Sympathy for the Green party

gbee

My opinion of the Greens is twofold:

The doctor analogy: In treating their patient for a sore throat, they cut off their patient's head.

In the doctrine of science: They are more like religious bigots who insist on following discredited policies, akin to insisting that the Earth is still flat, when in fact ....

From a moral point of view, in the current recession they still want carbon taxes and penalise us for recycling.

No. I've no sympathy. Personally I photographed a prominent Green losing the last election, Bertie then put him in the holding cell of the senate, this was against the wishes of his local electorate.

kincsem

No sympathy for the Greens. In a massive economic crises all they could talk about was wind farms and high-speed broadband. They had an agenda that ignored the task facing them.

Dannyboy83

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

I understand why you're saying this, I'm sure a lot of people think this too, but it's important to recognise that the Green Party and FF have completely different reasons for wanting to stay in power.

Fianna Fail want to stay in power because they are career politicians and are terrified of losing their seats. They are thinking of their own self-interests.

Greens want to see the passing of more legislation before they leave. Especially the legislation about the Dublin Mayor and corporate donations. Long term reforms that benefit the country.

Yes, I agree with your post and aware of their attempts to ram legislation through.
But the crux of the issue -> the opportunity cost.

What use is a free toaster when you had to burn your house to the ground to win it?

imme

Others have said that they got into government at the wrong time. I can agree with that.

They might have shown themselves as naive or unpolitic in this regard.

Their recent announcement obviously forced the Taoiseach to issue the statement regarding an election following the Budget, but they really have been sidelined in events overall. They are being pushed so far across the margain that they are almost invisible, and certainly inaudible.

Dempo1

imme wrote: »

Others have said that they got into government at the wrong time. I can agree with that.

They might have shown themselves as naive or unpolitic in this regard.

Their recent announcement obviously forced the Taoiseach to issue the statement regarding an election following the Budget, but they really have been sidelined in events overall. They are being pushed so far across the margain that they are almost invisible, and certainly inaudible.

Apart from Gogarty who made a complete fool of himself at the exit press conference and on two radio shows yesterday, this guys arrogance defies belief. He even went as far as to tell us he "Single Handily" reversed education cuts and class room sizes, he is clearly not dealing in facts with the final boot put in before departing a doubling of University registration charges.

Bill2673

Macha wrote: »

So energy subsidies are fine when they're to state run fossil fuel energy companies but they're not OK to state run renewable energy companies? Three of the biggest players in renewable energy in Ireland are Bord Gais, Bord na Mona and ESB.


I think you misunderstand what exactly a subsidy is and how it works. In Ireland, subsidies include alleviation of energy poverty through transfer payments to consumers. That impacts on all those who provide energy to consumers in Ireland, public and private, of which the vast majority get their fuel from fossil fuels.

Tullow oil receives massive tax breaks from African governments - a form of subsidy. The issue you are confusing with subsidies is that even if the industry or company makes a profit, it is still benefiting from subsidies. Subsidies also exist in the form of reduction of taxes, continued externalisation of costs such as a higher cost of carbon and other pollutants from fossil fuel. The fossil fuel industry both public and private enjoys these forms of subsidies both at home and abroad -as I said, to the tune of - it's actually E557 billion a year according to the IEA and OPEC.

There is less VAT charged on agricultural fuel than automobile fuel in Ireland - another subsidy. Less taxes are paid on airplane fuel - another subsidy. There are hundreds of examples.


Every day SEAI receives 500 calls from members of the public enquiring about energy savings grants. They spend E1 million a day on these energy grants. SEAI recently carried out a survey of applicants and they found that 97% were happy with their grant and SEAI's performance. They will enjoy smaller heating bills and better comfort in their homes. A win-win.

That doesn't include the money spent on businesses. For every E1 they spend consulting with businesses, that business saves E15. They also run an Accelerated Capital Allowance scheme that allows large businesses to invest in energy saving upgrades. Intel uses up 2% of the energy on Ireland's national grid and they are involved.


I appreciate that and you are right and not being disingenous. Spain has higher because the larger the grid geography, the easier it is to integrate renewables. Put simply, you have more of a chance of wind blowing somewhere on your grid. This is why interconnection and proper spatial planning of wind together with dispatchable renewables like biogas are vital to maximise Ireland renewable electricity and therefore meet our climate change and other EU targets.

