair point alright, and one that applies to me. I wasn't happy with what FF & Co were doing to the country, didn't see much in FG, and voted for Gormley partly as a protest vote and partly in the hope that they may get some environmental policies implemented. While they have done the latter, it's been at the cost of buying into the FF machine which IMHO is far too high.

That's where we differ. I don't see them as "having bought in". They've performed as coalition partners are supposed to do - "collective cabinet responsibility", which is the Irish system, means that when the Green Ministers have lost an argument at the Cabinet table, they have to get out there and support it afterwards. The Green TDs, in turn, vote for the government position, because that's what being in coalition government means. It's obviously very different from being able to shout at Fianna Fáil from the opposition benches, but it's the price of being in coalition - and in one sense, the price of the continuing failure of Fine Gael to form a credible party of government.

Funny, really - looking back at the 1992 election, Fianna Fáil were on 68 seats. And we think they're on the ropes now, when Fine Gael aren't even back up to their 1997 strength of 54. Like it or lump it, the only thing that determines who is in government are the fortunes of Fianna Fáil - and short of the wipeout that was supposed to have been delivered in 2007, Fianna Fáil will be forming the government in 2012.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Like it or lump it, the only thing that determines who is in government are the fortunes of Fianna Fáil

Which are probably tied to how well the economy performs (Based on Clinton's maxim of "It's the economy, stupid").

Scofflaw wrote: »

- and short of the wipeout that was supposed to have been delivered in 2007, Fianna Fáil will be forming the government in 2012.

If it comes to pass, there will be mass suicide in FG!

People everywhere tend to get really sick of seeing Ministers in their third term in office. I'd imagine sitting through a fourth term of them would be unbearable.

thebman

taconnol wrote: »

The Green Party members voted in favour of NAMA. Who exactly is the official guard of Green Party core beliefs, if not the members? Are you saying that you are a better decider of Green Party policy and what is and isn't compatible with its core beliefs than the members themselves?

This is the problem the greens created for themselves IMO. They stand for one thing but marketed themselves as another. Obviously the marketing campaign hard work paid off and got them into power. Victim of their own success as the electorate expected one thing while the greens in fact stand for something completely different it seems.

What the people voting for greens considered things they wouldn't compromise on and what the green party members considered things they wouldn't compromise on vastly differ as demonstrated by the green parties actions and peoples posts here and opinion polls.

thebaldsoprano

Scofflaw wrote: »

At that point, though, the Greens were barely on the scene, and weren't even required to make up the government majority. Referring to them as "the minority coalition partner" makes them sound like Labour. Our expectations of what a minority party should be able to achieve in government seem to be based on either Labour in the Rainbow (who held 40% of the seats), or on the PDs, who despite being economically in line with the zeitgeist and Fianna Fáil gene pool, actually failed to get most of their policies implemented.

A government majority wouldn't even have been required, if memory serves me right FG voted for this as well. Given the sums involved, I wouldn't see the fact that they were barely on the scene as being an excuse. FF didn't seem to be aware of the scale of the problem and if they were called on the bet, which to an extent they were, they'd be indirectly handing over a lot of power to undemocratic institutions concerned with nothing but their own profits.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's where we differ. I don't see them as "having bought in". They've performed as coalition partners are supposed to do - "collective cabinet responsibility", which is the Irish system, means that when the Green Ministers have lost an argument at the Cabinet table, they have to get out there and support it afterwards. The Green TDs, in turn, vote for the government position, because that's what being in coalition government means. It's obviously very different from being able to shout at Fianna Fáil from the opposition benches, but it's the price of being in coalition - and in one sense, the price of the continuing failure of Fine Gael to form a credible party of government.

I can see your point, and I'm obviously somewhat biased since I did vote for them partly as a protest. There are a number of areas to do with their handling of banks where I'd argue that they have "bought in" and they should've been a lot firmer, but I'd risk dragging things way off topic. But again, it could be argued that that's part of the price of coalition.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Funny, really - looking back at the 1992 election, Fianna Fáil were on 68 seats. And we think they're on the ropes now, when Fine Gael aren't even back up to their 1997 strength of 54. Like it or lump it, the only thing that determines who is in government are the fortunes of Fianna Fáil - and short of the wipeout that was supposed to have been delivered in 2007, Fianna Fáil will be forming the government in 2012.

