Green Party wish list.

Tell me how

Kivaro wrote: »

I really do have to put you on ignore .......

Could you maybe answer the question?

Tell me how wrote: »

Irelands government (FG led) signed up to PAris agreement.
In that, we committed to reducing our emmissions by a value which now equates to 7%/annum.
All the Greens are asking is that FG (or FF, or whoever) enact to achieve what it said it would.

Why do so many people spend so much time arguing that politicians should be held to account but then be so blase about a meaningful attempt to do so?

Water John

Over 250 farmers applied last year to join the Dpt of Ag Organic Scheme. Only 55 were allowed. That really tells you the underlying commitment of FG.

Shefwedfan

Kivaro wrote: »

I really do have to put you on ignore .......

Shefwedfan

Water John wrote: »

Over 250 farmers applied last year to join the Dpt of Ag Organic Scheme. Only 55 were allowed. That really tells you the underlying commitment of FG.

So you could say, the Green Party is actually supporting farmers more than FG have previously

Shefwedfan

Kivaro wrote: »

Well if that is the argument, Ireland's population was around 8 1/2 million 200 years ago and about 5 million now. So we've done our bit for the environment.

How in the world does the undue hardship on the people of Ireland in order to obtain the Green's 7% emission reduction target impact on what is happening in China, India and other much larger countries? It is easy to say that we can lead by example, and I might agree if the target was a lot less punitive on ordinary working Irish people.

CO2 per captia
China 8
Ireland 7.7
India 1.9

Calhoun

Kivaro wrote: »

Well if that is the argument, Ireland's population was around 8 1/2 million 200 years ago and about 5 million now. So we've done our bit for the environment.

How in the world does the undue hardship on the people of Ireland in order to obtain the Green's 7% emission reduction target impact on what is happening in China, India and other much larger countries? It is easy to say that we can lead by example, and I might agree if the target was a lot less punitive on ordinary working Irish people.

The big issues with these countries is that allot in the international green community want to give them a free pass to do what they want. Thats the whole concept of degrowth in the west, scale back the economies of the west while allowing the developing world grow.

The problem with that is people will not willingly put up with a a reduction in their quality of life and it will naturally lead to turmoil.

Its why the only way forward is with green policies linked to well thought out social policies.

Calhoun

Some additional CO2 information

The total level of CO2 emission by kilo Tonne.
1 China 10,291,926
2 United States 5,254,279
3 India 2,238,377
4 Russia 1,705,345
5 Japan 1,214,048

Few reports online showing similar for the overall tonneage. Interesting enough when you look at the biggest offenders by per capita China and India are very low compared to US, Australia ect.

What does this give an indication of? The discrepancy between the two i would say comes down to the quality of life in the different countries. I know India for example has a huge poverty issue and inequality.

So are we prepared to live in poverty to bring ourselves inline with those countries.

Water John

Calhoun, you may be inferring the wrong conclusion with your final question. India is low because of widespread subsistence living. This in no way can be used to conclude that to reduce our carbon footprint that we need to return to subsistence poverty.
Critically important that we use our knowledge to reduce our carbon footprint whilst actually improving our, quality of life.

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote: »

Some additional CO2 information

The total level of CO2 emission by kilo Tonne.
1 China 10,291,926
2 United States 5,254,279
3 India 2,238,377
4 Russia 1,705,345
5 Japan 1,214,048

Few reports online showing similar for the overall tonneage. Interesting enough when you look at the biggest offenders by per capita China and India are very low compared to US, Australia ect.

What does this give an indication of? The discrepancy between the two i would say comes down to the quality of life in the different countries. I know India for example has a huge poverty issue and inequality.

So are we prepared to live in poverty to bring ourselves inline with those countries.

That's a disingenuous statement. No one is advocating we step back, but that we find a way to move forward. Green advocates including someone whose name will trigger many on this thread have long said that what needs to happen is the development of technologies and solutions which will support the economies of the planet while being as sustainable as possible.

