The Healy Raes

Thelonious Monk

mgn wrote: »

Is that you Eammon, if not, he must have a clone, this is the same type of nonsense he would come up with.

Better still, go and visit a few fishing towns around the country and run that by them to see what the think of your plan.

Ok let's carry on as is and destroy the seas. Also fishing is a tiny part of our economy, and some things are more important than jobs.
It's just incredible that people think we can carry on doing things the same way.

TaurenDruid

SlowBlowin wrote: »

As you, by your own admission, did not understand much of what was said, let me summarise.

MHR thinks its unwise to ban something when there are no alternatives in place.

You disagree so do enlighten me, you said:

"Something something making concrete? Something something batteries? Something something trawlers? There are, of course, solutions to all of those."

OK so using your own logic, lets ban them now, like peat is banned, can you explain the alternatives to cement production or deep sea fishing ? What are the alternatives you boast of ?

My guess is you will not explain the alternatives, as they don't exist today, and just fire more irrelevant questions.

Thing is - nobody is actually proposing banning making concrete or sea fishing. MHR is just claiming they are.

And his scaremongering about concrete production would have nothing whatsoever to do with the HR plant-hire business? (Were they his JCBs in the video, or the brother's?)

What alternatives will MHR be proposing as and when we have actually run out of oil but because of him an people like him, have failed to plan for it and have just kept on building diesel JCBs? (rhetorical question - obviously, he doesn't give a ****, he regards it as someone else's problem.)

Rows Grower

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Thing is - nobody is actually proposing banning making concrete or sea fishing. MHR is just claiming they are.

And his scaremongering about concrete production would have nothing whatsoever to do with the HR plant-hire business? (Were they his JCBs in the video, or the brother's?)

What alternatives will MHR be proposing as and when we have actually run out of oil but because of him an people like him, have failed to plan for it and have just kept on building diesel JCBs? (rhetorical question - obviously, he doesn't give a ****, he regards it as someone else's problem.)

The world isn't going to run out of oil.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

You're very wrong I'm afraid. Aside from your car dependence and environmentally damaging lifestyle everything, down to policing, ESB repairs to deliveries are infinitely more damaging and more expensive in areas with one off housing compared to urban areas.

Take your post for example. A diesel van delivering post to a few houses, taxed, insured, serviced, CVRT'd, scrapped when out of commission etc... expensive to the tax payer and bad for the environment.

My post man delivers to hundreds of houses on a bicycle. Massively more efficient, incomparably cheaper and much better for the environment.

Absolute uninformed nonsense, do some reading up old boy.

It might be convenient for you to think you are being green in the city but look around. Comparing our postie's van to your bicycle is playground stuff.

https://www.seai.ie/publications/Dublin-City-Baseline-Report.pdf

TaurenDruid

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Absolute uninformed nonsense, do some reading up old boy.

It might be convenient for you to think you are being green in the city but look around. Comparing our postie's van to your bicycle is playground stuff.

https://www.seai.ie/publications/Dublin-City-Baseline-Report.pdf

Ah - glad to see you found the SEAI's website, anyway. You might pass the address on to MHR.

TaurenDruid

Rows Grower wrote: »

The world isn't going to run out of oil.

Not soon enough, anyway.

SlowBlowin

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Ah - glad to see you found the SEAI's website, anyway. You might pass the address on to MHR.

Go on then read and do the maths, dont forget to add in the docks and airport.

mr potato head

There's a lot of "us and them" b****ks on this thread, in reality a country the size of Ireland is extremely interdependent on both urban and rural communities for our future.

We all have to change, whether that's farming practices, data centres, eating habits, transport or housing stock retrofits.
The Healy Reas and other ludites (urban and rural) are only looking at the short term, in reality we are really just stealing from future generations to maintain our current lifestyles and habits. The resulting collapse from failure to act will be far worse for them than us!!

The "we've always done X and will keep doing X" doesn't fly anymore, there is glaring evidence we are screwing our landscape and children over with our actions.

And the "Ireland is only small" argument is weak too, we can do two things... 1) innovate and be the small agile economy providing solutions and best practice to the rest of the world. 2) we can put pressure on laggards by showing a willingness and ability to change, rather than being laggards ourselves.

To do that we each have to make changes, support others to make changes and ultimately pay our way.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Absolute uninformed nonsense, do some reading up old boy.

It might be convenient for you to think you are being green in the city but look around. Comparing our postie's van to your bicycle is playground stuff.

https://www.seai.ie/publications/Dublin-City-Baseline-Report.pdf

Ah, I see where you're confused!! Absolutely, Dublin as a whole pollutes the air, but individually, urban dwellers are much kinder on the environment than rural dwellers.

Here's another simple example;
Picture 5000 people travelling home from work in electric trains.
Picture 5000 people travelling home from work individually in diesel cars.

Which do you think pollutes more?

I actually did a bit of work for the SEAI last year and they confirmed that urban living has less of an impact on the environment. Rural, car dependent living isn't good at all. Very expensive on all of us to support it and not good for the environment.

Bad for the economy as well with the growing rural obesity problem along with people shunning towns for outlet shopping affecting local businesses and the economy. Post offices, butchers, Garda stations etc... all being shut down.