Unfortunately, you're probably right! FG's inability to get their act together has been baffling and there aren't any alternatives for centre-right voters.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

This is not about "absolutist Green thinking", it is facing facts.

hows this for a fact, a driver using an electric vehicle or prius wipes out any environmental savings by regularly eating meat
a single cow can produce between 100 and 200 litres of methane every day, and methane is 40x worse than co2
but lets ignore that elephant in the room...

the Green agenda has little to do with preventing climate change, that can be solved relatively easily, but everything to do with making people revert to a "simpler" existence one way or another

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hows this for a fact, a driver using an electric vehicle or prius wipes out any environmental savings by regularly eating meat
a single cow can produce between 100 and 200 litres of methane every day, and methane is 40x worse than co2
but lets ignore that elephant in the room...

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'.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the Green agenda has little to do with preventing climate change, that can be solved relatively easily, but everything to do with making people revert to a "simpler" existence one way or another

It'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.

Sorry, 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.

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... the Green agenda has little to do with preventing climate change, that can be solved relatively easily

If that were true, then it is even more shameful that politicians worldwide have made relatively little progress in dealing with the challenges.

but everything to do with making people revert to a "simpler" existence one way or another

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.

Macha

thebman wrote: »

This is the problem the greens created for themselves IMO. They stand for one thing but marketed themselves as another. Obviously the marketing campaign hard work paid off and got them into power. Victim of their own success as the electorate expected one thing while the greens in fact stand for something completely different it seems.

Again, this is the reality of going into coalition.

As I always say, for the Greens who don't want to deal with the realities of going into government as a minority partner, which let's face it, the Greens will always be, they can join Greenpeace, Friends of the Irish Environment, WWF etc. It is only when you are in a lobby group, in opposition or get enough seats to not have to form a coalition that you have the luxury of not compromising.

And I'll make the point again: it is absolutely democratic and right that the Greens don't get everything their own way. Very few people voted for the Greens and it would be very undemocratic for the Greens to be able to dictate the policy of the entire Government as a minority party.

thebman wrote: »

What the people voting for greens considered things they wouldn't compromise on and what the green party members considered things they wouldn't compromise on vastly differ as demonstrated by the green parties actions and peoples posts here and opinion polls.

Hang on - I have yet to see a proper opinion poll of people who voted for the Greens in the past and what they think. A few threads on Boards by people who probably didn't vote for the Greens does not constitute a reliable opinion poll.

ei.sdraob

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 word

P. 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 dont

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the problem with this world is overpopulation

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.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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

That is total nonsense. For example, the average Irish person's annual carbon emissions are 17 tonnes. In Vaxjo in Sweden, the average is 3 tonnes. Look the place up online and tell me they don't have "a reasonable standard of living". www.vaxjo.se

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.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

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 problems

Scofflaw wrote: »

It'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 grain

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry, 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:

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

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??

taconnol wrote: »

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?

P. Breathnach

Partly because I have never been a Green Party member or activist, I can stand aside from policies adopted by the party and take my own position on issues, while still being in broad sympathy with the objectives of the Green movement.

On nuclear power, I personally am open to persuasion. But we can all agree that it is not a perfect solution, because it involves high costs, both financial and environmental. Even if it becomes part of a set of solutions, it is still desirable that we reduce energy consumption where we can. Small measures like reducing our motoring and heating our homes slightly less are still worthwhile.

On other technologies, I can again say that I can be persuaded -- even GM. But I am very highly sceptical of the GM industry. To go far into that discussion would derail this thread (and involve my doing a lot of work which I did a couple of years back, and the results of which I have mislaid). The approach to GM would have to be different if its potential is to be properly evaluated, and any good it might do be properly realised.

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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

Same lifestyles? With the same levels of obesity, heart disease and cancer? Let's not fool ourselves that our society is the pinnacle of all that is great and good. We're very good at selling and exporting our materialistic lifestyle and not so good at remembering other important values.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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??