I'm sorry my PC is running very slow today but Eirgrid should have such data and SEAI would also have it in their Renewable Energy in Ireland statistics.


I fully accept that renewable electricity needs subsidies right now but so does every start up industry. The free education helped Ireland build its ICT and pharmaceutical industry with an educated population. The fossil fuel industry even today, 100 years after the discover of oil still receives massive subsidies and other benefits in the guise of relaxed regulations. I feel that renewable energy is a "must" not an "if" for Ireland if we are going to tackle energy security and climate change and is worth the subsidies.

If you look at Ireland's Outer Continental Shelf, we have a massive area of sea to our West. That is a natural source of wind power that we can harness for ourselves and to export to Europe. We can be, if you'll excuse the comparison, the Saudi Arabia of wind energy for Europe and we can create many, many jobs as we do it.

/Party broadcast over/

Would you quit with this business of "you don't know what a subsidy is".

First
- If a government owned entity invests in an oilfield, so that it can produce oil and generate a profit, this is not a subsidy its an investment.
- I never said it was ok or not ok, I just was trying to qualify (to put it politely) your €500bn of fuel "subsidies".

Second,
- an energy coupon (and i assume you mean for electricity rather than fossil fuels) is a subsidy to the poor, not a subsidy to the oil industry.
- it is true that tax is lower on airline fuel compared to 'at the pump'; this has nothing to do with subsidising the oil industry and everything to do with subsidising the airline industry: if country A charges fuel tax and country B doesn't then an airline will base itself at country A. See Ryanair as exhibit no. 1. The airlines will consume the fuel one way or the other.

Third
- Oil companies pay massive taxes in the developing world, especially Russia and Africa. Its often not directly in the form of taxes, but rather in the form of revenue share. Any asset they own is generally 50% owned with the govt, with arrangements whereby if the oil price rises above a particular level then the govt gets all of the upside (in addition to local corporation taxes paid). I don't know where you are getting this 'tax break' idea.

Fourth
- I was talking about renewable energy as a genuine economic proposition, and this was the key point of debate.
- The largest wind energy companies in the world, Iberdrola Renewables and so on, would be loss making, considerably so without subsidies. These are mature companies with generating capacity that exceed the entire grid capacity of Ireland. I suppose you are right in way, it is all to do with start up costs. The start up costs are huge, about €1.4mn per MW. But you can't just pretend the start up costs aren't there.
- I'm not against wind energy, far from it. I'm just point out that it is definitely not an economic proposition, anywhere

Fifth,
I take your point on the retrofitting grant scheme. Still, (and i didn't see it on the SEAI website) how many homes have been retrofitted? That is the key point. Have 5000 been retrofitted? That would represent 0.5% of homes in Ireland. So the retrofitting might take 0.05% off the entire gas/fuel bill for residential housing, assuming a 10% saving. Great they are doing it, great for the environment, but not relevant economically in the context of an €85bn IMF bailout.

Sixth, i checked Irelands wind energy capacity, its at about 15% of total grid capacity which is a lot more than I thought. The reason Spain has higher is because they have big open plains where they can plonk windmills. Ireland is more suit to wind energy in way because it is much windier here. But as you know, unfortunately the cost of offshore is prohibitive compared to onshore.
Anyway, its an interesting debate. Cheers.

Sponge Bob

Ireland has never had a more useless, arrogant, self important and utterly blinkered minister for communications than Eamon Ryan, the sooner he is gone the better. Even Jackie Healy Rae and his trusty sheepdog would together do a better job

Macha

Bill2673 wrote: »

Would you quit with this business of "you don't know what a subsidy is".

My apologies, I didn't mean to be rude. But I would argue that the definition of a subsidy can be quite wide.For example, social welfare fuel allowances represent a distortion of the price in the market that result in higher consumption than would otherwise, ie a price subsidy.

Other forms of subsidy include supporting R&D, tax exemptions, providing low-interest loans or guaranteeing loans. These are all mechanisms for support that a government can grant either to a business or an industry as a whole.