You're going to see it get more difficult to build one of houses now, mark my words.

Rows Grower wrote: »

I thought those bikes were done away with as they were unsuitable for the volume of deliveries?

Incorrect. They're still used along with cargo bikes.

https://ibb.co/59y66Y8

Thelonious Monk

The mail def gets delivered in Dublin 5 by bicycle anyway, think they're just pedal powered though

TaurenDruid

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The mail def gets delivered in Dublin 5 by bicycle anyway, think they're just pedal powered though

Letter post everywhere in Dublin (outside the city centre) is delivered on pushbike - if not, it's down to the preference of the individual.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

Ah, I see where you're confused!! Absolutely, Dublin as a whole pollutes the air, but individually, urban dwellers are much kinder on the environment than rural dwellers.

Here's another simple example;
Picture 5000 people travelling home from work in electric trains.
Picture 5000 people travelling home from work individually in diesel cars.

Which do you think pollutes more?

I actually did a bit of work for the SEAI last year and they confirmed that urban living has less of an impact on the environment. Rural, car dependent living isn't good at all. Very expensive on all of us to support it and not good for the environment.

Bad for the economy as well with the growing rural obesity problem along with people shunning towns for outlet shopping affecting local businesses and the economy. Post offices, butchers, Garda stations etc... all being shut down.

You're going to see it get more difficult to build one of houses now, mark my words.



Incorrect. They're still used along with cargo bikes.

https://ibb.co/59y66Y8

Look at my post they do not include all the figures as I laid out, all the info is available in their reports, Dublin, the docks, the airport, the industrial infrastructure.

I am saying go after the low hanging fruit, if you had a bucket with a small hole and a big hole, I guess you would fix the small hole first then..

I live in a very rural location, I make my own electricity, I grow my own food, I shop local and buy local produce, and I burn a bit of peat, and I could not give a flying ***k weather your postman has a bike or not.

Add up the cost of my lifestyle, compare it to the costs of consumer culture.

So you ban Irish peat - Buy it from Germany - Ship it on diesel powered ships to the docks - Sell German peat to the same people that were buying the Irish peat, and that is better for Ireland because the CO2 is emitted outside our shores..

And you all think this is a great idea - fine, thats your opinion.

SlowBlowin

I am going to go through the reports, do the maths, and post it on this thread as soon as I am done, probably tomorrow..

Add up add the infrastructure(as detailed in the original post)/population by area.

I think it will show rural living is more sustainable than city living, if i am wrong it will show in the data.

Thelonious Monk

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I live in a very rural location, I make my own electricity, I grow my own food, I shop local and buy local produce, and I burn a bit of peat, and I could not give a flying ***k weather your postman has a bike or not.

Add up the cost of my lifestyle, compare it to the costs of consumer culture. =

To be fair most rural people just go to lidl and aldi or supervalu or whatever, buy furniture and house stuff from the usual places and consume the same as people in cities.
How you can think rural living is more sustainable is beyond me. That means you think if everyone moved out of the city cities and lived in one offs and drove everywhere, it would be better for the land and for emissions? Really?
I'm not having a go at you but the fact is clustered communities is a better way of managing resources for a population.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

It's just incredible that people think we can carry on doing things the same way.

Fishing is one of the places where we can’t carry on. But fishing can be managed.

As I said before, on the topic of planes, nothing is going to be acceptable if it only affects normal workers.

SlowBlowin

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

To be fair most rural people just go to lidl and aldi or supervalu or whatever, buy furniture and house stuff from the usual places and consume the same as people in cities.
How you can think rural living is more sustainable is beyond me. That means you think if everyone moved out of the city cities and lived in one offs and drove everywhere, it would be better for the land and for emissions? Really?
I'm not having a go at you but the fact is clustered communities is a better way of managing resources for a population.

Its the infrastructure that surrounds and services them, that's the point. The restaurants, shops, shops, pubs, buses, roads, docks, offices, factories, airports, on and on.

As you said people in rural settings have an Aldi, Supervalu and Lidl.

Thelonious Monk

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Its the infrastructure that surrounds and services them, that's the point. The restaurants, shops, shops, pubs, buses, roads, docks, offices, factories, airports, on and on.

As you said people in rural settings have an Aldi, Supervalu and Lidl.

But all of those things are available to people rurally too. Like I have a friend who lives in Laois beside Stradbally, works near the M50, drives each way, apart from that he lives a similar life to myself.
How is that better?
People wear the same clothes and buy the same things all over Ireland.
Docks and roads? These are there for the entire country! How do you think all the beef and dairy you produce gets around?
Everyone in Ireland uses Dublin airport.
Sorry but your argument isn't thought through very well.

SlowBlowin

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

But all of those things are available to people rurally too. Like I have a friend who lives in Laois beside Stradbally, works near the M50, drives each way, apart from that he lives a similar life to myself.
How is that better?
People wear the same clothes and buy the same things all over Ireland.
Docks and roads? These are there for the entire country! How do you think all the beef and dairy you produce gets around?
Everyone in Ireland uses Dublin airport.
Sorry but your argument isn't thought through very well.

