Green Party wish list.

efanton

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Ok
I posted you can’t stop carbon tax
You posted
You can, Sinn Fein promised to
Then I posted what you quoted

I think you just insulted yourself....

I give up. Are you a troll?

How have I insulted myself by proving you lied?

I think you are on these boards just to cause mayhem.

Do you actually support a political party or are you just here to pick arguments with anyone you can?

Then to save you sorry self you modify

I think you just insulted yourself....

to

I suppose an apology is too much to ask for around here?

Your apology is accepted by the way.

Redgirl82

efanton wrote: »

I give up. Are you a troll?

How have I insulted myself by proving you lied?

I think you are on these boards just to cause mayhem.

Do you actually support a political party or are you just here to pick arguments with anyone you can?

Then to save you sorry self you modify

to


Your apology is accepted by the way.

So your not going to apologise?

I did notice you did not offer a different time table, I would be embarrassed as well but at least I would have some manners to apologise

efanton

Redgirl82 wrote: »

So your not going to apologise?

do you honestly want me to report you. It will not end well.

How about keeping on topic. If you have a point to make make it.
If you argue for or against something support that argument.

This thread is discussing the 'Green Party wish list', or to put it more politely the 17 demands the Green Party have made of FF/FG to enter a coalition.


At this stage I have no idea who you support or what policies you support.
How about talking about them?

Redgirl82

efanton wrote: »

do you honestly want me to report you. It will not end well.

How about keeping on topic. If you have a point to make make it.
If you argue for or against something support that argument.

This thread is discussing the 'Green Party wish list', or to put it more politely the 17 demands the Green Party have made of FF/FG to enter a coalition.


At this stage I have no idea who you support or what policies you support.
How about talking about them?

Your brought up Sinn Fein not me, you have since gone on a rant. Report me if you want, not sure what I have done apart from point out your personal posts about me are incorrect....

Rows Grower

efanton wrote: »

Since found to be a totally untrue story.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/green-party-denies-seeking-deal-on-appointment-of-attorney-general-1.4261250

You do understand there is a difference between Attorney General and Tánaiste, yeah?

Hawkeye9212

Redgirl82 wrote: »

The Dubs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Ireland

Irish Rail services outside of Dublin and Cork are rubbish. Even the Cork network is lacking. Improving the road infrastructure in rural counties is preferable to building new railway lines and will lead to better public transport by reducing journey times for buses between towns.

efanton

Rows Grower wrote: »

You do understand there is a difference between Attorney General and Tánaiste, yeah?

My mistake.
There was a story going round that they had also asked for the attorney general post. Thought it was the same story.

So the Green's want the Tanaiste post. Got to give them credit in a way, With only 12 seats in the Dail they really are trying to screw FF and FG for everything they've got.
Somehow I think that's never going to happen, and its more likely we are looking at GE2 if they push their luck too far.

blinding

efanton wrote: »

My mistake.
There was a story going round that they had also asked for the attorney general post. Thought it was the same story.

So the Green's want the Tanaiste post. Got to give them credit in a way, With only 12 seats in the Dail they really are trying to screw FF and FG for everything they've got.
Somehow I think that's never going to happen, and its more likely we are looking at GE2 if they push their luck too far.

FFG may think that the Electorate think that they cannot afford to have the Luxury of having the Greens around at this time ! ! !

Triangle

efanton wrote: »

SF have probably the most complete environmental policy of all the political parties except the Green Party. The difference is the SF policy is based on transition, without the need for carbon taxes, and affordable by the state.

Not according to this analysis. They sit just above FF and FG, and level with SDs.

efanton

feargale wrote: »

I'm on the fence on the 7% carbon reduction. Has anyone done a comparison with other European countries, or, say, with democracies such as Canada or New Zealand?

It is pointless trying to compare Ireland to bigger countries, especially the ones that are more industrialised or have bigger populations.
The more industry and population a country has the easier it is to meet that 7% target.

The problem we have is that agriculture accounts for 32% of our emissions.
Very hard to see how that can be dramatically reduced. There's no way agricultural machinery can be anything but diesel at the moment. Culling the national herd is never going to be an option either.

Business and industry only account for 25% of total emissions so even if there were very drastic reductions there you would only gain by a few percent at the very most, certainly not even close to the 7%.

That really only leave emissions from homes as a feasible target for reducing emission. We can reduce emissions in this sector, and pretty drastically, but there's no way that it can be done on a massive scale and in the timeline the Green Party is proposing.
That's not to say that we shouldn't try to do so, but personally I think having hard targets or quota's is not the way to do it. Far better to introduce policies that are affordable, easily implemented, and work towards reducing emission in every sector as best as we can in my opinion.
Lots of measures would cost very little, changing the planning laws so that planning approval will only be grant for building with a higher BER rating.
The government retro fitting public properties as a priority.
Banning the sale of petrol and diesel cars, will work to a small degree, but the government is already committed to this.
I think everything the Green Party are asking is all doable but just not in the timeline they suggest.

