Green Party wish list.

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

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

I think policy should look to find ways to transition away from high emission practices (where possible!) and to provide pathways, training, support, initiatives to people currently working in these sectors to enable them to continue to work in that sector of industry but in a more efficient way, or to transition in to new careers.

I think scientific guidance should direct optimizing the most efficient manner in which to produce food.

I would rather that instead of spending money on penalties, we invest that money in the sector to prepare it for the next 20-50 years.

What do you think should happen in that sector?

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

I think policy should look to find ways to transition away from high emission practices (where possible!) and to provide pathways, training, support, initiatives to people currently working in these sectors to enable them to continue to work in that sector of industry but in a more efficient way, or to transition in to new careers.

I think scientific guidance should direct optimizing the most efficient manner in which to produce food.

I would rather that instead of spending money on penalties, we invest that money in the sector to prepare it for the next 20-50 years.

What do you think should happen in that sector?

To be honest I agree with the above.

At present many beef and sheep farmers are struggling to make any profit and are living off BPS and various other grants. I think piling more taxes on them in the short term will push many smaller farmers over the edge, unless they are further supported (which sort makes the tax itself pointless).

Argiculture is one of the most important industries in the world (we all need food) and so I'm disappointed by the Greens 17 demands which fails to mention the sector.

The industry must adapt and change and politicians must take a more active role in helping and providing education to farmers. But also what we eat needs to be looked at to see if a) what we currently consume can be produced in a greener manner and b) if can we find healthier, viable altenatives.

Farmers will focus production on what the market demands and there's still a huge demand for beef and cows milk etc. It's hard to see this changing in the short term but many smaller enterprises will be put under severe pressure if radical change is brought in rapidly without sufficent supports, that is more certain.

Tell me how

Huntergonzo wrote: »

To be honest I agree with the above.

At present many beef and sheep farmers are struggling to make any profit and are living off BPS and various other grants. I think piling more taxes on them in the short term will push many smaller farmers over the edge, unless they are further supported (which sort makes the tax itself pointless).

Argiculture is one of the most important industries in the world (we all need food) and so I'm disappointed by the Greens 17 demands which fails to mention the sector.

The industry must adapt and change and politicians must take a more active role in helping and providing education to farmers. But also what we eat needs to be looked at to see if a) what we currently consume can be produced in a greener manner and b) if can we find healthier, viable altenatives.

Farmers will focus production on what the market demands and there's still a huge demand for beef and cows milk etc. It's hard to see this changing in the short term but many smaller enterprises will be put under severe pressure if radical change is brought in rapidly without sufficent supports, that is more certain.

Likewise, I agree with a lot of your points.

But this is also something that I find frustrating. Many seem to be taking digs at the Greens while also thinking what we are doing is unsustainable.

I don't think the Greens are the best thing ever, or that all their ideas make perfect sense but I get very frustrated with what is a message in which the majority is positive being discounted because of something small that is deemed to be excessive or unreasonable.

There seems to be a growing acceptance that something needs to be done, we should demand action from all parties where we have a say in how it is done rather than waiting until it is too late and something draconian is forced upon us.

There is one poster on Boards who spent a lot of time on threads about Greta Thunberg saying that there is no proof that humans are impacting the planet, science has been wrong before and the economy can't afford to take a hit. Over the last two weeks, they have been quite vocal on threads about Covid-19 saying that we have to listen to the science in that respect. Every time I see them post, I hope that they have had some moment of enlightenment but maybe not, when things are back to normal, maybe it will be back to full (coal fired) steam ahead.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Likewise, I agree with a lot of your points.

But this is also something that I find frustrating. Many seem to be taking digs at the Greens while also thinking what we are doing is unsustainable.

I don't think the Greens are the best thing ever, or that all their ideas make perfect sense but I get very frustrated with what is a message in which the majority is positive being discounted because of something small that is deemed to be excessive or unreasonable.

There seems to be a growing acceptance that something needs to be done, we should demand action from all parties where we have a say in how it is done rather than waiting until it is too late and something draconian is forced upon us.

There is one poster on Boards who spent a lot of time on threads about Greta Thunberg saying that there is no proof that humans are impacting the planet, science has been wrong before and the economy can't afford to take a hit. Over the last two weeks, they have been quite vocal on threads about Covid-19 saying that we have to listen to the science in that respect. Every time I see them post, I hope that they have had some moment of enlightenment but maybe not, when things are back to normal, maybe it will be back to full (coal fired) steam ahead.

I think most, or at least a majority of people understand that climate change can't be ignored and that action must be taken. Although personally I believe we must be gentle about it at the minute, certainly in the next year or 2 to allow the economy recover from the covid pandemic.