Bill2673 wrote: »

First
- If a government owned entity invests in an oilfield, so that it can produce oil and generate a profit, this is not a subsidy its an investment.
- I never said it was ok or not ok, I just was trying to qualify (to put it politely) your €500bn of fuel "subsidies".

-Capital transfers and government investment are a form of subsidy or state support. Plus state-owned companies often enjoy preferential access to mineral resources and land - another form of subsidy.
They're not "my" subsidies, they're the figures from a joint project between the International Energy Agency, the OECD, OPEC and the World Bank.

Bill2673 wrote: »

Second,
- an energy coupon (and i assume you mean for electricity rather than fossil fuels) is a subsidy to the poor, not a subsidy to the oil industry.
- it is true that tax is lower on airline fuel compared to 'at the pump'; this has nothing to do with subsidising the oil industry and everything to do with subsidising the airline industry: if country A charges fuel tax and country B doesn't then an airline will base itself at country A. See Ryanair as exhibit no. 1. The airlines will consume the fuel one way or the other.

-as discussed above, a distortion in the price of fuel is a price subsidy to the energy industry because it results in higher consumption than would otherwise have happened. If you look at the Irish social welfare system, there is a fuel allowance payment available for fuel used to heat the home. Most home heating in this country is based on fossil fuel (gas/oil boilers) not electric heating. And even most electricity in this country is generated from fossil fuels. There is also a Smokeless Fuel Allowance available.
-again, a price subsidy results in higher consumption than would otherwise happen. I accept fully that the airline industry benefits but I think you will agree that more flights is also good for the industry that fuels those airlines.

Bill2673 wrote: »

Third
- Oil companies pay massive taxes in the developing world, especially Russia and Africa. Its often not directly in the form of taxes, but rather in the form of revenue share. Any asset they own is generally 50% owned with the govt, with arrangements whereby if the oil price rises above a particular level then the govt gets all of the upside (in addition to local corporation taxes paid). I don't know where you are getting this 'tax break' idea.

-again, the fact that oil companies pay large taxes (based on large profits) does not preclude the fact that they benefit from tax breaks. You can't really generalise on ownership etc as above because subsidies and arrangements vary from country to country. For example, , Heritage Oil is in dispute with the Ugandan government right now because up until now, the Ugandan government has never obliged companies to pay tax on the sale of exploration rights. This is a form of tax break that the fossil fuel companies have enjoyed in Uganda and are fighting the government to maintain.

Bill2673 wrote: »

Fourth
- I was talking about renewable energy as a genuine economic proposition, and this was the key point of debate.
- The largest wind energy companies in the world, Iberdrola Renewables and so on, would be loss making, considerably so without subsidies. These are mature companies with generating capacity that exceed the entire grid capacity of Ireland. I suppose you are right in way, it is all to do with start up costs. The start up costs are huge, about €1.4mn per MW. But you can't just pretend the start up costs aren't there.
- I'm not against wind energy, far from it. I'm just point out that it is definitely not an economic proposition, anywhere

-Do you have any figures to back up the claim that Iberdrola, Vestas etc would be loss-making without subsidies? And in turn can you prove that many fossil fuel companies wouldn't be loss making without the subsidies they enjoy today. Given that the fossil fuel industry received E557 billion in 2009 versus the renewables industry receiving somewhere between E43 and E46 billion, I wouldn't be so sure.
- start up costs are definitely there! Another hurdle is that with renewables, because the fuel is effectively free 90% of the costs are in the construction phase. The other 10% is operation and maintenance. That means that renewables projects require large amounts of capital upfront, compared to fossil fuel generating plants that generally require less but have higher ongoing costs through fuel purchasing & o&m.
- I would argue that renewables can be an economically viable opportunity. It depends how widely and long-term you're willing to look. Consider the economic damage caused by volatile fuel markets. Our entire economy is run on fossil fuels and the price of everything shot up in 2007 when oil prices shot up. There is also the issue of energy security to consider. Ireland spends E6 billion a year on imported fuel. If we could reduce that bill and actually start exporting some energy, that would generate a significant amount of jobs and economic activity as well as reducing payments to other countries.