Then there are the things that are going to cost billions. It would be great to get rid of the fossil fuel power stations, but its going to be horrendously expensive to replace that lost capacity with something greener. With Covid costing the country billion, there might not be billions to spend on public infrastructure such as wind farms, new electric public transport, electrifying the rail system etc.

I think committing to hard targets is going to be a costly mistake, but that is what the Green's are demanding.


https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-statistics/co2/

efanton

Triangle wrote: »

Not according to this analysis. They sit just above FF and FG, and level with SDs.

Wheres the analysis?
All you posted was a chart.

That chart is meaningless without the analysis or data that was used to create it.

Triangle

efanton wrote: »

Wheres the analysis?
All you posted was a chart.

That chart is meaningless without the analysis or data that was used to create it.

The website is named on top of the chart, it's got the analysis.
The main point is the ratings given by professionals and not someone without credentials on boards. 😉

Edit: its also strange that you state that SF have the next best environment plan (without evidence) but then when a report is shown saying they don't - you want the analysis. It's a bit hypocritical don't you think?

double jobbing

9. Ending the direct provision system and replace it with accommodation provided by approved housing bodies.

An immediate allocation of council housing on arrival, basically.

I'm already back at work but reading ****e like this I think if the pubs were open I'd quit and go on the dole. I don't want my taxes paying for this.

efanton

Triangle wrote: »

The website is named on top of the chart, it's got the analysis.
The main point is the ratings given by professionals and not someone without credentials on boards. ��

Edit: its also ironic that you state the SF have the next best environment plan (without evidence) but then when a report is shown saying they don't - you want the analysis. It's a bit hypocritical don't you think?

So no detailed analysis, or data posted to back it up.
Those professors should know better. If it is not repeatable and verifiable it certainly is not science.
An organisation based within Friends of the Earth so of course its going to be totally unbiased towards the Green Party.
You are going to have to do better than that.

No discussion of the individual measures proposed by the different parties, no estimated costs, no expected timelines in which it could be expected for each proposed measure could be implemented.
Do you see where this is going?
that analysis and chart are totally worthless.

If the country had tens of billions of euro sitting in an account just waiting to be spent, and the government decided it was going to implement every single Green proposal immediately, in your opinion do you think that it could be done in less than ten years? I very much doubt it.
But the country does not have tens of billions to spend so even if we wanted to implement all these measure it would have to be done over a longer time period.

How long do you think its going to take to design, get planning permission and build the required infrastructure to decommission the fossil fuel power stations and replace that lost capacity, and how much will that cost?
How long do you think its going to take to electrify all the rail lines?
How long is it going to take to retrofit 1+million homes?
It took the country 10 years to just build a tram line in Dublin.

I am not arguing that the Green Party policies, FF policies, FG policies or SF polices are bad. Each have their merits and combined they will achieve the ultimate target of drastically reducing our carbon emissions. I am in total support of all those measures.

My argument is that it is simply not possible, feasible or affordable that we can implement all those measure in the timeline the Green party propose.

If you think otherwise then show me the cost of each measure and give me an analysis of how long each measure will take to implement.

Maybe I am wrong, this is your chance to show that.







.

Redgirl82

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

Irish Rail services outside of Dublin and Cork are rubbish. Even the Cork network is lacking. Improving the road infrastructure in rural counties is preferable to building new railway lines and will lead to better public transport by reducing journey times for buses between towns.

This is the issue I see with ireland, how is building a road going to fix anything long term?

Saying a bus will travel faster is pointless? People will just drive. A proper train network will be faster than a bus or a Car, every other country in the world invest in trains and we want to build roads?

blinding

double jobbing wrote: »

An immediate allocation of council housing on arrival, basically.

I'm already back at work but reading ****e like this I think if the pubs were open I'd quit and go on the dole. I don't want my taxes paying for this.

The Green Party’s policy on Open Borders and Mass Immigration goes against every other policy the Greens are for.

Having a policy that goes against everything else the Greens promote is Comical Ali stuff ! !

Hawkeye9212

Redgirl82 wrote: »

This is the issue I see with ireland, how is building a road going to fix anything long term?

Saying a bus will travel faster is pointless? People will just drive. A proper train network will be faster than a bus or a Car, every other country in the world invest in trains and we want to build roads?

The terrain in Donegal isn't suitable for rail. Building new roads is essential to improving the bus network. Faster buses isn't pointless. That's a really stupid statement.

efanton

Redgirl82 wrote: »

This is the issue I see with ireland, how is building a road going to fix anything long term?

