Green Party wish list.

Feisar

BarryD2 wrote: »

That's some bleak vision for rural Ireland. Have you driven through parts of France - devoid of people, villages crumbling away. Where there is farming - huge fields, mechanisation, industrial farming.

This is the Green Achilles heel, policies all largely about city & town living.

It's a far cry from the Green Party that I knew back 30 years ago. Which was largely rooted around environmental issues. Now the Greens are happy to wreck the environment with massive industrial wind machines and all the infrastructure needed to build and sustain these.

I drove from Paris to a WW1 graveyard in Alsace, the lack of people was scary, I was lucky to get diesel at one stage.

Fann Linn

Feisar wrote: »

I drove from Paris to a WW1 graveyard in Alsace, the lack of people was scary, I was lucky to get diesel at one stage.

Like northern Ireland on a Sunday.

McMurphy

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Stick 10 euro each way to use the road for trucks and see what they use....

Tell me what percentage of traffic on the route is trucks v cars?

Has there ever been a problem the greens don't think can be sorted by just lobbing a levy or a tax onto it?

Tell me how

political analyst wrote: »

I don't see how the Greens can regard culling Ireland's herd of cattle to reach the emissions target of 7% as feasible. Of course, cattle emit methane by "breaking wind", but so do humans. To adhere to the Greens' demand is like saying there should be a cull of humans to reduce emissions.

Ok. That's your solution. A much more difficult message to try to get public bye in on I would expect, but still, this is what you think should be done.

How would you go about bringing this about if you were asked to do so? Please be clear, some hard core observers here will want a clear plan along with costings, feasibility studies and consideration of potential hurdles.

Huntergonzo

political analyst wrote: »

I don't see how the Greens can regard culling Ireland's herd of cattle to reach the emissions target of 7% as feasible. Of course, cattle emit methane by "breaking wind", but so do humans. To adhere to the Greens' demand is like saying there should be a cull of humans to reduce emissions.

The Greens couldn't give a monkeys about farming, their 17 demands didn't mention support for the agri-sector once which is very telling.

Over-population of humans is a problem though, a perpetual rise in the world's population is unstainable.

But you don't hear this mentioned much by politicians or our 'friends' in the media because it's not particularly popular but proper family planning will have to be taken more seriously in the near future.

Huntergonzo

McMurphy wrote: »

Has there ever been a problem the greens don't think can be sorted by just lobbing a levy or a tax onto it?

Haha will this is it, Green Party policy to solve a problem:

Plan A: impose tax/levy

Plan B: increase tax/levy

Plan C: ban it

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha will this is it, Green Party policy to solve a problem:

Plan A: impose tax/levy

Plan B: increase tax/levy

Plan C: ban it

Do you think action is needed?
How would you try to bring it about in a meaningful way?

political analyst

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok. That's your solution. A much more difficult message to try to get public bye in on I would expect, but still, this is what you think should be done.

How would you go about bringing this about if you were asked to do so? Please be clear, some hard core observers here will want a clear plan along with costings, feasibility studies and consideration of potential hurdles.

Maybe there's no need to bring it about at all.

We don't have a reliable method of knowing how much methane is emitted by herds of cows here and there!

I know the smell of farting, whether its by humans or by cows, is unpleasant but it dissipates.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think action is needed?
How would you try to bring it about in a meaningful way?

Action on what? Give me some examples.

Tell me how

political analyst wrote: »

Maybe there's no need to bring it about at all.

We don't have a reliable method of knowing how much methane is emitted by herds of cows here and there!

I know the smell of farting, whether its by humans or by cows, is unpleasant but it dissipates.

Ok, so you don't think there is an issue with current practices negatively influencing the climate.

The vast majority of scientists working in this area disagree with you, but you are entitled to your opinion. It doesn't match up with the documented proof though, just so you know.

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Action on what? Give me some examples.

Not sure what you are doing on the thread if you are unfamiliar with the core focus of the Green Party.

Do you think action is needed in relation to current human practices negatively impacting on the environment in a non-sustainable way?

If so, what actions would you propose for an Irish government in order to correct this?

bilbot79

I wrote to my local green TD asking them to compromise on the 7% a bit. I think the greens need to win trust if their policies are to be bought into by the public. They have to shake this 'crackpot' image by being reasonable

Tell me how

bilbot79 wrote: »

I wrote to my local green TD asking them to compromise on the 7% a bit. I think the greens need to win trust if their policies are to be bought into by the public. They have to shake this 'crackpot' image by being reasonable

What was your thoughts when the FG led government signed Ireland up to the Paris Agreement? It is this agreement which is dictating the need to target 7% reduction at this point.