Now I know that's not ideal and will divide opinion but in the long run I think it better to allow things settle down before putting all shoulders to the wheel.

As for the Green Party, I think that can be more of personal opinion. While many agree with Green policy (or at the least accept that it's necessary), maybe it's the way they deliver their message that doesn't appeal to some people, particularly in rural Ireland who may view our Green party as more urban oriented. Be that right or wrong they can come across that way at times.

It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next 10-20 years and beyond. I think those who get on board with change and help to effect it will do best, history has generally proven this to be the case. And if people disagree with certain policies, then I believe it's best to be involved and work towards solutions, compromises and alternatives.

As for people who deny climate change and say the science is wrong (to be fair science can be wrong at times, nothing's perfect), you'll aways get those. I work with a lad who doesn't believe in climate change, in fact he's a flat earther as well, and no evidence whatsoever will convince him otherwise.

I just enjoy the craic with him, there's no point in trying to debate him, because he 'knows the truth'.

Thelonious Monk

Tell me how wrote: »

Every time I see them post, I hope that they have had some moment of enlightenment but maybe not, when things are back to normal, maybe it will be back to full (coal fired) steam ahead.

Pigs will sooner fly, free range pigs.

Shefwedfan

the price of beef etc is been driven down constantly by the supermarket chain, milk as well. So the producers are making pennies compared to the stores and distributors. It has to change, how many times have we seen farmers having to block up Dublin to try and increase prices

The wave that is starting and growing is organic farming etc. This is something ireland could and should be moving towards, but as pointed out earlier on this thread the current government is not helping farmers move in this direction. The Green have this as part of manifesto, I’m not saying for every farmer but out some diversity into the market

Also for solar farms, the government are proving huge grants to buy land to install solar farms, this seems ridiculous to me when you have shed the length of Ireland, thousands of acre of roof space which is wasted, why not provide the farms grants to use this space and generate electricity? These are simple ideas which can be brought to the table which farmers would jump on

gnf_ireland

Huntergonzo wrote: »

As for the Green Party, I think that can be more of personal opinion. While many agree with Green policy (or at the least accept that it's necessary), maybe it's the way they deliver their message that doesn't appeal to some people, particularly in rural Ireland who may view our Green party as more urban oriented. Be that right or wrong they can come across that way at times.

The 'problem' I have with a lot of single focused groups, no matter who they are, is everything is about that topic and they rarely manage to see wider than it. Nothing exists in isolation, and to make changes in one area, you have to understand the impacts on another and have a plan to tackle them.

The greens are typical of this - they have their focus. However to achieve their 7% cut, there needs to be a plan and a way to sell it to everyone - not just their own voters. I think most people acknowledge we need to do more for our environment - and a green theme through any new government is a positive in my view. But I would not want to be a slave to any party - especially one who achieved 7.1% of the vote.

The reality is the agriculture sector in Ireland is going to change anyway in the next 10 years. The age profile of farmers is rising.

If you remove diary from this, the age profile is much higher again among lifestock farmers.

The question is how does it change? I see a lot more automation coming into agriculture, and larger farm sizes either through leasing or consolidation. I see the REPS (Rural Environmental Protection Scheme) changing dramatically, and one based on carbon emissions rather than its current criteria. I see a big push towards part time farmers getting involved in planting trees (why not offer carbon credits based on land planted, as most farmers have sections of land that are suited to that).

But these changes will take time, and like most people change is slow in most areas, and older people tend to be more skeptical around major changes.

A 4-5 year plan needs to be put in place around the payment of subsidies to farmers (as money is the primary way to change behaviour), and move away from holding sized based subsidies/number of animals based subsidy and focus it on the level of emissions from the holding, by size - but have a mechanism to support how farmers can get there.

Another radical idea, and probably one hated by farmers, is their current Agricultural Relief under CAT, where there is a 90% exemption from CAT for qualifying farmers - maybe change this to a 50% exemption, with a further 40% deferred based for 5 years based on achieving a certain environmental ranking for the farm.

I see a BER style ranking associated to farms and a premium paid for meat at the factories for certain environmental rankings. But again, all of this will take time and need to ensure that factories pay a reasonable price for quality meat and it is not used as a means of reducing prices for others, to avoid the blockades of last summer.

Water John

A major revision of EU agri policy is actually overdue and is now scheduled for 2022. It has been signalled that this will see a major focus on environmental issues.

McMurphy

Eamon Ryan is on Newstalk right now for anyone interested.

McMurphy

Still driving the diesel motor coming back to bite Eamon in the arse.

