Green Party wish list.

Tell me how

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The attack on agriculture and beef in particular has nothing whatsoever to do with Climate Change, thats just a ruse. If there was any real concern the Eu wouldn't be planning on importing 100k tonnes annually of beef from South America in order to open new markets for Germany.

Stop trying to conflate several different topics.

A - This is a thread about the Green Party focus, not that of the EU.
B - The Mercosur deal was negotiated on behalf of all member states of the EU.
C - The impact of agricultural animals creating greenhouse gases is widely accepted.

Rows Grower

Kivaro wrote: »

But at least it is a proposal.
Haven't been on this thread for a while, but glad to see the topic now steering towards possible sustainability solutions.

I would love to see a light rail solution for the whole country, but not on the existing rail tracks. Most train stations are located too far outside town or in problematic areas, which makes them impractical. We need a nationwide Tram system, where we can just hop on and hop off at convenient locations, and if that involves taking over road space, then so be it.

Isn't it just amazing that most train stations were built in these locations, really, really amazing?

Where did all the junkies who used to congregate in the area go while they were waiting for the train stations to be built in their hang out spot?

Clarence Boddiker

Tell me how wrote: »

Stop trying to conflate several different topics.

A - This is a thread about the Green Party focus, not that of the EU.

Yes the Green Party want to destroy much of Irish agriculture for a result that will make a fraction of a fraction of a percent of difference to combating climate change.
Or in other words they wish to destroy Irish agriculture for no reason at all other than their own bourgeoisie ideological extremism.

Edgware

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

Is this a serious suggestion?

Its more a Shelbyville idea and we could get Doc Brown to test drive his De Lorean time machine as well

Rows Grower

Edgware wrote: »

Its more a Shelbyville idea and we could get Doc Brown to test drive his De Lorean time machine as well

Maybe if he drove northwards he could plant and grow some lettuce seeds behind the back windscreen.

ELM327

Kivaro wrote: »

But at least it is a proposal.
Haven't been on this thread for a while, but glad to see the topic now steering towards possible sustainability solutions.

I would love to see a light rail solution for the whole country, but not on the existing rail tracks. Most train stations are located too far outside town or in problematic areas, which makes them impractical. We need a nationwide Tram system, where we can just hop on and hop off at convenient locations, and if that involves taking over road space, then so be it.

Sure why dont I propose investing in time travel.
"it's a proposal"

Tell me how

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Yes the Green Party want to destroy much of Irish agriculture for a result that will make a fraction of a fraction of a percent of difference to combating climate change.
Or in other words they wish to destroy Irish agriculture for no reason at all other than their own bourgeoisie ideological extremism.

Anything remotely relating to a policy document which supports this wide scoping claim?

I think if the greens had a best case scenario, everyone in Ireland would be able to access food grown and produced in Ireland instead of it being shipped from around the world.

How does this equate to them wishing to destroy Irish agriculture for no reason at all other than their own bourgeoisie ideological extremism?

Most of the detractors of any sort of positive climate action (whether on this thread, the Greta threads or others) seem to be focused on getting aggrieved at perceived claims and policies which the only ones talking about them are the ones complaining.

efanton

Tell me how wrote: »

Anything remotely relating to a policy document which supports this wide scoping claim?

I think if the greens had a best case scenario, everyone in Ireland would be able to access food grown and produced in Ireland instead of it being shipped from around the world.

How does this equate to them wishing to destroy Irish agriculture for no reason at all other than their own bourgeoisie ideological extremism?

Most of the detractors of any sort of positive climate action (whether on this thread, the Greta threads or others) seem to be focused on getting aggrieved at perceived claims and policies which the only ones talking about them are the ones complaining.

You are aware why fruit, vegetables and some other agricultural food are in imported.
Its not that our farmers cant grow some of them its that we don't have the climate to grow multiple crops every year and that we could not do it as efficiently as other countries due to things like suitable land. That's not even considering the inevitable increased cost of these products once they get to the shelves in the shops.

Yes we could build millions of green houses, heated by electricity generated from fossil fuels, and use excessive amounts of fertilisers extracted from oil and other fossil resources, and tonnes of pesticides in order to have multiple crops each year. But isnt all that artificial heating, fertiliser and pesticides sourced from fossil resources and oil, exactly the things we are trying to stop?