It is perfectly achievable. Go and read up on it. I've given you the link. It is not a village it is a city - so dismissive before even understanding anything about it.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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

Sure and you know what? I and lots of other environmentalists are very open to nuclear and a debate about it. But just like incinerators, the devil is in the detail - I think incinerators are an excellent idea, if they are done properly and to a proper scale. Technology should be embraced but let us not forget that there are many, many low-tech solutions out there and yes *shock* mean our lifestyles change and maybe *double shock* for the better.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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?

Your question makes the false assumption that the only options are:
a) fossil fuels or
b) nuclear

P.Breathnach, I am a member of the Greens but I am still capable of independent thought! I actually would support the incinerator in Poolbeg if it were not so big.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Partly because I have never been a Green Party member or activist, I can stand aside from policies adopted by the party and take my own position on issues, while still being in broad sympathy with the objectives of the Green movement.

On nuclear power, I personally am open to persuasion. But we can all agree that it is not a perfect solution, because it involves high costs, both financial and environmental. Even if it becomes part of a set of solutions, it is still desirable that we reduce energy consumption where we can. Small measures like reducing our motoring and heating our homes slightly less are still worthwhile.

On other technologies, I can again say that I can be persuaded -- even GM. But I am very highly sceptical of the GM industry. To go far into that discussion would derail this thread (and involve my doing a lot of work which I did a couple of years back, and the results of which I have mislaid). The approach to GM would have to be different if its potential is to be properly evaluated, and any good it might do be properly realised.

you are right

nothing is perfect but i would rather the Greens were more pragmatic and less idealistic

and for that matter stand-back and realize that while their aims are admirable they are not achievable in a short timespan

yes nuclear power has issues but when compared to continuing to burn fossil fuels its a case of choosing the lesser of two evils

and thats only nuclear power, there are many other technologies that can help us in next few decades



maybe thats why the Greens are failing, they have set themselves alot of goals, but when the **** came to shove they arent willing to take the right path, and of course there is internal bickering between all sorts of extremists about how to achieve their aims

maybe instead of a new Green party we can get existing parties to have a better defined green agenda?


another problem that the Green movement faces, is that all their solutions are long term, unfortunately governments only think in the short term

maybe having Green goals etched into the constitution can help?

ei.sdraob

@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

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... nothing is perfect but i would rather the Greens were more pragmatic and less idealistic

Can we fine-tune that? How about idealism tempered with pragmatism? For example, I mentioned earlier that zero waste is an impossible ideal -- but you can hold it up as the thing towards which we should aim, while recognising that we will never quite get there.

maybe instead of a new Green party we can get existing parties to have a better defined green agenda?

I believe that's the way to go. When movements fragment, they tend to fail, and they often fail in the worst way possible: not only do they fail to achieve their objectives, but they queer the pitch for others.

another problem that the Green movement faces, is that all their solutions are long term, unfortunately governments only think in the short term

maybe having Green goals etched into the constitution can help?

Politicians' short-term thinking is a problem in many areas of life, not just in relation to the green agenda. That's a whole 'nother debate.

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@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'm nor arguing with you, I am debating your points because I don't agree...

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I just have a huge problem with the way the want to go about achieving their aims

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.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and unfortunately the current Greens have left a bad taste in mouths of many people

Apparently so. Whether that bad taste is justified is another question.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

climate change alone is one issue that needs less idealism and more pragmatism, idealism alone will not solve our problems

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.

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.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Yes because you want to believe in magical technological bullets and ignore the tools of behaviour modification

we have historic evidence of technology addressing many of the problems faced by humans in the past over and over

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

you cant change the way humans are, especially against their will

taconnol wrote: »

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 .

im not sure why you are using the word "conspiracy" and are trying to derail the thread? why are your trying to paint me as some sort of conspiracy theory nut-case (in that case you should really try harder :rolleyes:) just because i pointed out that the way the Greens are approaching the problems is destined to failure

i don't believe in conspiracies, i do believe the Green movement while having good aims is misguided

taconnol wrote: »

instead of acknowledging the ecological AND technological limits that everyone on this planet has to deal with.