Let's also not forget that the countries we are giving this money to are places like Saudi Arabia, that perpetuate serious human rights abuses. In 'Hot, Flat and Crowded', Thomas Friedman demonstrates that the higher the price of oil, the greater the level of political oppression. Then there is the issue of climate change. I accept that these are not economic arguments but I do think them worthy of consideration.

Bill2673 wrote: »

Fifth,
I take your point on the retrofitting grant scheme. Still, (and i didn't see it on the SEAI website) how many homes have been retrofitted? That is the key point. Have 5000 been retrofitted? That would represent 0.5% of homes in Ireland. So the retrofitting might take 0.05% off the entire gas/fuel bill for residential housing, assuming a 10% saving. Great they are doing it, great for the environment, but not relevant economically in the context of an €85bn IMF bailout.

- Sorry I just checked and it's actually 98.5% of participants would recommend the Home Energy Scheme to another person. A majority felt the value of their home had increased after the retrofit.
-April 2009-Sept 2010, over 68,000 grants have been approved. There are about 1.9 million houses in Ireland but there is serious oversupply - as much as 200,000. This is merely an argument to increase the scale of the grants. Also, these grants do focus on the most cost-effective measures, such as insulation.
-I would add that this is just one of the schemes run by SEAI.

Bill2673 wrote: »

Sixth, i checked Irelands wind energy capacity, its at about 15% of total grid capacity which is a lot more than I thought. The reason Spain has higher is because they have big open plains where they can plonk windmills. Ireland is more suit to wind energy in way because it is much windier here. But as you know, unfortunately the cost of offshore is prohibitive compared to onshore.
Anyway, its an interesting debate. Cheers.

There are many reasons why Spain is higher, including their geography.They also have higher mountains. Most of their population lives by the coast, yes, leaving areas where few people live to put windmills. In Ireland, we've done a pretty good job of spreading ourselves out into a very dispersed population and there are regulations on how close you can put a wind turbine to a residential property. Plus there is more potential for local opposition, the more nearby residents you have.
-The cost of offshore is higher, but that is partly explained by the fact that isn't as mature a technology as onshore. Having said that, HVDC cables have been around for donkeys years with the first one being laid in the US from New York to LA under JFK's presidency. A lot can also be learned from the offshore oil industry, ironically enough, on the o&m of offshore installations. And when you consider the higher capacity factors of offshore, there is a very strong economic argument for Ireland investing in such technology.

Yes it is a very interesting topic.

sensibleken

Zero sympathy.

I gave them a vote because I agreed with their principles but more than anything it was because i wanted FF dead and gone.

They saved them from the fire so they can burn with them now for all i care.

Liam Byrne

sheesh wrote: »

first of all everything you say above is with the benefit of hindsight.

It was warned at the time. I rarely do indulge hindsight. If I evaluate everything at the time carefully and make a decision, then I live with it. If I deliberately ignore warnings at the time in making that decision, then it's my own fault.

sheesh wrote: »

I'm not supporting what they did I'm just pointing out the reasons that I feel some sympathy for them, some. can you please stop attacking me.

I am not attacking you, I am attacking your caveats.

If someone starts beating you up (initiating it) and I join in and without me joining in they couldn't have hospitalised you, you'd feel sympathy for me in court ?

sheesh wrote: »

I'm not saying they were good decisions. the were obviously bad. I would love to hear the advice that they were given that led them to take them.

Agreed. But the Sept 2008 meeting is wrapped in mystery and there has been no explanation of what criteria made the Government reckon what selected people were telling them was "the best advice available", and what made them ignore the other advice that was available.

sheesh wrote: »

Hello this is the politics forum its about politics. Politics is all about appearences. It certainly is never about doing the right thing.

Please dont tell me you think people get elected on policies. do you honestly think fianna fail got 3 consecutive terms on policies.

I believe that they should be elected on policies. I don't know how FF got 3 consecutive terms because even the appearances were sickening. Mind you, I do know that they got their third term with the help of The Greens.

sheesh wrote: »

During the last election they were putting themselves forward as the party of reform!!!