What target for emissions reduction would you be happy with committing to?

How do you think these should be achieved?

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Not sure what you are doing on the thread if you are unfamiliar with the core focus of the Green Party.

Do you think action is needed in relation to current human practices negatively impacting on the environment in a non-sustainable way?

If so, what actions would you propose for an Irish government in order to correct this?

Haha condescending smartárse, nothing unusual for you though in fairness, quite to form actually, you'd swear you worked in radio ;-)

Nope I think we're grand, stop taxing farmers, eat as much meat as you can, drive a big diesel engine to your heart's content and most importantly, never ever listen to loony lefty Newstalk 106 ;-)

Anyway, you're the resident genius on Boards, tell us all how it's done, use 'facts' and figures and all that good stuff.

bilbot79

Tell me how wrote: »

What was your thoughts when the FG led government signed Ireland up to the Paris Agreement? It is this agreement which is dictating the need to target 7% reduction at this point?

What target for emissions reduction would you be happy with committing to?

How do you think these should be achieved?

I'm not as familiar with the specifics as some others but it feels like the 7% is a bridge too far right now. I'd be happy to see a lot of change like electric cars, more cycling, re-wetting boglands, creating Sitka spruce forests and what that gets you to however destroying agriculture and the economy for the sake of the 7% is a terrible idea

Nothing will sink the green cause more than a bad economy. There needs to be some clever thinking and collaboration to get the best possible compromise.

Goals need to be SMART with the emphasis on A for achieveable and R for realistic.

I think the most important thing right now is to prove to the public that green policies will not destroy their lives. Achieving engagement from the people is the only thing that will ultimately save the planet and destroying their livelihoods is absolutely the wrong way to go about it

Tell me how

bilbot79 wrote: »

I'm not as familiar with the specifics as some others but it feels like the 7% is a bridge too far right now. I'd be happy to see a lot of change like electric cars, more cycling, re-wetting boglands, creating Sitka spruce forests and what that gets you to however destroying agriculture and the economy for the sake of the 7% is a terrible idea

Nothing will sink the green cause more than a bad economy. There needs to be some clever thinking and collaboration to get the best possible compromise.

Goals need to be SMART with the emphasis on A for achieveable and R for realistic.

I think the most important thing right now is to prove to the public that green policies will not destroy their lives. Achieving engagement from the people is the only thing that will ultimately save the planet and destroying their livelihoods is absolutely the wrong way to go about it

I agree with most of your points here.

I think the Greens are aware of the importance of the economy, but they feel that for too long action on climate issues has been piecemeal and insufficient.

If FG had tried to implement practices to aid the emissions situation when their government had signed up to the Paris agreement, we wouldn't be talking about 7% now. But, they didn't so we are, and if we don't achieve this, then we will be talking about 8% or 9% or greater.

And I know some will be of the view that the whole world is currently in a crisis and when the pandemic situation subsides, the focus will be on the economy and that any climate concerns will have to wait their turn.

But, the scientists are adamant that we cannot afford to wait before we start acting. 6 months ago, no one would have thought that the world cut shut down as it has done, but that has happened, people saying that there is no time for climate concerns, or that alleviating those concerns are ignoring the possibility that this could be an opportunity to rethink the focus of the economy and to tie sustainability in to that focus.

One final point I would try to draw your attention to, this shouldn't be falling on the Greens shoulders to come up with a SMART plan, it should be on everyone who is in or aspires to be in Government. FF/FG are getting way too much of a pass on this with the Green party having to carry the can for both feasibility and any potential impacts.

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha condescending smartárse, nothing unusual for you though in fairness, quite to form actually, you'd swear you worked in radio ;-)

Nope I think we're grand, stop taxing farmers, eat as much meat as you can, drive a big diesel engine to your heart's content and most importantly, never ever listen to loony lefty Newstalk 106 ;-)

Anyway, you're the resident genius on Boards, tell us all how it's done, us 'facts' and figures and all that good stuff.

Yawn, here we go again with someone not understanding how a discussion board works.

Others are taking part in the discussion here by at least offering solutions, you choose to show you have nothing, but still feel you must comment on the subject. Maybe you do believe there is nothing wrong, no problem, that's on you, I rather listen to the science than those who think by using bluster, it will make problems disappear.

As for loony lefty Newstalk. You are one of the handful of people who would class Denis O'Brien or Ivan Yates as belong to the left. You must think at this stage that the use of such a term is a clever argument that absolves you from the need to consider reality. Reminds me a lot of someone.