what technological limits? we have quite literally have the technology to release a huge amount of energy from tiny amounts of matter (nuclear fission) and thats before considering research into technologies such as fusion that can produce limitless energy out of water

there are ecological limits, but once again there are 7billion people on this planet, how do you suppose they all live without having any impact on the environment? what do you do commit mass murder to bring on an era of sustainability?
these ecological limits will be solved/bypassed by science & technology not by "behavioral modification"
as has happened before in history, a simple technology such as ammonia fertilizer has allowed us to support a population of billions, similar simple solutions will help these billions of people to live better lives and harm the environment less

your "behavioral modification" is destined for failure, if anything its funny to see how the "behavior" of the Greens got "modified" once they got into power

/

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

we have historic evidence of technology addressing many of the problems faced by humans in the past over and over

And we have historic evidence of technology causing huge problems facing humans in the past and today. Let's not put technology up on a pedestal but look at it with realistic eyes.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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

Ah yes, we're getting to the crux of it now. I was waiting for the word 'fascist' to appear (you really let yourself down by insisting on using such words). What exactly is your problem with behaviour modification?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you cant change the way humans are, especially against their will

What exactly does that mean? Do you think you live in a state of perfect freedom? You want to talk about being idealist? I think your view of freedom and how free and liberal you are and can be is idealistic.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im not sure why you are using the word "conspiracy" and are trying to derail the thread? why are your trying to paint me as some sort of conspiracy theory nut-case (in that case you should really try harder :rolleyes:) just because i pointed out that the way the Greens are approaching the problems is destined to failure

?? First you question why I am debating (or rather your word "arguing" ) with you and now accusations of derailing the thread? Please demonstrate how the Greens approach is destined to failure. I'm afraid other than a few poorly thought out claims that technology will solve all of our problems, you have provided NO alternatives.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what technological limits? we have quite literally have the technology to release a huge amount of energy from tiny amounts of matter (nuclear fission) and thats before considering research into technologies such as fusion that can produce limitless energy out of water

If you want to discuss the realities and practicalities of nuclear, there is plenty in the Green Issues forum. You are presenting a gross and misleading simplification of the issues with nuclear and you know it.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

these ecological limits will be solved/bypassed by science & technology not by "behavioral modification"

Absolute nonsense. It never fails to amaze me how people will fight even the slightest change to their lifestyles while in doing so denying the rights of others to basics like clean water and air. You WANT to believe that science and technology will allow you to carry on with business as usual, in the face of the technological realities. I find the dismissal of the idea that we should change our unsustainable lifestyles at all to be the absolute pinnacle of arrogance and selfishness.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

as has happened before in history, a simple technology such as ammonia fertilizer has allowed us to support a population of billions, similar simple solutions will help these billions of people to live better lives and harm the environment less

You want to talk about the failures of the Green Revolution that we are dealing with today? Come and discuss it in Green Issues. Yet another misleading and farcical oversimplification of the issues at hand.

Of course technology is going to be hugely important but it is insanity to ignore the low-tech solutions that we also have to hand. Public transport is a perfect example - in other countries, public transport is a blessing not a curse. We need to vastly improve public transport to encourage a modal shift - yes that is an example of behaviour modification. Yet, according to you, I am a fascist for suggesting this.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

And we have historic evidence of technology causing huge problems facing humans in the past and today. Let's not put technology up on a pedestal but look at it with realistic eyes.

a stick can be used to plant plants or it can be used to kill people, it is not the fault of the stick (representing a form of technology) that it can be used in multiple manners

taconnol wrote: »

Ah yes, we're getting to the crux of it now. I was waiting for the word 'fascist' to appear (you really let yourself down by insisting on using such words). What exactly is your problem with behaviour modification?
.

i have a problem with ever growing power of governments and diminishing rights of the citizens, a streak thats not only limited to the greens btw, people in power want more powers

i dont believe that the use of "behavioral modification" (stick) is better than use of technologies and choice (carrots)

taconnol wrote: »

What exactly does that mean? Do you think you live in a state of perfect freedom? You want to talk about being idealist? I think your view of freedom and how free and liberal you are and can be is idealistic.

no we dont live in a state of perfect freedom, neither can we achieve one, but that doesnt make it "right" for the greens or anyone to take more "freedoms" from the people, no matter how good their goals are

taconnol wrote: »

