What have the Greens ever done for us?

Koyasan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XILfkucV4-4

What have the Greens ever done for us?

Apparently one of their supporters in Galway put this together this afternoon.

Enjoy!:)

Koyasan

Sorry, I couldn't get this to work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XILfkucV4-4

c_man

Being part of a government that destroyed the country, making the people take on banking loses, bringing in the IMF etc.

Funny how they don't mention any of that. Won't be hearing too much from them after tomorrow anyways.

Tarobot

Boo to that c_man let's not pretend the Celtic Tiger policies never happened.

Credit where credit is due to the Greens.

c_man

Tarobot wrote: »

Boo to that c_man let's not pretend the Celtic Tiger policies never happened.

Nonsense. Of course the seeds of disaster were laid years ago, but do you think that the FF/Green/Ind. government handled the economic collapse of nearly 2 and a half years ago in an anyways competent manner?

Credit where credit is due to the Greens.

Not everything FF did was bad either, still won't be voting for them.

johngalway

Putting 10c a litre on fuel used to run the economy didn't exactly bleedin help.

What they should have done, was, promote alternatives and give tax breaks on the alternatives, instead of punishing people for using the only fuel available to most of the population. Blinkered? No, they had blindfolds on.

Tarobot

c_man wrote: »

Nonsense. Of course the seeds of disaster were laid years ago, but do you think that the FF/Green/Ind. government handled the economic collapse of nearly 2 and a half years ago in an anyways competent manner?

Actually, given the fact that FF/PDs policy meant no one in the government could have any decent grasp on what was going on in the banks, I think Greens as well as could be expected. Can't give FF the credit as it was their fault. FG & Sinn Fein supported the banking guarantee, and the decision was supported by Patrick Honohan's report.

c_man wrote: »

Not everything FF did was bad either, still won't be voting for them.

True, but they only took some of the unpopular but necessary measures because they were backed into a corner. They don't know how to do business in difficult economic times because their main MO is promising sun, moon & stars to everyone.

Anyway, I think the video is some light relief and better than FG's game that was cringeworthy and probably cost 1,000 times more than this.

johngalway - Greens are the only ones with any sort of long-term strategy on energy. You can complain about a 4c/litre rise now today but what about when the oil runs out tomorrow. No point focusing on the short-term - look where it got us?

steve9859

I think they built a bike lane somewhere just for bikes (although I cycle and I still dont know where it is - the buses use all the ones that I know!)

EKRIUQ

Carbon tax.
Some grant for bikes.
Light bulb tax and compulsory to buy more expensive bulbs.
Being lied to my a minister of communications about the state of broadband in the country.

That's all I can think off

thebaldsoprano

Tarobot wrote: »

Credit where credit is due to the Greens.

And how many insulation grants, wind turbines, rail corridors, bike-to-work schemes, broadband improvements, and recycling facilities would 34 billion get us?

The amount that they pissed away looking after Cowen's golfing buddies makes the other stuff look like a few token gestures, which is why I won't be voting for them.

barclay2

A better question is: what has "not being green enough" done for us?

Answer: The costs of business and living in Ireland far higher than they would have been. The examples below are copied and pasted from my post in another thread because it's more efficient (like being green generally)

Examples:

Our national energy costs would be far lower if: we’d developed a smart, extensive public transport system by now; we’d introduced better energy efficiency standards for our buildings; we'd had introduced stricter fuel economy standards for vehicles that are sold here. Overall our business environment would be more stable if we were less dependent on the volatile price of oil.

Our per-person costs of providing services such as sanitation, electricity, broadband, transport…..would all be lower if we had adopted smarter planning laws that prevented our population from being scattered across the landscape in a disjointed fashion.

Our national water costs would be far lower if: we had introduced water meters and conservation methods years ago; if we had adopted stricter water quality standards years ago so we wouldn’t still be spending millions cleaning pollution out of our water, and be open to EU fines for still not being up to standards.

The reason so many of our costs are too high is that Irish political parties have failed to grasp an important truth: that our environment and our economy are not separate things. They are two sides of the same coin. Minimising our environmental impact is not a cost to the economy, it is a cost-lowering exercise. Strict environmental standards don’t come at a net cost, they save money in the long run. Being pro-environment is something that yields a long-term competitive advantage. It makes economic sense."

We are now paying the costs for not being green enough over the last two decades. The Green Party were for a long time the only party talking about these issues.