What they "put themselves forward as" has no bearing on reality - assuming that people evaluate the facts. Only those who go on appearances would fall for that.

sheesh wrote: »

You are obviously very angry (and rightly so, we are completely in the ****ter). If you cannot hold a reasonable debate on this tiny point of view there is no point in continuing.

I am holding a perfectly reasonable debate by stating facts.

LostinBlanch

Are we still debating this? Seriously?

Despite the facts that without the Greens continued* staunch support for corrupt/arrogant/incompetent/out of touch/whatever you're having yourself FF.

Without their support we wouldn't have had the bank guarantee that sunk the country or bailling out their developer friends in NAMA, you know the ones that are being paid salaries by NAMA to "manage" their loans, or who now will be able to purchase their assets back at knockdown prices via Shell Companies?

All this from a party that was previously against developers and their ravaging of the country? I remember seeing Pat Fitzpatrick, a longtime member of the Greens, asking on RTE "When did we become the developers bitches?"

Strangely enough, there was no answer from any of the Green hierarchy.

Getting back to sympathy, well any sympathy I have is saved for ordinary citizens of this state who are going to suffer to pay for Green choices to enable FF's corrupt, incompetent and disastrous behaviour. You know People:

• in mortgage arrears
• on the dole and the minimum wage
• pensioners
• anybody unfortunate enough to be need front line services
• kids in primary schools who have to be taught in rat infested prefabs.
• The extra 50% of people who have to go to Vincent De Paul in order to put food on the table.

But if any apologists prefer to whinge about how they were hard done by go ahead. Just don't expect much sympathy.

*Continued up until Monday - too little too late. You'd already damaged the country enough by then, and no attempt to save your hypocritical skins will ever work.

nacho libre

Drumpot wrote: »

Choices . .


Ok - Advice - Baring in mind that its transpired that the banks have been constantly lieing to us (not even in question) and that they have persistantly made it difficult to get definitive, credible information regarding the state they were in, why do people think that Lenihan was lieing when he could only go on the information he was passed?

I dont remember the opposition partys focusing on alternative strategies to get to the bottom figures and while they suggested alternative ways of dealing with the banks, they would of been lied to, just like our own government were and we would still of made decisions based on innacurate information given to whoever our government was. .

Cause and Effect -


you have a point that the banks may have lied to whichever party was in power, but it is a mistake to conclude we would have ended up in the same position irrespective of who was in power. i think a minister with a background in finance could have made a difference.
Also if a banking expert, like Peter Matthews, who has been spot-on in most his analysis of the banking crisis, was brought in an official capacity to find out exactly what was happening with the banks. I also am of the view someone like Bruton would have steered a different course had he been minister of finance, as he would have the knowledge to properly scrutinise advice given and the instinct to react in a positive way to what international players like standard and poor were saying. Unlike Fianna Fowl.
As it's in Fianna Fowls DNA to obfuscate and to dupe people. They have found out the hard way recently that while this may work on an OAP up in the wilds of Donegal, it doesn't work on a German investment banker with inquisitive eyes.
so, as i say, it's not fair to suggest the position we're in was inevitable because the banks were determined to dupe the political leadership.

oncevotedff

Wide Road wrote: »

Is there any sympathy for the Green party out there?

Absolutely none.

The next best thing to the demise of Fianna Fail will be the demise of the Greens.

Icepick

No sympathy.
They had a chance to bring down the government a long time ago. They deserve to disappear into obscurity.

mb1725

I suppose the Yellows will try to take the credit but anybody notice how our global warming has disappeared? I'm bloody freezing here! :mad: Another thing that has disappeared is Eamon Ryan's smirk, maybe there's a connection here.

Dempo1

mb1725 wrote: »

I suppose the Yellows will try to take the credit but anybody notice how our global warming has disappeared? I'm bloody freezing here! :mad: Another thing that has disappeared is Eamon Ryan's smirk, maybe there's a connection here.

Freezing here in the midlands too, not helped by the greens wonderful additional tax on my home heating oil fill this week. Not at all sure why that buffoon Gormless was at that 4 year plan announcement today, after he had his say (continuing to strees how wonderful the greens were in government) not a single Journalist asked him a question. Seems like he has become more irrelevant than he thought. This said, i would have enjoyed Vincent Browne giving him a tongue lashing.