Shefwedfan

Calhoun wrote: »

Some additional CO2 information

The total level of CO2 emission by kilo Tonne.
1 China 10,291,926
2 United States 5,254,279
3 India 2,238,377
4 Russia 1,705,345
5 Japan 1,214,048

Few reports online showing similar for the overall tonneage. Interesting enough when you look at the biggest offenders by per capita China and India are very low compared to US, Australia ect.

What does this give an indication of? The discrepancy between the two i would say comes down to the quality of life in the different countries. I know India for example has a huge poverty issue and inequality.

So are we prepared to live in poverty to bring ourselves inline with those countries.

France: 5.0
Italy 5.8
UK 5.6


Are you suggesting these people live in poverty?

The UK one is really striking when you compare to Ireland

Calhoun

Tell me how wrote: »

That's a disingenuous statement. No one is advocating we step back, but that we find a way to move forward. Green advocates including someone whose name will trigger many on this thread have long said that what needs to happen is the development of technologies and solutions which will support the economies of the planet while being as sustainable as possible.

Is it any less disingenuous to link ranking numbers to push your own argument forward without going into the details of what makes those numbers reality?

Thats whats happening right now but i suppose its ok because it aligns with one particular argument?

I think its a valid item to highlight because in the green internationally (maybe not Ireland) the concept of western degrowth is something that has been coined and they would like to see come into place.

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote: »

Is it any less disingenuous to link ranking numbers to push your own argument forward without going into the details of what makes those numbers reality?

Thats whats happening right now but i suppose its ok because it aligns with one particular argument?

I think its a valid item to highlight because in the green internationally (maybe not Ireland) the concept of western degrowth is something that has been coined and they would like to see come into place.

There's a difference between listing numbers which are considered as fact and stating that the path to achieving a reduction is one which involves poverty which is what you implied.

Can you link where you have seen the Green party are advocating for degrowth?

Calhoun

Shefwedfan wrote: »

France: 5.0
Italy 5.8
UK 5.6


Are you suggesting these people live in poverty?

The UK one is really striking when you compare to Ireland

Well if you compare the GDP per capita there are more people in those countries living in poverty than in Ireland.

Calhoun

Tell me how wrote: »

There's a difference between listing numbers which are considered as fact and stating that the path to achieving a reduction is one which involves poverty which is what you implied.

Can you link where you have seen the Green party are advocating for degrowth?

As i said internationally and not really Ireland. The only visible sign of it from an Irish perspective is motion 13 below from Dublin bay south.

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Convention-2019-Web-Version.pdf

Water John

The're are other movements which choose to piggy back on reducing carbon footprint to push their own agenda. Vegans and Rewilders would be two.

Calhoun

Water John wrote: »

Calhoun, you may be inferring the wrong conclusion with your final question. India is low because of widespread subsistence living. This in no way can be used to conclude that to reduce our carbon footprint that we need to return to subsistence poverty.
Critically important that we use our knowledge to reduce our carbon footprint whilst actually improving our, quality of life.

Exactly and that's why green zealots need to be held to account, its so easy to get lost in a figure of 7% without having a concrete plan on how we are going to get there without impacting our quality of life.

Not saying anyone in this thread is like this just saying why there is allot of dislike for greens. If its a win-win situation i don't think there will be a problem.

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote: »

As i said internationally and not really Ireland. The only visible sign of it from an Irish perspective is motion 13 below from Dublin bay south.

https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Convention-2019-Web-Version.pdf

Here is the motion

That the Green Party adopts a policy of supporting a move away from Economic Growth & Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to Degrowth, or Steady State Economy as a stepping stone in the near future, to ensure a sustainable future for us all on the planet.