That's what they've done for us. The problem is, we ignored them.

p.s. please don't reply saying "look at what they did, propping up Fianna Fáil etc etc." This has been covered at length in other threads.

johngalway

barclay2 wrote: »

Examples:

Our national energy costs would be far lower if: we’d developed a smart, extensive public transport system by now; we’d introduced better energy efficiency standards for our buildings; we'd had introduced stricter fuel economy standards for vehicles that are sold here. Overall our business environment would be more stable if we were less dependent on the volatile price of oil.

As a rural dweller I'm sick to the back teeth of the "public transport" magic solution to all our ills. Is efficient PT a good thing? Sure. Will it get me to work, or the next town/city over and back with the ease of private transport? No. It may work in high density area but not in the rest of the country. I pay a premium for living here on fuel costs, that's my choice.

barclay2 wrote: »

Our per-person costs of providing services such as sanitation, electricity, broadband, transport…..would all be lower if we had adopted smarter planning laws that prevented our population from being scattered across the landscape in a disjointed fashion.

I like living in a free country where I can decide where I want to live. I resent the notion that planners should dictate to me that as a rural dweller I must live in a village or town. I see this as ghettoisation of the countryside. I currently live in a village, some reasons I'd rather not:

It's full of boy racers
It's full of tourists
It's full of busybodies
In summer there are anti social festivals and weekends that disturb my peace and sanity

I own some land in the country side and I will eventually build a house there. I'll pay through the nose for all my services as most of them will be provided by myself anyway. The water was not long ago undrinkable, and as for services? What 'kin services? Private company provides my radio broadband, which I paid for it's installation and rent. I'll need to install my own mini treatment plant so have no need for sewerage facilities from the Council.

barclay2 wrote: »

Our national water costs would be far lower if: we had introduced water meters and conservation methods years ago; if we had adopted stricter water quality standards years ago so we wouldn’t still be spending millions cleaning pollution out of our water, and be open to EU fines for still not being up to standards.

A lot of people out side of the village have their own wells or are paying for group water schemes. Again, the council provided water was not safe, and is often brown/dirty, why would I pay for that "service" when I could provide my own through a local lake or a well.

Planners are often the problem, not the solution. Friend of mine wanted to build a house on his fathers land. His brother has a house farther up the land with a road leading to the main road. The council objected to the house on the grounds he HAD to provide his own exit onto the main road. Seeing as his site was 10 metres from his brothers road what sense did that make? I know on any stretch of road I'd far far prefer to have 10 houses coming out one road than 10 separate exits and entrances I'd have to be aware of vehicles entering and exiting.

bladespin

barclay2 wrote: »

p.s. please don't reply saying "look at what they did, propping up Fianna Fáil etc etc." This has been covered at length in other threads.

In fairness that's exactly what they did, selling out the values they were supposed to stand for, how can there be a thread like this without mentioning the very thing a whole generation will remember them for?

We should never allow them to forget that.

billyboy01

The Greens have done nothing for me or my area! Except make life in Ireland more, more and more expensive. With TAX, TAX, and more TAX!:mad::mad::mad::mad:

The Green Tax Party!:P:P:P:P

Triangle

bladespin wrote: »

In fairness that's exactly what they did, selling out the values they were supposed to stand for, how can there be a thread like this without mentioning the very thing a whole generation will remember them for?

We should never allow them to forget that.

Having monty python linked to the grren party is very symbolic

Tbh the biggest kick to me was selling their values and propping up a dysfunctional and unwanted government. I really have no time left for the current Green politicians where i used to have quite some time for them.
Hopefully better representitives come along to replace them.

barclay2

johngalway wrote: »

As a rural dweller I'm sick to the back teeth of the "public transport" magic solution to all our ills. Is efficient PT a good thing? Sure. Will it get me to work, or the next town/city over and back with the ease of private transport? No. It may work in high density area but not in the rest of the country. .

I'm not sure where I said it's a magic solution. Please show me.

But I am sure that you didn't disagree with what I said. All you said is that it doesn't apply to you because you live in a rural area. In fact, you went on to agree with me - "I pay a premium for living here on fuel costs, that's my choice". In other words, living without a decent public transport system drives up the cost of living. Agreed. None of what you've said contradicts what I said - a greener approach years ago would have meant our current national energy bill would be lower. (I also noticed you didn't disagree with my points on energy efficiency or fuel economy).

johngalway wrote: »

I like living in a free country where I can decide where I want to live. I resent the notion that planners should dictate to me that as a rural dweller I must live in a village or town. I see this as ghettoisation of the countryside. I currently live in a village, some reasons I'd rather not:

It's full of boy racers
It's full of tourists
It's full of busybodies
In summer there are anti social festivals and weekends that disturb my peace and sanity

I own some land in the country side and I will eventually build a house there. I'll pay through the nose for all my services as most of them will be provided by myself anyway. The water was not long ago undrinkable, and as for services? What 'kin services? Private company provides my radio broadband, which I paid for it's installation and rent. I'll need to install my own mini treatment plant so have no need for sewerage facilities from the Council.