We are specifically talking about the comments made by MHR & Kerry rural lifestyle.

We grow the beef and dairy, perhaps you should drive over and get some instead, how is that better ?

I have not been out of Kerry in 2 years, if it was that easy to get to Dublin MHR would be in the Dail every day !

We disagree on who uses most resources, someone living in Dublin, or someone living in a rural cottage. Anyway I am going to try and prove myself wrong with the data for you.

gourcuff

dublin isnt really a sustainable city, its low density sprawling estates and bog standard semi-ds, awful public transport, mainly car dependant, awful air pollution, its beaches and coastal areas destroyed by e-coli and raw sewage getting pumped out..

at least compare to a sustainable city if you are going to go on that line of argument.

SlowBlowin

mr potato head wrote: »

There's a lot of "us and them" b****ks on this thread, in reality a country the size of Ireland is extremely interdependent on both urban and rural communities for our future.

We all have to change, whether that's farming practices, data centres, eating habits, transport or housing stock retrofits.
The Healy Reas and other ludites (urban and rural) are only looking at the short term, in reality we are really just stealing from future generations to maintain our current lifestyles and habits. The resulting collapse from failure to act will be far worse for them than us!!

The "we've always done X and will keep doing X" doesn't fly anymore, there is glaring evidence we are screwing our landscape and children over with our actions.

And the "Ireland is only small" argument is weak too, we can do two things... 1) innovate and be the small agile economy providing solutions and best practice to the rest of the world. 2) we can put pressure on laggards by showing a willingness and ability to change, rather than being laggards ourselves.

To do that we each have to make changes, support others to make changes and ultimately pay our way.

Its difficult to argue with such a well worded and eloquent post.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the the "support others to make changes", in fact I think that is essential, but something that is lacking with decisions like the peat ban, no support seen here.

Things need to change, and that's in part why I live like I do, but why not make changes that will make a difference (peat ban will result in increased emissions).

I hate the fact that in Dubai you get light bulbs that use halve the electricity of ours, and last a life time. But they are not allowed to be sold in other countries as it destroys the current LED light bulb market.

I hate that ships keep their engines running in dock as opposed to a compulsory hook up, pumping fumes (heavy oil full of so2).

I hate that Government still has fleets of diesel buses, vans and cars.

I hate that most data centre heat is not recycled.

These are all easy wins and dwarf the peat ban in term of emissions, and there are countless others.

There are so many things that could be done to help that are not, which, unlike the peat ban, would result in significant reductions in CO2.

Support is the key, help people change, the implementation of the peat ban had no support.

Thelonious Monk

gourcuff wrote: »

dublin isnt really a sustainable city, its low density sprawling estates and bog standard semi-ds, awful public transport, mainly car dependant, awful air pollution, its beaches and coastal areas destroyed by e-coli and raw sewage getting pumped out..

I agree, but the countryside is even worse, is the argument. One off housing sprawl is worse than the urban sprawl of semi Ds, and in the countryside they are even more car dependent.
The quality of waterways has plummeted nationwide in the past decades, that's a problem everywhere.
Anyway as a previous poster said, if we are going to take the sustainability and climate change and biodiversity thing properly, we all have to change somewhat.
I still think money will trump everything and we'll do nothing, so we don't need to worry too much.

TaurenDruid

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I am going to go through the reports, do the maths, and post it on this thread as soon as I am done, probably tomorrow..

Add up add the infrastructure(as detailed in the original post)/population by area.

I think it will show rural living is more sustainable than city living, if i am wrong it will show in the data.

So say it's 48 hours later you've gone through the reports, done the maths, and it says that rural living consumes 15% more fuel and generates 18% more CO2 than clustered or urban living, for the average 4.6 person household.

Or it says the opposite, that rural living consumes 15% less fuel and generates 18% less CO2 than clustered or urban living.

And we go over your figures and point out you've left off (say) school transport, or commutes by rural dwellers who work inside the M50, or you concede that actually, yes, the Rosslare and Dublin Port emissions should be averaged across the population, because we all need imports and exports.

What then?

Ok, you'll have "proven" that rural dwelling is more damaging to the environment. Or that it's less damaging.

But. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Whether you're in the city, or halfway up a mountain, we are all in this together, and we all have to reduce our energy consumption and carbon emissions.

I don't know what's so hard about that to grasp.

Unless, of course, you don't give a fig for your kids' or grandkids' futures, if you have any. The HR's have nine between them, so, you'd imagine they'd be a little bit concerned for the future of the planet?

If they are - and despite MHR saying he accepts the reality of global warming, even if Danny reckons it's all down to god - then surely they have to do more than attack every single proposal that might make a difference?

/looks at donkey
/gets no answer

No, I didn't think so either.

SlowBlowin

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So say it's 48 hours later you've gone through the reports, done the maths, and it says that rural living consumes 15% more fuel and generates 18% more CO2 than clustered or urban living, for the average 4.6 person household.

Or it says the opposite, that rural living consumes 15% less fuel and generates 18% less CO2 than clustered or urban living.