And he couldn't get away from the question if he had solar panels on the house quick enough, I think he said yes, but it was hard to make out and he moved the question on so quickly over the mumble I'll have to make do with listening back later.

I'm certainly not convinced.

Shefwedfan

McMurphy wrote: »

Still driving the diesel motor coming back to bite Eamon in the arse.

And he couldn't get away from the question if he had solar panels on the house quick enough, I think he said yes, but it was hard to make out and he moved the question on so quickly over the mumble I'll have to make do with listening back later.

I'm certainly not convinced.

Bio diesel


He said he had a few times in regards to Solar....Pat was chomping at the bit jumping in on the diesel....he doesn't really drive which has been discussed many times so no point having a new flashy car so he is right
\
Is that all you took from the conversation?

Royal Legend

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Bio diesel


He said he had a few times in regards to Solar....Pat was chomping at the bit jumping in on the diesel....he doesn't really drive which has been discussed many times so no point having a new flashy car so he is right
\
Is that all you took from the conversation?

What i took from the conversation is that the man is a deluded clown :mad:

Thelonious Monk

I would have thought having an old diesel you don't use much has far less of a footprint than going out and buying a new electric car

Harry Palmr

/\ this is of course correct, changing a car early to help the environment is a false move.

It's a pity for the Greens that Ryan is such a poor public advocate.

Shefwedfan

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would have thought having an old diesel you don't use much has far less of a footprint than going out and buying a new electric car

Exactly, plus bio diesel is significantly better than diesel. As he doesn't drive much buying a new electric car would increase his footprint

Shefwedfan

Royal Legend wrote: »

What i took from the conversation is that the man is a deluded clown :mad:

Which part was deluded?


He even admitted that nucluer had to to be part of balanced system, a discussion which we had on thread earlier


The wind farm in North sea, I heard this idea and the plan by.....Mainstream about 10 years ago, they had gone to Europe for funding as the Irish government wouldnt bother. An Irish company we wouldnt even support

Shefwedfan

Harry Palmr wrote: »

/\ this is of course correct, changing a car early to help the environment is a false move.

It's a pity for the Greens that Ryan is such a poor public advocate.

It all depends, company cars have to be swapped every few years....if using lease companies. So swapping this fleet makes sense.


People buy new cars all the time, is you plan now to tell people not to buy new cars? you do know to have second hand cars you need someone at some stage to buy a new car;)

ednwireland

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would have thought having an old diesel you don't use much has far less of a footprint than going out and buying a new electric car

if hes running pure biodiesel, modern diesel engines will only tolerate a small amount of biodiesel, probably why hes hanging on to the old car

Thelonious Monk

Harry Palmr wrote: »

/\ this is of course correct, changing a car early to help the environment is a false move.

It's a pity for the Greens that Ryan is such a poor public advocate.

I don't think anyone fronting the green party has much of a chance really. Anyone who was talking about or trying to introduce green policies will always be ridiculed in the media. Anyone talking about cycling and letting wildflowers grow and eating less meat will be torn apart by the usual types, it will be interesting to see how the next leader of the greens will be treated, whoever it may be.

McMurphy

Heard it being mentioned on Newstalk that currently it is already mandatory that all diesel sold in the state is made up of 11% of Biodiesel.

ELM327

McMurphy wrote: »

Heard it being mentioned on Newstalk that currently it is already mandatory that all diesel sold in the state is made up of 11% of Biodiesel.

That's a number fudge, most new cars can't run on more than 7% so the pump fuel is not 11% Bio. For sure.

Of course my old Carinas and 406s could run on 100% (and they did in my custody before!)

tayto lover

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Bio diesel


He said he had a few times in regards to Solar....Pat was chomping at the bit jumping in on the diesel....he doesn't really drive which has been discussed many times so no point having a new flashy car so he is right
\
Is that all you took from the conversation?

I didn’t hear the interview.
Did he say what price his new ideas might cost the average citizen?

Shefwedfan

tayto lover wrote: »

I didn’t hear the interview.
Did he say what price his new ideas might cost the average citizen?

He was at pains to say that most of this can be done without huge impact to the budget


I think it was 70,000 houses with Solar PV and that would produce was it 5% of our electricity.



Also that it wasn't a case of pointing fingers at people, just to gte on with it


Also the 7% per year, that doesnt have to be exact, so we we wrapped it up over 3 years and reduced by 21% over that term that would work. SO that would give time to build options.