Again, i notice that you haven't disagreed with what I said - that our planning laws resulted in a disjointed, scattered population distribution and that this resulted in a higher per-person cost of services. In fact, again, you went on to agree with me, and made a good point about how our water quality has declined - "I'll pay through the nose for all my services as most of them will be provided by myself anyway. The water was not long ago undrinkable"

All you've said, on top of agreeing with me, is that you don't like planning and you can get by without help from the council.

johngalway wrote: »

A lot of people out side of the village have their own wells or are paying for group water schemes. Again, the council provided water was not safe, and is often brown/dirty, why would I pay for that "service" when I could provide my own through a local lake or a well.

Planners are often the problem, not the solution. Friend of mine wanted to build a house on his fathers land. His brother has a house farther up the land with a road leading to the main road. The council objected to the house on the grounds he HAD to provide his own exit onto the main road. Seeing as his site was 10 metres from his brothers road what sense did that make? I know on any stretch of road I'd far far prefer to have 10 houses coming out one road than 10 separate exits and entrances I'd have to be aware of vehicles entering and exiting.

I didn't say you should pay for council water if you have your own source. If you don't want council water, don't use it and you won't have to pay for it - unless, that is, we maintain our current system instead of bringing in water meters. And again, you've agreed with me that we didn't take a green enough approach on our water supply and that we're now suffering as a result - "the council provided water was not safe, and is often brown/dirty, why would I pay for that "service" ".

As far as I can tell, you agree with everything I actually said.

bladespin wrote: »

In fairness that's exactly what they did, selling out the values they were supposed to stand for, how can there be a thread like this without mentioning the very thing a whole generation will remember them for?

We should never allow them to forget that.

Fair enough, you're of course entitled to bring it up and I shouldn't be surprised. My point was that i've been arguing about it on another thread titled "vote green" and some other ones for days now....I recommend you check it out if you have issues with the green party.

billyboy01

Triangle wrote: »

Having monty python linked to the grren party is very symbolic

Tbh the biggest kick to me was selling their values and propping up a dysfunctional and unwanted government. I really have no time left for the current Green politicians where i used to have quite some time for them.
Hopefully better representitives come along to replace them.

The Damage has been done, no second chances from me!:mad:

Dwellingdweller

What the Greens ever given us?
nutrition
ha ha :P

johngalway

You're missing the main point of what I've said. I have little problem with energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, good planning, etc. and so forth. In truth most people on this forum, besides the crazies, agree that these are good things.

The problem is the framework under which, or way in which, these policies and implemented. Using a stick rather than carrot approach is backwards and causes grave resentment. Consultation is far better than dictation.

PT is always put out by the GP as the solution to almost everything. Totally ignoring that there's SFA of it in rural Ireland. That shows a distinct lack of understanding of MOST of the country.

Again, with the cost of petrol/diesel, they hadn't the intelligence to push for attractive alternatives, they took the lazy and retrograde option of lashing on more tax.

Like it or lump it, oil transports and makes a LOT of the products and services in this economy. Driving those base costs upwards at the time we need them to be coming down is, frankly, stupid.

One thing which could have been done is research and find alternative fuels appropriate to drive cars etc. Govt then says, right lads, we take 60% (I think) tax out of your petrol etc. Use this new fuel and it's vehicles and we'll only take say 30% tax. But no, they didn't do that. They said right lads, we know ye're hurting so we're going to put 10c onto each litre and let ye suck on it.

johno2

johngalway wrote: »

Putting 10c a litre on fuel used to run the economy didn't exactly bleedin help.

What they should have done, was, promote alternatives and give tax breaks on the alternatives, instead of punishing people for using the only fuel available to most of the population. Blinkered? No, they had blindfolds on.

What kinda fuel are you using? It's 4.2c on petrol and 4.9c on diesel. It's going up in price has more to do with the happenings in North Africa than anything else.

johno

johngalway

johno2 wrote: »

What kinda fuel are you using? It's 4.2c on petrol and 4.9c on diesel. It's going up in price has more to do with the happenings in North Africa than anything else.

johno

I was of the belief that carbon tax put 10c on a litre?

Either way, it wasn't a helpful step for the economy, and it was the lazy unimaginative way out for the Govt at the time.

International oil price fluctuation isn't something we can do much about. Home policies on weaning people off oil, is.

CrowdedHouse

I drive a 3 litre car and it's just €302 to tax for the year - thanks Greens

johno2

johngalway wrote: »

I was of the belief that carbon tax put 10c on a litre?