And we go over your figures and point out you've left off (say) school transport, or commutes by rural dwellers who work inside the M50, or you concede that actually, yes, the Rosslare and Dublin Port emissions should be averaged across the population, because we all need imports and exports.

What then?

Ok, you'll have "proven" that rural dwelling is more damaging to the environment. Or that it's less damaging.

But. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Whether you're in the city, or halfway up a mountain, we are all in this together, and we all have to reduce our energy consumption and carbon emissions.

I don't know what's so hard about that to grasp.

Unless, of course, you don't give a fig for your kids' or grandkids' futures, if you have any. The HR's have nine between them, so, you'd imagine they'd be a little bit concerned for the future of the planet?

If they are - and despite MHR saying he accepts the reality of global warming, even if Danny reckons it's all down to god - then surely they have to do more than attack every single proposal that might make a difference?

/looks at donkey
/gets no answer

No, I didn't think so either.

WOW - how you like to move goal posts.

Don't forget this started following your statement

"how do you square your desire to burn fossil fuels, cheaply, with the fact of climate change being caused by burning fossil fuels?"

I would say that was pointing the finger, no "we are all in this together".

How would you like it if your gas was turned off with a cost effective alternative, please if you are going to be unreasonable, be consistent.

MHR said he knew change was needed, but we need to find solutions found first, and asked how are we going to do it. If the peat ban was anything to go by then solutions are not being found, and support is not offered.

mr potato head

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I hate the fact that in Dubai you get light bulbs that use halve the electricity of ours, and last a life time. But they are not allowed to be sold in other countries as it destroys the current LED light bulb market.

You might like Crushing and hacking LED lamps by bigclivedotcom, he also looks at some of the Dubai LEDs on his channel

Unfortunately, your lower impact approach is not representative of most rural households, they have poor insulation, oil fired heating, don't grow their own food or generate their own power, they a handful of ICE cars sitting outside, one for each family member.

I've done as much as I can do to reduce my impact while living in a suburban area, House retrofitted from E3 to A1 standard, one car household (EV) with commuting mainly by bikes for wife and myself (150-200km car driving / week saved when not in lockdown) and will fit solar this summer once we have finished saving to offset the house and car.
I can honestly say I'm better off in almost every way, time, health and financially when compared to 5/6 years ago when we started investing in change. I've lived in higher taxation countries, I am willing to pay extra tax to support change but I would say I'm in the minority!

None of the changes I've made or that you have made would be unachievable in a rural townland setting, but resistance to change under the guise of protecting rural Ireland is what the Healy Raes represent.

Unfortunately, the removal of peat industry is the sort of thing that's hard to find an alternative use for the land until you rewild the area and maybe generate tourism, so it comes with a lag time. I've been involved in a couple of initiatives trying to find funding to reskill people in the midlands and funding is hard to access to support it, maybe that's what the Healy Raes should be shouting about.

SlowBlowin

mr potato head wrote: »

You might like Crushing and hacking LED lamps by bigclivedotcom, he also looks at some of the Dubai LEDs on his channel

Unfortunately, your lower impact approach is not representative of most rural households, they have poor insulation, oil fired heating, don't grow their own food or generate their own power, they a handful of ICE cars sitting outside, one for each family member.

I've done as much as I can do to reduce my impact while living in a suburban area, House retrofitted from E3 to A1 standard, one car household (EV) with commuting mainly by bikes for wife and myself (150-200km car driving / week saved when not in lockdown) and will fit solar this summer once we have finished saving to offset the house and car.
I can honestly say I'm better off in almost every way, time, health and financially when compared to 5/6 years ago when we started investing in change. I've lived in higher taxation countries, I am willing to pay extra tax to support change but I would say I'm in the minority!

None of the changes I've made or that you have made would be unachievable in a rural townland setting, but resistance to change under the guise of protecting rural Ireland is what the Healy Raes represent.

Unfortunately, the removal of peat industry is the sort of thing that's hard to find an alternative use for the land until you rewild the area and maybe generate tourism, so it comes with a lag time. I've been involved in a couple of initiatives trying to find funding to reskill people in the midlands and funding is hard to access to support it, maybe that's what the Healy Raes should be shouting about.

Thats what I find frustrating, regarding climate change it is down to the individual to research and finance change themselves.

The examples I mentioned would be quick to implement and are already proven, yet all we get is further research and inaction, or plans that only seek to set goals with no way of achieving them. A brave, decisive government could make those changes and see results immediately, but its too uncomfortable for them.

I am pretty sure if I didn't live in Kerry, I would hold the same view as you on the HRs. However I have seen the other siide of the coin, the one not represented in the media and although I don't agree with everything, they are in my opinion the best vote for my friends, neighbours, Kerry and me. As for Ireland, I have so little faith in the mainstream parties, especially the greens, that I am not concerned about my local vote, all I see is government inaction.

Thanks for the link on the bulbs, I think its criminal that engineered obsolesce is allowed/tolerated while government talks about how we can save the planet.

SlowBlowin

Look at that, I got the thread back on track, I was expecting a derailment.