Exactly how many acres of good arable land are their in Ireland?
How many acres would it take to provide all the food we currently import, considering we cant produce multiple crops a year without resorting to artificial heating, fertilisers and pesticides?
How much will it cost?

You see the reason that many of the Green policies are laughed at is those that put them forward and support them like yourself haven't even thought their ideas through, haven't stopped to to think can it realistically be done, how long it would take to do it if it could be done, and how much would it cost.

Having answers to the obvious questions is usually a good place to start when trying to persuade people to do something differently.

Answers the questions.

markodaly

Water John wrote: »

Ireland has a tradition of dispersed living, going back to Ceidhe Fields 5,000 years ago. Most of the 8M pre-famine lived this was also. The small towns are much the same size now as they were then and the cities much smaller.
EV car solves the issue.

The reason people lived like this was that most people were basically serfs working a small portion of land. The world and society has moved on. If anything we should be trying to consolidate farms.
On top of this, most people living in 'rural' Ireland today have no connection to land or farming.

Perhaps EV's will solve some issues, but the issues of isolation, dying villages and towns will not solve that. Also, stop banging on about Dublin getting investment when you want to cling to the idea of living on an acre in the middle of nowhere.
Lastly, no subsidised services for ye either.

markodaly

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Yes the Green Party want to destroy much of Irish agriculture for a result that will make a fraction of a fraction of a percent of difference to combating climate change.
Or in other words they wish to destroy Irish agriculture for no reason at all other than their own bourgeoisie ideological extremism.

An irony explosion here. The Greens along with other European Greens are the best chance Ireland has at sinking the Mecosour deal.

The Greens are rightly talking about our Carbon emissions and we have a whole chunk of it being generated by our agriculture sector. They are just asking the hard questions.

Also, the idea that Irish farmers are some guardians of Ireland and its precious land is a lie. They are guardians of their cash cow, nothing more or less.

Blueshoe

markodaly wrote: »

An irony explosion here. The Greens along with other European Greens are the best chance Ireland has at sinking the Mecosour deal.

The Greens are rightly talking about our Carbon emissions and we have a whole chunk of it being generated by our agriculture sector. They are just asking the hard questions.

Also, the idea that Irish farmers are some guardians of Ireland and its precious land is a lie. They are guardians of their cash cow, nothing more or less.

This post makes no sense.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

You see the reason that many of the Green policies are laughed at is those that put them forward and support them like yourself haven't even thought their ideas through, haven't stopped to to think can it realistically be done, how long it would take to do it if it could be done, and how much would it cost.

Kinda like how SF want to build an extra 100,000 social houses, even when developers and builders tell them they are living in fantasy land

Some of the Green policies are indeed ambitious but at least one is talking about it now. There are plenty of easy wins out there that won't cost us anything/

Blueshoe

markodaly wrote: »

Kinda like how SF want to build an extra 100,000 social houses, even when developers and builders tell them they are living in fantasy land

Some of the Green policies are indeed ambitious but at least one is talking about it now. There are plenty of easy wins out there that won't cost us anything/

UCC priced the greens 7% cut in emissions "demand" in the tune of 40 billion euro.

There's fantasy land for you.
Re election please

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

An irony explosion here. The Greens along with other European Greens are the best chance Ireland has at sinking the Mecosour deal.

The Greens are rightly talking about our Carbon emissions and we have a whole chunk of it being generated by our agriculture sector. They are just asking the hard questions.

Also, the idea that Irish farmers are some guardians of Ireland and its precious land is a lie. They are guardians of their cash cow, nothing more or less.

I agree to an extent on what you re saying. there's an awful lot of self interest uninvolved in any climate debate, on both sides of the argument.

But if Ireland is not producing the dairy products and beef, and we reduce the national herd, is not inevitable that the production of dairy products and beef will increase elsewhere to compensate for that lost production? If that is the case then the climate doesn't benefit one bit, the worlds climate doesn't respect country borders.

efanton

markodaly wrote: »

Kinda like how SF want to build an extra 100,000 social houses, even when developers and builders tell them they are living in fantasy land

Some of the Green policies are indeed ambitious but at least one is talking about it now. There are plenty of easy wins out there that won't cost us anything/

Well it was obviously possible to build 100,000 social houses, because that's exactly what FG have committed themselves to doing. Will we be able to do it now that we have additional billions of debt due to provide crisis, I'm not totally sure. We should at least try to address those issues in some way.