Huntergonzo

bilbot79 wrote: »

I'm not as familiar with the specifics as some others but it feels like the 7% is a bridge too far right now. I'd be happy to see a lot of change like electric cars, more cycling, re-wetting boglands, creating Sitka spruce forests and what that gets you to however destroying agriculture and the economy for the sake of the 7% is a terrible idea

Nothing will sink the green cause more than a bad economy. There needs to be some clever thinking and collaboration to get the best possible compromise.

Goals need to be SMART with the emphasis on A for achieveable and R for realistic.

I think the most important thing right now is to prove to the public that green policies will not destroy their lives. Achieving engagement from the people is the only thing that will ultimately save the planet and destroying their livelihoods is absolutely the wrong way to go about it

Things like electric cars are fine, we're going that direction anyway, it's the initial cost of them needs to come down. Also we need far more charge points and better battery life before people will really buy into them.

Bikes around cities are a great alternative to cars where possible, and I think continued investment in them is essential.

The actions on climate change are wide ranging and they need to be taken seriously but for me the economy is going to have to come first over the next year or 2 certainly.

Things are not good at the minute given the outbreak of covid and the last thing struggling businesses need is more penal taxes.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Yawn, here we go again with someone not understanding how a discussion board works.

Others are taking part in the discussion here by at least offering solutions, you choose to show you have nothing, but still feel you must comment on the subject. Maybe you do believe there is nothing wrong, no problem, that's on you, I rather listen to the science than those who think by using bluster, it will make problems disappear.

As for loony lefty Newstalk. You are one of the handful of people who would class Denis O'Brien or Ivan Yates as belong to the left. You must think at this stage that the use of such a term is a clever argument that absolves you from the need to consider reality. Reminds me a lot of someone.

I know you are but what am I? :-)

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I know you are but what am I? :-)

Not able to take part in a discussion. Have a good evening.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Not able to take part in a discussion. Have a good evening.

Your face :-)

Tell me how

Glad to see Greens have voted to enter formal negotiations.
Very challenging to make progress, but at least theres some chance if they're in government.

bilbot79

Tell me how wrote: »

Glad to see Greens have voted to enter formal negotiations.
Very challenging to make progress, but at least theres some chance if they're in government.

I think it was my email to them, in fact I'm sure it was

Huntergonzo

bilbot79 wrote: »

I think it was my email to them, in fact I'm sure it was

Hard to see them forming a stable government if they don't compromise on the 7%.

We're in extraordinary times at the minute and the country needs as much support as possible, hardline measures will only get us into a deeper hole in the short term.

Keep sending those emails :-)

Water John

The emissions from cattle are not farts, wrong end, they belch methane.
Some making positive contributions here incl challlenges, others are simply lobbying grenades.
Farming can be altered to sequester carbon. As a farmer,pay me a fair price for my cattle,sheep and milk, pay me for the carbon I sequester.

Water John

This is a bit of a sobering read as to what the Dutch Govn't is being forced to do, because of commitments they made, by their own courts.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/04/climate-action-under-duress-how-dutch-were-forced-into-emissions-cuts

Two coal power stations opened in 2016 now put on minimal output, for example.
It is better we take controlled action than be forced into major radical action.

Huntergonzo

Water John wrote: »

This is a bit of a sobering read as to what the Dutch Govn't is being forced to do, because of commitments they made, by their own courts.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/04/climate-action-under-duress-how-dutch-were-forced-into-emissions-cuts

Two coal power stations opened in 2016 now put on minimal output, for example.
It is better we take controlled action than be forced into major radical action.

You would wonder about opening 2 coal power stations in 2016 though in fairness, seems like a strange investment given we're trying to move towards green, renewable energy.

But I agree that change should come in a phased, controlled basis with plenty of dialogue among the relevant stakeholers. Radical, almost impetuous action can catch a lot of people offside and ruin their businesses and livelihoods before they even get a chance to adapt.

walshb

Their plans in any times, and even more so in these times are simply ludicrously unachievable ..

Crowd of chancers!!!

Tell me how

walshb wrote: »

Their plans in any times, and even more so in these times are simply ludicrously unachievable ..

Crowd of chancers!!!

They are advocating listening to the overwhelming scientific advice that rapid action is needed to curtail human practices which are negatively influencing the environment.

They are suggesting that the Irish Government enact policies to achieve the targets which it committed to when signing an international agreement just a couple of years ago.

Can you please explain, with logic, why that makes the Green Party a crowd of chancers in your view.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

They are advocating listening to the overwhelming scientific advice that rapid action is needed to curtail human practices which are negatively influencing the environment.

They are suggesting that the Irish Government enact policies to achieve the targets which it committed to when signing an international agreement just a couple of years ago.

Can you please explain, with logic, why that makes the Green Party a crowd of chancers in your view.

What do you think should happen in the agri-sector as a matter of interest?