Either way, it wasn't a helpful step for the economy, and it was the lazy unimaginative way out for the Govt at the time.

International oil price fluctuation isn't something we can do much about. Home policies on weaning people off oil, is.

After further investigation it is 8.75c on farm diesel, so you're not that far off with 10c. You drive a tractor right?

tbh, I think if it's a carbon tax which they said was gonna be €15 per ton of CO2, there should be no difference between auto diesel and farm diesel.

Back on topic, I think they tried to clean up some of the corruption in FF but failed miserably. They got Willie O'Dea sacked from cabinet for his perjury incident, but the FF machine took it out on Trevor Sargent a few days later with some underhand leaking of Garda documents.
I think it's a bit like a new employee joining a company that has been in business for years and trying to change the way they do things. The bosses just give them an office and a job to do and ignore everything else they say.

I also got a good belly laugh at the way they took down Cowen at the end. I suspect that making him look like a complete Clowen with his cabinet reshuffle was deliberately planned as revenge for his heavy-handed bumbling approach to his job.

johno

barclay2

johngalway wrote: »

You're missing the main point of what I've said. I have little problem with energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, good planning, etc. and so forth. In truth most people on this forum, besides the crazies, agree that these are good things.

The problem is the framework under which, or way in which, these policies and implemented. Using a stick rather than carrot approach is backwards and causes grave resentment. Consultation is far better than dictation.

Ok, correct me if i'm wrong. This sounds like you're saying that the government shouldn't be passing laws that you don't like, and that they should "ask" (consultation) people rather than pass laws (dictation). Do you think they should take the same approach in standing up to powerful vested interests?

They do consult - in election time. Parties make proposals, people can vote for them or not vote for them. That's democracy - not perfect, but the best we can do. Saying they should consult rather than actually govern sounds to me like a recipe for not actually doing anything.

johngalway wrote: »

PT is always put out by the GP as the solution to almost everything. Totally ignoring that there's SFA of it in rural Ireland. That shows a distinct lack of understanding of MOST of the country.

Page 24 of their 2011 election manifesto

"• Advance Phase 2 and progress planning for
Phase 3 of the Western Rail Corridor
• Complete all phases of the Navan Rail
Project."

Page 25

"Rural transport
• Work with Iarnrod Éireann to focus more
management attention on rural railway
lines. Apply the Community Rail Partnership
approach to the marketing of rural rail and to
link it with the Rural Transport Programme.
• Retain funding for the Rural Transport
Scheme. We will work with transport
providers to an integrated rural transport
network to ensure that all communities
have at least a minimum daily service,
proportionate to their population and
connecting where feasible with other
transport modes. Coordinate existing
transport resources more effectively through
the National Transport Authority.

johngalway wrote: »

Again, with the cost of petrol/diesel, they hadn't the intelligence to push for attractive alternatives, they took the lazy and retrograde option of lashing on more tax.

Like it or lump it, oil transports and makes a LOT of the products and services in this economy. Driving those base costs upwards at the time we need them to be coming down is, frankly, stupid.

Governments can no longer just look at the price of petrol in terms of something that has a big effect on commuters pockets each day. Across the EU, every nation has committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. This means accepting that petrol is a very serious pollutant and that this has to be reflected in its price.

Now, you can argue that Ireland should do the dishonourable thing and ditch our commitments to Europe or you can offer criticisms of the science of Climate Change. But to expect our government to drive down the cost of petrol is to expect them to ignore that petrol is internationally accepted as emitting a serious atmospheric pollutant, the effects of which will mostly be felt by our grandchildren.

johngalway wrote: »

One thing which could have been done is research and find alternative fuels appropriate to drive cars etc. Govt then says, right lads, we take 60% (I think) tax out of your petrol etc. Use this new fuel and it's vehicles and we'll only take say 30% tax. But no, they didn't do that. They said right lads, we know ye're hurting so we're going to put 10c onto each litre and let ye suck on it.

The greens have actually been ahead of other parties on promoting alternatives. In government they introduced the development of a nationwide electric car charging infrastructure by ESB, the supply of electric cars by the Renault-Nissan Alliance from 2011, and incentives to support the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. People who purchase electric cars can avail of a €5,000 grant and be exempt of vehicle registration tax.

Have other parties been better on the issue?

johngalway

johno2 wrote: »

After further investigation it is 8.75c on farm diesel, so you're not that far off with 10c. You drive a tractor right?

Nah, I don't make enough to be able to afford one. The ould lad has a restored MF 35. My aspiration is to someday be able to afford a quad!

johno2 wrote: »

there should be no difference between auto diesel and farm diesel.