But the difference here is that the Greens are not putting proposals forward that could be done on a basis of getting them done as and when the country can afford them, they are using these demands as red lines that are non negotiable, irrespective of the impact they will have on the country or their cost.

As you said the sensible approach is to deal with the easy wins first, see what effect they are having and then progress to the more expensive and more difficult things as are required. Having hard targets is not the way to approach this. 7% might be possible some years, but as the years go by its going to be harder and harder to meet the same target. I would much prefer a commitment such as we will spend x% of disposable government revenue each year. Personally I would have preferred a similar pledge with regard the social housing too.

Geuze

Hawkeye9212 wrote: »

Just upgrade the Limerick Junction to Cork and Limerick Junction to Limerick lines. The journey can already be done in around 2 hours. Just need direct services running in the morning and evening like Dublin.

A fair point, and obviously much cheaper.

What journey times for CRK-LK?

I would be hoping for 60-70 mins?

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

A fair point, and obviously much cheaper.

What journey times for CRK-LK?

I would be hoping for 60-70 mins?

What would be the point of having a train service that starts in Limerick City, stops at Limerick Junction, Charleville, Mallow and finally ends up in Cork city.
your journey would be considerably longer than 60 or 70 minutes. It currently takes longer than that at the moment and thats does not include the time required for the transfer and wait at limerick junction

That route goes nowhere near the vast majority of the commuters to Limerick or Cork, what you would end up with is either no one using it, or thousands of cars causing congestion in those towns that have rail stations, towns that are already congested and simply do not have the parking capacity.

The other issue is even if you were to put a new rail link in the N20 is in need of major work and has been for years. They keep putting it back because if the M20 goes ahead a lot of that work could be avoided. At the moment the N20 is running at 120% capacity every single day.

Every day there are approximately 18,000 vehicles using the N20 during peak periods. How many of those journeys could be realistically be expected to switch to a rail journey instead. Not many because all you would potential be serving is the traffic that originated in Limerick, Charleville, Mallow or Cork and no simple upgrade of a train service could handle that sort of capacity. The vast majority of that traffic originates from other towns and villages.
You still haven't dealt with the heavy good vehicles and the impact they are having on towns and villages on the N20 either.

Like I have said in a previous post, a rail solution is going to cost multiples of what it would cost to build the M20. In fact so much more that it would be feasible to give each of those 18,000 vehicle owners a free electric vehicle. (18,000 x €30,000 = €540 million). Im not suggesting that we do give away free cars just making the point that the expense of a rail system that would hardly be used by the majority of those already using the N20 would be a horrendous waste of money and that money could be used far more effectively elsewhere to reduce carbon emissions.

Geuze

Charleville station to LK station is 42km approx.

New 2-track 120kph railway is 5.5m per km, +0.5m for electrification.

https://www.irishrail.ie/IrishRail/media/Imported/irishrail_28febfinal_part21.pdf

So 300m for a new line.

Now, I would plan for 200kph.

So let's say 500m, with an 80 yr life.

efanton

Geuze wrote: »

A fair point, and obviously much cheaper.

What journey times for CRK-LK?

I would be hoping for 60-70 mins?

Geuze wrote: »

Charleville station to LK station is 42km approx.

New 2-track 120kph railway is 5.5m per km, +0.5m for electrification.

https://www.irishrail.ie/IrishRail/media/Imported/irishrail_28febfinal_part21.pdf

So 300m for a new line.

Now, I would plan for 200kph.

So let's say 500m, with an 80 yr life.

Its going to cost way more than that. What about the trains, carriages, and upgrades to the stations to handle the additional traffic.
You still haven't dealt with the commute to these new rail services either, Are you expecting people to still drive to a rail station? If so will they actually save significant time in their journey, or will they see that driving direct to their destination makes little difference. Either way the plan to reduce road usage hasn't worked.
The alternative is to provide a feeder bus service from the surrounding towns and villages to these stations, but now you are now adding yet more time to journeys and yet more expense.

You haven't dealt with the fast intercity trains being able to pass the commuter trains between Cork and Charleville either and the electrification of that stretch.