Saying a bus will travel faster is pointless? People will just drive. A proper train network will be faster than a bus or a Car, every other country in the world invest in trains and we want to build roads?

Simple example.

You build a motorway from Limerick to Cork. That allows people to commute faster to work, reducing housing demand in the cities, will be used by far more people and reduce the horrendous death toll that the N20 has.

You could alternatively spend the money on the Cork to Limerick train line.
It would be faster I would agree with that, but only if you lived in Limerick City, Cork City or Mallow.
If you lived anywhere else between Cork and Limerick you would have to get in your car, drive to the rail station, find parking, and then get on the train.
If you lived in Doneraile, Kanturk, Churchtown or any other town in the area not on the train line your journey time would be doubled if you were lucky enough to find parking for your car.
The problem with commuter rail links is that they only work if you have a public transport feeder network to get the people from their homes to the rail station. You then have the issue of rail capacity. The N20 has 18,000+ journeys on it every day. Not all cars will be single occupancy, How are you going to fit the thousands of people on that train when there is only one track in each direction. You could build additional tracks, buy extra trains, extra feeder busses but it is going to cost multiples of what it would cost to build a motorway.

Then there is the economic argument. Wouldn't it make more sense as a country for businesses to be able to operate outside of the cities? Workers making shorter commutes, and less people commuting into the cities there's one of you green bonuses right there. Businesses will relocate if the appropriate infrastructure is there for them. Rent are cheaper outside of the cities, workers have to commute shorter distances, and you get a lot of the HGV's out of the cities.

Also what about the goods vehicles that cannot be replaced by electric cars or trains. Do we continue to allow them to pollute the towns and villages that are along the existing N20?

If the M20 is not built major upgrades will still have to take place on the N20 as it is already at 120% of its capacity, upgrades that have been delayed because they will not be required if a M20 is built but are estimated to cost anything up to €250,000.
Improving the rail transport from Limerick to Cork, requiring new trains, new tracks along with the additional feeder bus network will cost multiples of that 1.2 billion.
Rail transport works very well and effectively in an urban environment or between cities but it simply is not going to replace the roads as the main means of travel in rural areas in a cost effective way.

I dont know about you but I would sooner see the government build the motorway and use the billions saved by not upgrading the rail service to replace a power station or two with wind farms or spend the money on another worthwhile green infrastructure project.
I would imagine it would be the same for any other proposed rail line in rural Ireland.

We need to keep the roads and upgrade them where necessary in rural areas, but change as many vehicles as possible to electric as soon as possible.

Bass Reeves

Really good piece of analysis by Colm McCarthy in today's Sunday Independent. People should read it

efanton

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Really good piece of analysis by Colm McCarthy in today's Sunday Independent. People should read it

Behind a pay wall unfortunately.

Could you give us a brief summary?

Bass Reeves

efanton wrote: »

Behind a pay wall unfortunately.

Could you give us a brief summary?

Steel is uneconomical in Ireland.

Water John

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Steel is uneconomical.

Certainly qualifies as brief.

efanton

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Steel is uneconomical.

Well that was brief

But yes I totally agree. Trains work best in cities, are expensive and you still have the problem of the commute to the train station where inevitably cars will be used in rural areas.

This country will not have much to spend once we get through this covid crisis so it make sense to make sure we get maximum bang out of every buck.

Bass Reeves

Water John wrote: »

Certainly qualifies as brief.

CMM like many economist is a realist. However it's the clarity he can put on dealing with the reality of climate change where I think he excell's. I have seen pieces he has written on windfarm energy, on reducing mineral carbons and the futility of what Europe is doing unless the US and China come on board.

His analysis in today's paper of the realities of commuter traffic and of present journey's. TBH you would need to read the article. However I have put a photo of the daily commute analysis up , but you need to read the article

Water John

As Colm McCarthy is a treehugger, I think what he was saying is that, rather than building cars from steel we should return to making them from timber, but now only from sustainable forests.

I see your post now Bass.

Redgirl82

efanton wrote: »

do you honestly want me to report you. It will not end well.

How about keeping on topic. If you have a point to make make it.
If you argue for or against something support that argument.

This thread is discussing the 'Green Party wish list', or to put it more politely the 17 demands the Green Party have made of FF/FG to enter a coalition.


At this stage I have no idea who you support or what policies you support.
How about talking about them?

So are you going to apologise?

Basic manners, that’s all I’m looking for.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Carbon tax is not going to disappear just because the Greens are not in government.

efanton wrote: »

Why not?
That's exactly what SF have proposed if they get into government.