Made sense most of what he talked about, I didnt see what the scare factor is. Like using bicycles more now because of Covid which other cities are doing as you can use trams etc. That made sense. Of course you had the usuals complaining and all of it similar posted here. But he did say multiple times its a case of just getting on with it and not pointign fingers

Shefwedfan

ednwireland wrote: »

if hes running pure biodiesel, modern diesel engines will only tolerate a small amount of biodiesel, probably why hes hanging on to the old car

He said it was converted and he can no longer get biodiesel so would have to move on next year.



Pat weas chomping at the bit when he heard diesel, of course he missed the bio bit. Then back away fairly quickly

Blueshoe

Shefwedfan wrote: »

He was at pains to say that most of this can be done without huge impact to the budget


I think it was 70,000 houses with Solar PV and that would produce was it 5% of our electricity.



Also that it wasn't a case of pointing fingers at people, just to gte on with it


Also the 7% per year, that doesnt have to be exact, so we we wrapped it up over 3 years and reduced by 21% over that term that would work. SO that would give time to build options.



Made sense most of what he talked about, I didnt see what the scare factor is. Like using bicycles more now because of Covid which other cities are doing as you can use trams etc. That made sense. Of course you had the usuals complaining and all of it similar posted here. But he did say multiple times its a case of just getting on with it and not pointign fingers

Greens got 8% of the national vote I believe. They are in no position to deciding how public money must or should be spent. They are a tag along party. Eamon Ryan is a deranged weirdo who shouldn't be given any notice.

tayto lover

Shefwedfan wrote: »

He was at pains to say that most of this can be done without huge impact to the budget


I think it was 70,000 houses with Solar PV and that would produce was it 5% of our electricity.



Also that it wasn't a case of pointing fingers at people, just to gte on with it


Also the 7% per year, that doesnt have to be exact, so we we wrapped it up over 3 years and reduced by 21% over that term that would work. SO that would give time to build options.



Made sense most of what he talked about, I didnt see what the scare factor is. Like using bicycles more now because of Covid which other cities are doing as you can use trams etc. That made sense. Of course you had the usuals complaining and all of it similar posted here. But he did say multiple times its a case of just getting on with it and not pointign fingers

Who’s going to pay for the solar panels though?
I agree with cycling both for exercise and pollution reasons but more cycling lanes will cost money and just “getting on with it “ doesn’t explain how much all his measures will cost each citizen.

Shefwedfan

Blueshoe wrote: »

Greens got 8% of the national vote I believe. They are in no position to deciding how public money must or should be spent. They are a tag along party. Eamon Ryan is a deranged weirdo who shouldn't be given any notice.

Ok, maybe you missed the fact that every party had included in manifesto about Green policies. We have signed up to the Paris Agreement, that was FG. The only party which hadn't anything really was SF


We have signed up to reduce CO2, nothing to do with Green party. They are just saying to FF/FG that if they want the Greens in the government they need to put into place some of these promises.



Let look at 2019 election, all year the people got told diesel would go up, the night before election FG buckled and dropped it out of policies


Removing CO2, removing diesel is helping your health and the health of your children? why would you not want to do it? especially if it doesn't result in hardship??

Shefwedfan

tayto lover wrote: »

Who’s going to pay for the solar panels though?
I agree with cycling both for exercise and pollution reasons but more cycling lanes will cost money and just “getting on with it “ doesn’t explain how much all his measures will cost each citizen.

Why do more cycling lanes cost money? just shut down roads.....reduce traffic.



I paid for my own solar panels, they have a warranty for 20 years and my payback will start potentially in year 6. That is without ESB giving me anything for the excess I am pumping back into the grid. If I get the excess paid for it will be more like 5. How does that not make financial sense?

*Sorry I do lie, I get get a grant for the panels which helped ....still havent been paid it but I will hopefully soon :-)

Blueshoe

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Ok, maybe you missed the fact that every party had included in manifesto about Green policies. We have signed up to the Paris Agreement, that was FG. The only party which hadn't anything really was SF


We have signed up to reduce CO2, nothing to do with Green party. They are just saying to FF/FG that if they want the Greens in the government they need to put into place some of these promises.



Let look at 2019 election, all year the people got told diesel would go up, the night before election FG buckled and dropped it out of policies


Removing CO2, removing diesel is helping your health and the health of your children? why would you not want to do it? especially if it doesn't result in hardship??

The greens got 8% of the vote. Less than 1 in 10 voters chose them. Your personal views about what everyone should or shouldn't be doing don't supercede democracy.
They are only number fillers to get the big guns over the line and will be turned on and devoured by the 92% who didn't vote for them when things inevitably turn sour.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would have thought having an old diesel you don't use much has far less of a footprint than going out and buying a new electric car

So he'll be against raising taxes on current or older diesel cars then ? or is it one rule for him and another for us...