?? First you question why I am debating (or rather your word "arguing" ) with you and now accusations of derailing the thread? Please demonstrate how the Greens approach is destined to failure. I'm afraid other than a few poorly thought out claims that technology will solve all of our problems, you have provided NO alternatives.

i did provide alternatives, we can embrace technologies NOW such as nuclear to help us bridge the cap for the next few decades until energy from renewable can take over completely, it certainly is a much cleaner approach than continuing to burn coal and other fuels for the next few decades

if anything the greens are going around banning research (im referring to GM crops), as mentioned in my first paragraph technology is a tool to be used by people, a nuclear reactor can be used to provide energy or create weapons, but that doesnt make the technology itself "bad", if anything continuing to burn fossil fuels is downright "wrong"

taconnol wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. It never fails to amaze me how people will fight even the slightest change to their lifestyles while in doing so denying the rights of others to basics like clean water and air. You WANT to believe that science and technology will allow you to carry on with business as usual, in the face of the technological realities. I find the dismissal of the idea that we should change our unsustainable lifestyles at all to be the absolute pinnacle of arrogance and selfishness.
.

first you accuse me of conspiracy theories, now im selfish and arrogant? calm down would you

why should people change their lifestyles when things like clean air and water can be achieved now today?

please explain how continuing to burn mountains of coals down in Moneypoint (i recommend you visit the facility, its impressively large & dirty) is good for clean air?

taconnol wrote: »

It is becoming increasingly evident that you do not have a firm grasp of the details of the issues facing the industries of energy, agriculture, transport today.

yes yet another attack at me for saying something that you dont want to hear

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

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 wrong

Scofflaw wrote: »

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.

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 power

Scofflaw wrote: »

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).

im just extremely pissed of about NAMA

nationalization was also on table from what i remember

Scofflaw wrote: »

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,
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...

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

a stick can be used to plant plants or it can be used to kill people, it is not the fault of the stick (representing a form of technology) that it can be used in multiple manners

Indeed but let's not make the stick into a magic wand.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i have a problem with ever growing power of governments and diminishing rights of the citizens, a streak thats not only limited to the greens btw, people in power want more powers

Rights of the citizens? To be forced to live miles from the place of work? Spend 4 hours a day on the M50? Purchase and maintain multiple cars as pointed out by others in this thread?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i dont believe that the use of "behavioral modification" (stick) is better than use of technologies and choice (carrots)

You need both.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

no we dont live in a state of perfect freedom, neither can we achieve one, but that doesnt make it "right" for the greens or anyone to take more "freedoms" from the people, no matter how good their goals are

See above comments re: M50 and private car ownership. This reminds me of the US debate over healthcare and people arguing against their own interests - mind boggling.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i did provide alternatives, we can embrace technologies NOW such as nuclear to help us bridge the cap for the next few decades until energy from renewable can take over completely, it certainly is a much cleaner approach than continuing to burn coal and other fuels for the next few decades

Again, you continue with the false assumption that the choice is between fossil fuels and nuclear.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if anything the greens are going around banning research (im referring to GM crops), as mentioned in my first paragraph technology is a tool to be used by people, a nuclear reactor can be used to provide energy or create weapons, but that doesnt make the technology itself "bad", if anything continuing to burn fossil fuels is downright "wrong"

Hang on - technology is not neutral - it can have positive and negatives. And you are ignoring the negatives of nuclear.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

first you accuse me of conspiracy theories, now im selfish and arrogant? calm down would you

I did not attack you, I attacked your post. Big difference.If you have an issue, report the post. Otherwise, debate the issues.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why should people change their lifestyles when things like clean air and water can be achieved now today?

Please go to the latest EPA report on water quality and the corresponding report on air quality. Read what they write about the causes of these massive problems in Ireland (we won't even talk about rest of the world) and then come back and tell me that it has nothing to do with people's lifestyles.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

please explain how continuing to burn mountains of coals down in Moneypoint (i recommend you visit the facility, its impressively large & dirty) is good for clean air?