Redgirl82 wrote: »

At best Sinn Fein met up for 30 mins in the pub and drew up the manifesto, they went home and then Mary Lou got a call, f**k we need something green in it, Mary Lou answer....ahh sure stick in something about carbon tax

efanton wrote: »

And you wonder why people do not take you seriously.
Have you actully read the SF manifesto? Patently not. Do you actually know what you are talking about, it seem you have a habit of this.
THis thread is not about SF its about the Green party.

Rant follows.....

Triangle

efanton wrote: »

So no detailed analysis, or data posted to back it up.
Those professors should know better. If it is not repeatable and verifiable it certainly is not science.
An organisation based within Friends of the Earth so of course its going to be totally unbiased towards the Green Party.
You are going to have to do better than that.

No discussion of the individual measures proposed by the different parties, no estimated costs, no expected timelines in which it could be expected for each proposed measure could be implemented.
Do you see where this is going?
that analysis and chart are totally worthless.

If the country had tens of billions of euro sitting in an account just waiting to be spent, and the government decided it was going to implement every single Green proposal immediately, in your opinion do you think that it could be done in less than ten years? I very much doubt it.
But the country does not have tens of billions to spend so even if we wanted to implement all these measure it would have to be done over a longer time period.

How long do you think its going to take to design, get planning permission and build the required infrastructure to decommission the fossil fuel power stations and replace that lost capacity, and how much will that cost?
How long do you think its going to take to electrify all the rail lines?
How long is it going to take to retrofit 1+million homes?
It took the country 10 years to just build a tram line in Dublin.

I am not arguing that the Green Party policies, FF policies, FG policies or SF polices are bad. Each have their merits and combined they will achieve the ultimate target of drastically reducing our carbon emissions. I am in total support of all those measures.

My argument is that it is simply not possible, feasible or affordable that we can implement all those measure in the timeline the Green party propose.

If you think otherwise then show me the cost of each measure and give me an analysis of how long each measure will take to implement.

Maybe I am wrong, this is your chance to show that.
.

You stated that SFs policy was probably the best after the GPs.
I'm just putting up information showing environmental professors that did a review of the manifestos and that are not members of any party, say differently.
I don't need to cost anything to show that professionals disagree with your 'analysis' of the environmental manifestos of the parties.

efanton

Triangle wrote: »

You stated that SFs policy was probably the best after the GPs.
I'm just putting up information showing environmental professors that did a review of the manifestos and that are not members of any party, say differently.
I don't need to cost anything to show that professionals disagree with your 'analysis' of the environmental manifestos of the parties.

You do have to show that analysis, because what was stated in that excuse for an analysis did not include all the policies from all the different parties, no verifiable data, nor no detail as to how those scores were awarded.

There are more than three scientists who believe global warming is not the result of mankind's interference with nature, but we are able to dismiss them because they cant provide verifiable evidence to prove their case, and other reports and analysis has provided that evidence and data and been shown to be verifiable.
Should we believe the crackpot scientists that deny global warming that have put forward no data or verifiable evidence or should we believe only those that have?

What you have done is picked a report that is totally unverifiable from a biased source and posited it as fact. If it is fact then where was the detailed analysis, costs of policies, and timelines for them to be introduced, how those scores were achieved.

Any fool at all can put together a list of what we could do to improve the environment. That's not what Ireland needs, it needs a list of proposals that have been costed, have timelines for their implementation, and that are achievable in the 10 year that the Green are demanding.
All the parties have put forward proposals that they would like to see implemented, but its only the Green that are demanding that they HAVE to be implemented in such a short timescale.

I'm am not arguing that the proposals put forward by the Greens or any other party are not worth doing when we can , my point is what the Green's have demanded be done in ten years is unachievable. You show me how much all those proposals cost, how long they will take to implement, and where the money is going to come from to pay for them and then you have a solid argument.

Until then what the Green are demanding is fairyland stuff and total baseless.
Had they suggested we implement all those proposals as soon as possible as the country can afford them then it would be a totally different matter.

Bass Reeves

efanton wrote: »

. You show me how much all those proposals cost, how long they will take to implement, and where the money is going to come from to pay for them and then you have a solid argument.

Until then what the Green are demanding is fairyland stuff and total baseless.
Had they suggested we implement all those proposals as soon as possible as the country can afford them then it wold be a totally different matter.

CMM said that electrification of rail lines is costed in the UK at 200m euro/km for a single line. To do that for Irish railways it would cost about 5billion.

At present rail(Luas, Dart and Irish rail) account for about 2.5% of national commuter journeys

Thelonious Monk

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

The terrain in Donegal isn't suitable for rail. Building new roads is essential to improving the bus network. Faster buses isn't pointless. That's a really stupid statement.

Lol, Donegal is too mountainous is it? Ever been to Switzerland? Or Austria?
Building more roads is a bad idea at this stage. Stick with what we have and put other means of transport out there. We can't keep designing societies around the car.