Rationale: You cannot have constant economic growth on a finite planet. An annual growth of 3% will double the economy in 23 years. We have not decoupled economic growth from greenhouse gas emissions and the natural world resource depletion. Economic growth via consumerism is leading to runaway climate change and mass extinctions in nature.
The level of world GDP at present is more than sufficient to support workers with a living wage around the world, and certainly in the West. The problem is gross inequality where the rich are getting richer, and some insanely rich, and the poor are getting poor. We need to spread current GDP’s more equably among citizens.

I think it has to be viewed in it's context to understand that the Green Party are not advocating reverting to prehistoric times or anything like that.

Right now, we are all comfortable with signs in shops saying to limit the purchase of some goods to one or two per customer because we recognize that that resource should be more equally shared.
Is that not a prudent approach in terms of the worlds resources?

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote: »

Exactly and that's why green zealots need to be held to account, its so easy to get lost in a figure of 7% without having a concrete plan on how we are going to get there without impacting our quality of life.

Not saying anyone in this thread is like this just saying why there is allot of dislike for greens. If its a win-win situation i don't think there will be a problem.

This is a fairly long thread, but I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

https://twitter.com/gavnugent/status/1256274370512723970

The FG government signed us up to the Paris Agreement. Why do you want to hold the green zealots to account, but not them?

Shefwedfan

Calhoun wrote: »

Well if you compare the GDP per capita there are more people in those countries living in poverty than in Ireland.

It’s best just to leave you after that statement

Calhoun

Tell me how wrote: »

Here is the motion



I think it has to be viewed in it's context to understand that the Green Party are not advocating reverting to prehistoric times or anything like that.

Right now, we are all comfortable with signs in shops saying to limit the purchase of some goods to one or two per customer because we recognize that that resource should be more equally shared.
Is that not a prudent approach in terms of the worlds resources?

Who says we are comfortable with it? the signs are to stop panic buying and over purchase because people are reacting with fear.

When it becomes standard that we will all be getting less then how will people react then especially when you know that the more wealthier will just be able to purchase their way out of it.

Degrowth is not something i think would fly regardless of who puts it in place. It may not mean a return to pre-historic things but look at what happened in the 2008 recession and all the hurt that was caused there.

Just and edit to say i appreciate that in the quote you linked the greens write it that makes it sound like the little people wont be impacted but i don't believe them because of their past performance.

Calhoun

Tell me how wrote: »

This is a fairly long thread, but I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

https://twitter.com/gavnugent/status/1256274370512723970

The FG government signed us up to the Paris Agreement. Why do you want to hold the green zealots to account, but not them?

I have more confidence in a party like FG as they don't consider **** like degrowth.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It’s best just to leave you after that statement

Off you go so back to the circle jerk and sniping.

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote: »

I have more confidence in a party like FG as they don't consider **** like degrowth.

Again, you are being disingenuous. The reference to degrowth in the article you referenced was of a very narrow focus where overuse is rife and anyone reading that motion would understand the focus was on promoting a balanced sustainable society, not dismantling of everything which currently exists.

It seems bizarre that you can say you have confidence in FG who are passing the buck to the Greens on something which they signed up for but have failed to implement.

Shefwedfan

Calhoun wrote: »

Exactly and that's why green zealots need to be held to account, its so easy to get lost in a figure of 7% without having a concrete plan on how we are going to get there without impacting our quality of life.

Not saying anyone in this thread is like this just saying why there is allot of dislike for greens. If its a win-win situation i don't think there will be a problem.

How is it going to affect your quality of life?

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote: »

Who says we are comfortable with it? the signs are to stop panic buying and over purchase because people are reacting with fear.

When it becomes standard that we will all be getting less then how will people react then especially when you know that the more wealthier will just be able to purchase their way out of it.

Degrowth is not something i think would fly regardless of who puts it in place. It may not mean a return to pre-historic things but look at what happened in the 2008 recession and all the hurt that was caused there.

Just and edit to say i appreciate that in the quote you linked the greens write it that makes it sound like the little people wont be impacted but i don't believe them because of their past performance.