Rows Grower

mr potato head wrote: »

You might like Crushing and hacking LED lamps by bigclivedotcom, he also looks at some of the Dubai LEDs on his channel

Unfortunately, your lower impact approach is not representative of most rural households, they have poor insulation, oil fired heating, don't grow their own food or generate their own power, they a handful of ICE cars sitting outside, one for each family member.

I've done as much as I can do to reduce my impact while living in a suburban area, House retrofitted from E3 to A1 standard, one car household (EV) with commuting mainly by bikes for wife and myself (150-200km car driving / week saved when not in lockdown) and will fit solar this summer once we have finished saving to offset the house and car.
I can honestly say I'm better off in almost every way, time, health and financially when compared to 5/6 years ago when we started investing in change. I've lived in higher taxation countries, I am willing to pay extra tax to support change but I would say I'm in the minority!

None of the changes I've made or that you have made would be unachievable in a rural townland setting, but resistance to change under the guise of protecting rural Ireland is what the Healy Raes represent.

Unfortunately, the removal of peat industry is the sort of thing that's hard to find an alternative use for the land until you rewild the area and maybe generate tourism, so it comes with a lag time. I've been involved in a couple of initiatives trying to find funding to reskill people in the midlands and funding is hard to access to support it, maybe that's what the Healy Raes should be shouting about.

I'd say you'd be surprised how many of us in rural Kerry are growing our own vegetables, rearing our own meat, poultry, producing honey, wine etc.

I can tell you for a fact that when we built our house here in south Kerry in 2008 Mike and his father Jackie knew all about the advantages of solar panels and importance of BER ratings because even though I had researched both they were still able to give me some very good advice when I met them so you're totally wrong when you surmise they are resistant to change.

I don't get this hating on oil thing myself, there's loads of oil, we're not going to be running out of it. I think it's brilliant that I can set a timer and have a hot house or water in the depths of winter with no mess and no fuss. If Eamonn and the Greens don't like it I couldn't care less. He drives a big ****ty diesel anyway and is probably monged out of his head half the time while preaching to the rest of us, I drive a hybrid, try to be as self sufficient as is comfortable and that's my choice. Everyone can do what they want, but it's a fact that oil is an essential part of our economy.


We all pay tax but some of us get more bang for our buck than others, public transport is an obvious example, subsidised by everyone but is practically non existent in rural Kerry and other parts of rural Ireland. That has some distinct disadvantages and some not so obvious to urban dwellers advantages. It was our choice to move here so we're not disappointed there is no bus down the end of the lane to take us anywhere but it would be nice to have the option of a bus or a taxi home after a nice meal out and a couple of drinks with herself or a few pints watching a match with the lads. These occasions have to be carefully planned and can cost a bit more, c'est la vie.

There's a lot of people cast judgement on the Healy-Raes and the people that vote for them without knowing one blessed bit about either. That's fine too, it's actually very amusing to see some of the comments people come out with. There are some great people posting on this forum and there are some head the balls that think they could do any job better than anyone else. There's lads on one of the forum's I read that should be in charge of not only running America but everywhere else too such is their ability to do advanced searches on Google and regurgitate useless drivel to suit their point of view. The same lads wouldn't work to keep themselves warm. But hey, that's their choice and good luck to them.

I know a few of the Healy Raes and each one you meet will always stop for a chat and not just when there's an election around the corner, they're basically a very hard working, nice family. They're an easy target for people to ridicule but their record in elections is phenomenal and that's a fact.

John_Rambo

Rows Grower wrote: »

there's loads of oil, we're not going to be running out of it

We started running out of oil when we opened the first barrel.

mr potato head

Rows Grower wrote: »

I'd say you'd be surprised how many of us in rural Kerry are growing our own vegetables, rearing our own meat, poultry, producing honey, wine etc.

I don't doubt it, and we should be encouraging more growing of food and I'm not having a go at the people of Kerry. What I am arguing is that we aren't doing enough to encourage the change that's needed in the country and that includes Kerry.

Rows Grower wrote: »

I know a few of the Healy Raes and each one you meet will always stop for a chat and not just when there's an election around the corner, they're basically a very hard working, nice family. They're an easy target for people to ridicule but their record in elections is phenomenal and that's a fact.

I'm sure are the "Eamonn and the Greens" are the same that you straight away switch over to insult them. I'm not a green anyhow and there are some policies of theirs I wouldn't agree with, but it doesn't mean that all of their approaches are written off straight away.

I acknowledge that the Healy Raes are hard-working, they wouldn't be in the positions they all are if they weren't. They are also very smart in their business positioning and networking. That potential conflict of interest doesn't sit well with me, I don't know how true it is, but it seems too close for my liking.

What I don't agree with is their methods, I feel that they put on an act in the Dail that does Kerry no favours in the rest of Ireland. I understand they are elected to represent their constituents, but they are intentionally abrasive, divisive and anti-science.

They made some good suggestments for amendments, for example I agree with the 0% VAT rate on insulation. But it will get lost in the shouting and ignored because of how they communicated it.

Rows Grower

mr potato head wrote: »

I don't doubt it, and we should be encouraging more growing of food and I'm not having a go at the people of Kerry. What I am arguing is that we aren't doing enough to encourage the change that's needed in the country and that includes Kerry.