I missed where I argued that it was good for clean air. ei.sdraob, I work in the area of sustainability - I have visited Moneypoint a number of times.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes yet another attack at me for saying something that you dont want to hear

I can only go by what you write. I would love to believe as you do that nuclear is the perfect solution and we can all continue to carry on as usual but the facts lead me to think otherwise. I don't indulge in wishful thinking.

ei.sdraob

@taconnol

i have mentioned many times in this thread that nuclear is a solution for NOW, that can be operating in few years from now and then run for the next 20-30 years until (in the meantime) we continue to build more windmills and/or wavepower and/or several "spirit of ireland" type projects

i have no problem with windpower, i think its great but im being realistic and understand what it will take many decades for the system to run completely of renewable sources (and at great cost) especially with availability being a huge problem

i would much rather that until that occurs we generate base power from nuclear than from continuing to burn coal, turf, oil and gas, nuclear doesn't spit **** up the chimney and is safe

thats the pragmatic approach, unfortunately the Greens have a problem with the N word and any other technology thats not "pure"


so once again i have no problems with Green aims, i have a problem with their approach to solving these issues

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i have mentioned many times in this thread that nuclear is a solution for NOW, that can be operating in few years from now and then run for the next 20-30 years until (in the meantime) we continue to build more windmills and/or wavepower and/or several "spirit of ireland" type projects

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.

Red_Marauder

taconnol wrote: »

Rights of the citizens? To be forced to live miles from the place of work? Spend 4 hours a day on the M50? Purchase and maintain multiple cars as pointed out by others in this thread?

Forced to live miles away? I'm sorry but that is simply not the case. Nobody is forced to spend two hours in their cars travelling to and from work unless they live unreasonably far away or else there is some sort of major network disruption.

I live in Rathmines. It's takes me no more than half an hour to get to the IFSC on public transport alone - that's during high traffic. When I cycle in it is considerably quicker. Rents and leases are very reasonable in Dublin 6 right now, there are three 2 bedroom apartmwents up the road for me going for 250 - 300k.

A lot of the problem is not that people are "forced" to live so far away, but they want something that is just not feasible in a modern European capital - they want vegetable gardens, kennells, a front door and a back door and a driveway. They will not live in an apartment. So they must move far away - that is a personal choice.

I can only go by what you write. I would love to believe as you do that nuclear is the perfect solution and we can all continue to carry on as usual but the facts lead me to think otherwise. I don't indulge in wishful thinking.

I think the mods maight take issue with this becoming a nuclear debate, but failing to acknolwedge and really engage with the potential benefits of nuclear energy is an enormous failure on behalf of the Green movement in this country.

Macha

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Forced to live miles away? I'm sorry but that is simply not the case. Nobody is forced to spend two hours in their cars travelling to and from work unless they live unreasonably far away or else there is some sort of major network disruption.

According to the Dublin Transportation Authority, Wicklow, Kildare and Meath are the commuter counties for Dublin city centre.

This is the reality of the policies of low-density residential planning implemented during the 1990s and 2000s. It is largely due to the separation of transport and land-use planning.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

A lot of the problem is not that people are "forced" to live so far away, but they want something that is just not feasible in a modern European capital - they want vegetable gardens, kennells, a front door and a back door and a driveway. They will not live in an apartment. So they must move far away - that is a personal choice.

I have lived in a number of continental cities in apartments and would have no problem bringing up a family in an apartment provided the appropriate facilities were available and the apartment was of a decent size. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the vast majority of apartments in Ireland. I am fortunate to live in an apartment that is 100m3. Most people are shocked when they visit my apartment by the size of it - and the fact it has a utility room..!

The Child Policy officer in Dublin City Council is on record as having said that every child should have a back garden. I mean, does he think that every child on the continent is emotionally scarred from living in an apartment? It's madness!

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I think the mods maight take issue with this becoming a nuclear debate, but failing to acknolwedge and really engage with the potential benefits of nuclear energy is an enormous failure on behalf of the Green movement in this country in my opinion.

Gormely said as recently as last November that he was happy for there to be a debate on nuclear. Are Fianna Fail pro-nuclear? Lord knows, they seem to change their policies to suit the political landscape of the day. Why is it suddenly the Green's fault?