Again, this indicates that they are being held to a higher standard than FG or FF have been done.
I agree, that if they say something, they should aim for that and be held to account for that but it's not fair that they be dismissed out of hand when again, they are only trying to achieve something which FG signed us up to.

Calhoun

Tell me how wrote: »

Again, you are being disingenuous. The reference to degrowth in the article you referenced was of a very narrow focus where overuse is rife and anyone reading that motion would understand the focus was on promoting a balanced sustainable society, not dismantling of everything which currently exists.

It seems bizarre that you can say you have confidence in FG who are passing the buck to the Greens on something which they signed up for but have failed to implement.

Degrowth for me has a very negative connotation because of how it has been talked about on an international stage. The problem with Ireland is we copy popular terms and policies from abroad so you may say its being disingenuous but based on the arguments internationally is why i would be fearful.

The would have been best served keeping away from the term all together, it doesn't take much to muddy the water when it comes to talking about the greens.

Tell me how wrote: »

Again, this indicates that they are being held to a higher standard than FG or FF have been done.
I agree, that if they say something, they should aim for that and be held to account for that but it's not fair that they be dismissed out of hand when again, they are only trying to achieve something which FG signed us up to.

FF and FG have been plenty slated over the past couple of months, the election did not go well for them. Like it or not they have a spectre following them from the last time they were in government but they also come with baggage of some of the climate protests over the last year.

Look at the optics just from an article written today (Indo), the Tánaiste makes a comment that he would not agree to a 7% reduction if it decimated rural Ireland. The deputy leader has come out saying she finds his comments shocking and disturbing, from an optics perspective it just looks like the greens will sacrifice parts of society to meet those targets.

Water John

It's Coveney made the pitch and Catherine Martin was just pushing back.
He was playing either hardball or disruptor.

Tell me how

Calhoun wrote: »

Look at the optics just from an article written today (Indo), the Tánaiste makes a comment that he would not agree to a 7% reduction if it decimated rural Ireland. The deputy leader has come out saying she finds his comments shocking and disturbing, from an optics perspective it just looks like the greens will sacrifice parts of society to meet those targets.

Water John wrote: »

It's Coveney made the pitch and Catherine Martin was just pushing back.
He was playing either hardball or disruptor.

I've a lot of time for Simon Coveney, think he was/is excellent representative for the country on Brexit and think he's comments this morning were not entirely unreasonable.

But, he needs to see getting to 7% per annum reductions as something which the government must deliver on.

They said they would do it, they need to be asked how, or why not.

Rows Grower

Tell me how wrote: »

I've a lot of time for Simon Coveney, think he was/is excellent representative for the country on Brexit and think he's comments this morning were not entirely unreasonable.

But, he needs to see getting to 7% per annum reductions as something which the government must deliver on.

They said they would do it, they need to be asked how, or why not.

I'm sure he'll take your opinion on board and treat it with the respect it deserves at these crucial times.

Calhoun

Water John wrote: »

It's Coveney made the pitch and Catherine Martin was just pushing back.
He was playing either hardball or disruptor.

Maybe she softened what she said by explaining that rural Ireland wont be decimated but allot of people are not going to research if she did and allot of hay will be made of it.

Tell me how wrote: »

I've a lot of time for Simon Coveney, think he was/is excellent representative for the country on Brexit and think he's comments this morning were not entirely unreasonable.

But, he needs to see getting to 7% per annum reductions as something which the government must deliver on.

They said they would do it, they need to be asked how, or why not.

From the reading of it he perfectly baited Catherine into it, sure he should answer what the plan is but the response in return should have been more measured.

Water John

Catherine Martin is from Monaghan. I'm sure she's aware of the importance of agriculture in Ireland. Agriculture was really funked in the present Govn't Climate Action Plan. It's a conversation that must be had. How can we reduce the carbon footprint of our farm output? With scientific research and imagination it can be tackled.