I'm sure are the "Eamonn and the Greens" are the same that you straight away switch over to insult them. I'm not a green anyhow and there are some policies of theirs I wouldn't agree with, but it doesn't mean that all of their approaches are written off straight away.

I acknowledge that the Healy Raes are hard-working, they wouldn't be in the positions they all are if they weren't. They are also very smart in their business positioning and networking. That potential conflict of interest doesn't sit well with me, I don't know how true it is, but it seems too close for my liking.

What I don't agree with is their methods, I feel that they put on an act in the Dail that does Kerry no favours in the rest of Ireland. I understand they are elected to represent their constituents, but they are intentionally abrasive, divisive and anti-science.

They made some good suggestments for amendments, for example I agree with the 0% VAT rate on insulation. But it will get lost in the shouting and ignored because of how they communicated it.

When Eamonn and the Greens got a sniff of a seat at the big table by a fluke of circumstances they didn't give two tupenny fcuks about the people who voted for them or what was coming at the people of Ireland. The hierarchy of a party that was on the verge of imploding before the election creamed themselves at the thoughts of being relevant again and sold what very little was left of their integrity for one last shot at a place for their personal snout's at the trough.

The party has since imploded and true to form sold the people of rural Ireland down the swanee. I read their manifesto before the general election and actually wondered had their site been hacked.

You mention being smart in business dealings and networking like it's a bad thing or not something to be proud of. I'll be perfectly honest, I'd much rather have a smart person that is excellent at networking and dealing with all sorts of people day in day out answer the phone to me if I have a question that I need help with.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest if every now and then I hear the sound of a machine or tractor working during the day or a herd of animals being looked after early in the morning or late in the evening when I am looking for help.

What matters is I know that the phone will be answered and I will get an honest answer. It might be "Leave that with me and I'll sort that out as best I can and be back to you" or it might be "Leave that with me, I don't know for sure if I can do anything but I will find out and get back to you" whatever it is they always get back and usually within days if not sooner.

This is a family that have been under the glare of the national media for decades, they don't claim that they won their money on a horse or got a loan off a plasterer friend or never had a bank account. They're straight up hard workers, make no bones about it.

I'm confident any current or former elected politician in this country as well as anyone who ever got work done by them or worked for them will acknowledge that.

TaurenDruid

Nobody is denying they're hard workers. Some of the "work" isn't the work they're elected to do, and they shouldn't be doing. Some of the "work" is networking/canvassing/electioneering - going to every funeral in the county, for example. But every politician's first job is to get re-elected, but that's a bit blatant. Some of the work they get credit for is stuff people should be able to sort for themselves by calling their local Citizens Information Office or council - but Danny and Michael will happily "look into it for you" and then pass on the info they already knew. And sure, that's a service they're providing - even if it's not the one they're elected for.

What I don't agree with is their methods, I feel that they put on an act in the Dail that does Kerry no favours in the rest of Ireland. I understand they are elected to represent their constituents, but they are intentionally abrasive, divisive and anti-science.

Exactly! It's like I've said before on this thread - they give a great show of bluster "up dere in Dublin" and it sells very well down home.

They made some good suggestments for amendments, for example I agree with the 0% VAT rate on insulation. But it will get lost in the shouting and ignored because of how they communicated it.

Did they? Good for them! That 0% VAT for insulation is an excellent proposal (and I wouldn't even care if MHR had an insulation factory all teed up to start producing on a back road in Kilgarvan). But it's the first I heard of it, tbh. Their fans think we'd rather see them ranting in the Dáil (and that's all it was, an incoherent rant), or sitting around in a museum, talking to donkeys...

mr potato head

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Some of the "work" is networking/canvassing/electioneering - going to every funeral in the county, for example. But every politician's first job is to get re-elected, but that's a bit blatant. Some of the work they get credit for is stuff people should be able to sort for themselves by calling their local Citizens Information Office or council - but Danny and Michael will happily "look into it for you" and then pass on the info they already knew. And sure, that's a service they're providing - even if it's not the one they're elected for.

It's a more expensive county councilor rather than TD.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Did they? Good for them! That 0% VAT for insulation is an excellent proposal (and I wouldn't even care if MHR had an insulation factory all teed up to start producing on a back road in Kilgarvan)

It was a good suggestion, I'd like to see more of this from them. I've no problem with them arguing for evidence-based policy that also happens to benefit their area and the nation.
In fact, the whole West coast can be the energy heart of Ireland and lead a renewable transition.

As a country, we have a very strong track record in agri-tech and we should be looking at how we can support smaller farms in transitions to low-impact evidence-based methods.

Maybe by adding a levy on data centre energy use and using it to support farmers to implement low impact practices or I offering a top-up for feed-in tariffs for farms.

Instead, we get finger-pointing at China and shouting down other TDs. Any in Kerry we are seeing substantial gorse fires which have been part of traditional clearing practices that they support which have destroyed habitats for Kerry's already decimated wildlife populations.

Thelonious Monk

mr potato head wrote: »

Any in Kerry we are seeing substantial gorse fires which have been part of traditional clearing practices that they support which have destroyed habitats for Kerry's already decimated wildlife populations.