I agree with you there, except I think there shouldn't be a tax on either Fuel is pricey enough and it's on the need list rather than want list for most people

johngalway

barclay2 wrote: »

Ok, correct me if i'm wrong. This sounds like you're saying that the government shouldn't be passing laws that you don't like

There endith my conversation with you. Reason being the above statement and me not reading further. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I value my time more than to be arguing with that kind of nonsense.

I've said my piece. You don't like it, that's your problem.

Tarobot

Oh everyone is for all these wonderful things like fuel efficiency and warmer houses but no one wants to pay anything extra for them today.

Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking that got us where we are today?

The way I see it, the Greens are the only ones to put their hands up and say "you know what? water costs money. Our high national dependency on imported fossil fuel is economically damaging. Yes, it will cost some money to transition to a lower-carbon economy but in the long run we will be better off and a more streamlined, efficient economy."

Let's look at the impact of the carbon tax on heating oil. Carbon tax started to apply kerosene, LPG, fuel oil and natural gas on May 1st 2010 despite being introduced in Budget 2010. This was to allow the winter to be over before it was implemented and give people a chance to put in place any energy efficiency measures like extra insulation etc. Plus a vouched fuel allowance scheme was introduced to offset the increases for low income families.

The actual carbon tax is 4.3c/litre of heating oil. When the carbon tax was introduced in May 2010, 1000 litres of heating oil cost about €660 so the carbon tax represented a 6.5% increase. 1000 litres now costs €780 (€737 without carbon tax), which represents a 12% increase since May 2010. So carbon tax is now about 5.5% of the price of heating oil.

So yes, carbon tax increased home oil prices by 6.5% but rising oil prices have pushed up prices twice as much as the carbon tax in 6 months. What are people going to do if heating oil goes up another 12%? It just hit a 20-month high of $120/bbl. Only the Green Party put money into improving home energy efficiency through insulation schemes and a grant scheme to help people replace old boilers and reduce costs and improve comfort in their homes.

Let's try and have a bit of long-term strategy in this country for once.

micro_dot

The day before we all vote, we should remember our own role in endorsing policies that end out slapping ourselves in the face.

The seeds for the mess we're in were sown by our votes long before the Greens got in. If you are speeding towards a brick wall, your survival depends on when you apply your brakes. Carbon tax, that's going down the swallow hole of the banks, on a guarantee clearly dictated by the EU. We expect Enda to stand up for us. He flies off to get his picture taken with a woman so risk-shy, when the Berlin Wall was falling, she was in the sauna, where her sweat wouldn't be noticed.

What have we ever done for us? Held a gun to our heads and said "Be careful, we'll shoot!" On Saturday, we will wake up to realise that, although the old crowd are gone, it is the old crowd that will replace them. Lipstick on a pig. Old wine in a new suit.

Monday morning, write a postcard to Enda c/o the Dail, telling him to dump the bank debt on his friend Angela asap. We should have done it ages ago. Then we get back to business.

bladespin

barclay2 wrote: »

Fair enough, you're of course entitled to bring it up and I shouldn't be surprised. My point was that i've been arguing about it on another thread titled "vote green" and some other ones for days now....I recommend you check it out if you have issues with the green party.

No thanks, I have no more interest in the greens than anyone else, tomorrow's results will show how exactly much that is.

Long term strategy, let's never waste our time on the greens again.

johno2

This is pretty funny and strangely on topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XILfkucV4-4

johno

EDIT: Sorry this is the same as the OP post

Koyasan

johno2 wrote: »

This is pretty funny and strangely on topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XILfkucV4-4

johno

EDIT: Sorry this is the same as the OP post

Don't apologise! As with many posts, this one has wandered off topic, so it's good to get back to it. I think what I like most about the video is that every claim can be supported and referenced. And not in a vague way. The Greens have no problem getting specific.

I read an opinion piece earlier though that made me think the Greens deserve even more credit than for their obvious achievements:

"Throughout Ireland’s history FF have caused many of the problems we have faced. Since 1977 especially, they have been responsible for deeply populist policy approaches, leaving subsequent governments to pick up the pieces. This time round the Greens kept them in place to try tidy up their own mess instead of letting the opposition parties tidy it up for them as usual. This they have actually endeavoured to do, making the tough and highly unpopular decisions to get Ireland’s public finances stable again, and have subsequently plummeted into the electoral abyss. If the Greens had pulled out in week one, they’d be getting off scot-free right now, and that just wouldn’t be right now, would it? As FF themselves acknowledge, the Greens have decimated FF (http://tinyurl.com/6gzuqog), and for that the Greens should be given some credit."