Saw this yesterday in the Kingdom. Destroying these things is part of rural life though isn't it, it's sickening.

https://twitter.com/IrishRaptorSG/status/1385639449913139203

mr potato head

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Destroying these things is part of rural life though isn't it, it's sickening.

I wouldn't say it's part of rural life, but it is an all too common occurrence around the country and too easily accepted as a normal

It's a reflection of a few things:

• Traditionalist "we have always done it this way" farmers who refuse to change. They give farmers a bad name, the majority of whom are responsible and working to make a living. The unfortunate thing is that the laws to prosecute have no teeth and these criminals are not called out or reported even when their identity is known.
• A failure of us as consumers to pay a fair amount for farmed goods and to request that it is the producers who get fair pay and not just the middle man (factories/grain merchants etc.). This is pushing farmers to the edge of a living wage, which results in some breaking the law or cutting corners.

We can't solve one without the other, make it more profitable (or only profitable) to produce goods responsibly and come down like a tonne of bricks on those for break the law or damage the environment.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I am going to go through the reports, do the maths, and post it on this thread as soon as I am done, probably tomorrow..

Add up add the infrastructure(as detailed in the original post)/population by area.

I think it will show rural living is more sustainable than city living, if i am wrong it will show in the data.

I take it this is proving harder than you thought. When you "do the math" you realise that if everyone in cities upped sticks, ditched the DART, ditched the LUAS, ditched the buses and bikes, got themselves a one off house with an ICE car per person, drove to school, work, shops, college etc... you realise the country has turned in to one massive spread out housing estate that's impossible to service, difficult to heat and police, clogged with ICE cars and is very environmentally damaging.

Sometimes the big smoke is actually better than millions of little smokes. That's leaving aside the cultural epicentres of the country which are the cites and the advantages they bring to the country.

SlowBlowin

You make it sound that I am suggesting that everyone from the cities move to the countryside, not at all, stupid idea.

I am responding to the accusation made on here that rural living is more harmful, something I think is incorrect.

Too sunny today to be on the PC, I also have a battery issue.

Sharpyshoot

Those battery tractors and the slurry.

SlowBlowin

Thinking about MHRs comments, do you think rural homes in Ireland should have any access to a carry home fuel ?

A fuel that can be bought or delivered from the local shop.

If yes what fuel would you suggest, if no how would you support the current users of carry home fuels ?

Currently over 100,000 Irish homes are heated this way.

Atlantic Dawn

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Thinking about MHRs comments, do you think rural homes in Ireland should have any access to a carry home fuel ?

A fuel that can be bought or delivered from the local shop.

If yes what fuel would you suggest, if no how would you support the current users of carry home fuels ?

Currently over 100,000 Irish homes are heated this way.

The problem is the Green's have people thinking like bloody idiots, you see people believing pumping €70k to retrofit a 1970's 3 bed with heat pump and fancy insulation being a good idea. When the maths books are taken out and you see that currently that house spends circa €1500 a year on heat via oil/gas you can see that those living in it will be long dead before the €70k project starts to save a single Euro.

SlowBlowin

Yes I was reading some reports about fuel use in Ireland, and it dawned on me the subject of the peat ban could be simplified as in terms of "carry home fuel".

The data shows that where the infrastructure is available the most efficient fuel is being largely used, with the exception of the midlands where peat is historically popular.

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/enfo/irelands-environment/the-built-environment/insulation-and-resource-u/current-home-energy-consu/

It seems unlikely that anyone would condone the eviction of 100,000 families from their homes (peat users 5.3% of Irish households), so an alternative is required. That is either another fuel, or something else.

I wonder what the other fuel or "something else" peat ban supporters would suggest.

In terms of other fuels I can not see anything that would generate significantly less CO2, although I have only looked at imported coal (inc import CO2) and wood.

I terms of something else there would be a considerable increase in carbon footprint implementing gas or oil installs which would not recover their co2 manufacturing and install footprint for many many years (estimate > 10 +years).

Like many things it gets a lot more complex the more you look at it.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

You make it sound that I am suggesting that everyone from the cities move to the countryside, not at all, stupid idea.

I know it's a stupid idea because it would be incredibly detrimental to the environment.

Why do you agree with me when you're convinced that car dependent & dispersed housing serviced rural living is better for the environment?

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

I know it's a stupid idea because it would be incredibly detrimental to the environment.

Why do you agree with me when you're convinced that car dependent & dispersed housing serviced rural living is better for the environment?

Because I think you are wrong, in the same way I think you are wrong about peat.

I don't think we should disperse cities because that's too stupid to entertain.

Care to answer my question on the carry home fuel ?

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

I know it's a stupid idea because it would be incredibly detrimental to the environment.

Why do you agree with me when you're convinced that car dependent & dispersed housing serviced rural living is better for the environment?

This idea of everyone move is your idea and its stupid so needs no discussion, you will be talking euthanasia to save co2 soon.

We are discussing MHRs views on the peat ban and climate change bill.

TaurenDruid

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The problem is the Green's have people thinking like bloody idiots, you see people believing pumping €70k to retrofit a 1970's 3 bed with heat pump and fancy insulation being a good idea. When the maths books are taken out and you see that currently that house spends circa €1500 a year on heat via oil/gas you can see that those living in it will be long dead before the €70k project starts to save a single Euro.

So don't retrofit the home.

Some time passes. Now the owners are long dead and the new owners are left with a home that's still pumping out CO2 to heat. But hey, the original owners don't care, they're dead - not their problem. It's their kids' or grandkids' problem... (may not be a problem for too long if the house is only a few meters above sea level).

That right there is why we're in the situation that we are...

Rows Grower

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So don't retrofit the home.

Some time passes. Now the owners are long dead and the new owners are left with a home that's still pumping out CO2 to heat. But hey, the original owners don't care, they're dead - not their problem. It's their kids' or grandkids' problem... (may not be a problem for too long if the house is only a few meters above sea level).

That right there is why we're in the situation that we are...

You make it sound like we are all in a situation of impending doom.

We're not.

SlowBlowin

Is the carry home fuel question too difficult ?

It would be nice to know your suggestions ?

mr potato head

SlowBlowin wrote: »

If yes what fuel would you suggest, if no how would you support the current users of carry home fuels ?

SlowBlowin wrote: »

In terms of other fuels I can not see anything that would generate significantly less CO2, although I have only looked at imported coal (inc import CO2) and wood.

It's a challange, the only way to replace a carry home fuel like turf and not just create another problem is to use an existing waste source of some kind. Wood bricks from an existing waste stream rather than timber cut for that purpose could be one option, but do we have enough and how much energy to process it?

Just because it's a difficult challenge, doesn't mean it can be ignored and we can carry on regardless. I would put the challenge ahead is of the same magnitude as the original electrification of the country.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The problem is the Green's have people thinking like bloody idiots, you see people believing pumping €70k to retrofit a 1970's 3 bed with heat pump and fancy insulation being a good idea. When the maths books are taken out and you see that currently that house spends circa €1500 a year on heat via oil/gas you can see that those living in it will be long dead before the €70k project starts to save a single Euro.

Where did you get that number? I spent far less than that on a deep retrofit going from E3 > A1 on a 1960s build. I now spend about €1000-1200 all in on light, heat and charging a car. Once I'm finished saving for it I'll add solar to the system and that will drop again.

The big difference is the comfort of the home, before the retrofit we would have evenings under blankets and a feeling of pouring money down the drain to keep the house comfortable.

Rows Grower wrote: »

You make it sound like we are all in a situation of impending doom.

We're not.

Are we not? even if climate change wasn't real, which it sounds like you are suggesting?
Oil prices are only going one way, failure to act is only going to drive people at risk further into energy poverty. Retrofits and renewables are a way of reducing long-term energy poverty in low-income households.

We just need to agree on a way to support the transition, then we will have fewer people living in sub-standard housing and more control over our energy independence as a country.
0% VAT on building supplies for retrofit, 0% government loans for work. Maybe approach retrofits like council housing and cover the work with a buyback clause on the % invested (We bailed out the banks, this is a chance to bail out the people). I can keep thinking and am open to discussion, but make no mistake, this is going to be a multigenerational transition!

SlowBlowin

mr potato head wrote: »

It's a challange, the only way to replace a carry home fuel like turf and not just create another problem is to use an existing waste source of some kind. Wood bricks from an existing waste stream rather than timber cut for that purpose could be one option, but do we have enough and how much energy to process it?

Just because it's a difficult challenge, doesn't mean it can be ignored and we can carry on regardless. I would put the challenge ahead is of the same magnitude as the original electrification of the country.

That's MHRs point, he understands change is going to happen, but why not plan, and as you said, support the 100,000 families that will have to find a solution.

The net result is people who were using peat, now switch to coal, CO2 increases, and from a CO2 emissions standpoint its been a disaster.

All this when there are proven easy wins available for CO2 reduction.

I believe this is called making decisions based on the plans carbon toeprint and not the wider footprint.

John_Rambo

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Because I think you are wrong, in the same way I think you are wrong about peat.

You're the one that's wrong. Rural living is worse for the environment. Car dependant people spread out over a large area instead of more condensed areas with services is better, we all know that, anyone that says other is a fool.

What is it about peat that I'm wrong about?

SlowBlowin wrote: »

I don't think we should disperse cities because that's too stupid to entertain.

Exactly, it would be an environmental disaster if everyone were to live a rural lifestyle.

SlowBlowin wrote: »

Care to answer my question on the carry home fuel ?

You didn't ask me one.

SlowBlowin

John_Rambo wrote: »

You're the one that's wrong. Rural living is worse for the environment. Car dependant people spread out over a large area instead of more condensed areas with services is better, we all know that, anyone that says other is a fool.

What is it about peat that I'm wrong about?



Exactly, it would be an environmental disaster if everyone were to live a rural lifestyle.



You didn't ask me one.

You just don't understand all the facts are there for you, you don't consider the wider implications of an urban lifestyle.

There is a huge infrastructure in cities that rural people rarely use, just going out and buying a pair of shoes emits more carbon than me burning peat for a few weeks. Go and have a look at the data its there for all.

I asked a question of the thread, did you not see it ?