I am absolutely certain that you will find that the cost of providing any sort of feasible rail service between Cork and Limerick that will significantly reduce commuter traffic by car is going to cost multiples of building a motorway. Some of the surplus could be used in schemes to encourage people to get rid of their fossil fuel cars and replace them with electric vehicles. The one good thing about that is that virtually all electric cars now have the range required for a commute from Cork to Limerick and vice versa or indeed any of the towns and villages in County Cork without having to recharge until they get home again.

To me its a no brainer, a M20 wins hands down if we can get the majority of the vehicles using it to switch to electric. In every measurable way. It would be far cheaper, be of more use to the people in the areas, and at the same time deal with the congestion and pollution issues that are plaguing the towns and villages along the N20.

As said already no matter what happens, if the M20 is not built the the proposed major upgrades of the N20,and the planned bypasses will still probably have to go ahead.

I'm not totally against rail transport, it's great for inter city or urban environments, but its totally unsuitable to rural environments.
Its getting people to switch to electric vehicles that key in rural areas.

Personally I would simply legislate so that all non electric cars can no longer be on the roads in 5 years time. Obviously this will cause issues to those who cannot simply afford to go out and buy a new car, so have a scheme in place where if people have approached a bank or credit union for the loan necessary to buy an electric vehicle but have been turned down by the banks or credit unions for whatever reason (lack of earnings, credit rating etc) and can provide written evidence they have been turned down then have a government scheme where they pay that loan over a longer or affordable duration but that money is stopped directly at source from their income, pension, or benefits. There's only 18,000 vehicles a day on the M20, the vast majority will not need that government backed loan but it would not come close to the cost of a rail service even if you include the cost of building the M20 as well

Redgirl82

efanton wrote: »

Its going to cost way more than that. What about the trains, carriages, and upgrades to the stations to handle the additional traffic.
You still haven't dealt with the commute to these new rail services either, Are you expecting people to still drive to a rail station? If so will they actually save significant time in their journey, or will they see that driving direct to their destination makes little difference. Either way the plan to reduce road usage hasn't worked.
The alternative is to provide a feeder bus service from the surrounding towns and villages to these stations, but now you are now adding yet more time to journeys and yet more expense.

You haven't dealt with the fast intercity trains being able to pass the commuter trains between Cork and Charleville either and the electrification of that stretch.

I am absolutely certain that you will find that the cost of providing any sort of feasible rail service between Cork and Limerick that will significantly reduce commuter traffic by car is going to cost multiples of building a motorway. Some of the surplus could be used in schemes to encourage people to get rid of their fossil fuel cars and replace them with electric vehicles. The one good thing about that is that virtually all electric cars now have the range required for a commute from Cork to Limerick and vice versa or indeed any of the towns and villages in County Cork without having to recharge until they get home again.

To me its a no brainer, a M20 wins hands down if we can get the majority of the vehicles using it to switch to electric. In every measurable way. It would be far cheaper, be of more use to the people in the areas, and at the same time deal with the congestion and pollution issues that are plaguing the towns and villages along the N20.

As said already no matter what happens, if the M20 is not built the the proposed major upgrades of the N20,and the planned bypasses will still probably have to go ahead.

I'm not totally against rail transport, it's great for inter city or urban environments, but its totally unsuitable to rural environments.
Its getting people to switch to electric vehicles that key in rural areas.

Personally I would simply legislate so that all non electric cars can no longer be on the roads in 5 years time. Obviously this will cause issues to those who cannot simply afford to go out and buy a new car, so have a scheme in place where if people have approached a bank or credit union for the loan necessary to buy an electric vehicle but have been turned down by the banks or credit unions for whatever reason (lack of earnings, credit rating etc) and can provide written evidence they have been turned down then have a government scheme where they pay that loan over a longer or affordable duration but that money is stopped directly at source from their income, pension, or benefits. There's only 18,000 vehicles a day on the M20, the vast majority will not need that government backed loan but it would not come close to the cost of a rail service even if you include the cost of building the M20 as well

Any sign of that apology or you just decided to ignore?


In response to your “build a road”, every time Ireland has built a road it has not resolved the traffic problem. The M50 has been a constant construction site and still needs more lanes. New land cross just got the traffic faster to the traffic jam on the m50

Similar on other roads, built the M3 road and now Virginia is a traffic jam, by pass that and next village will be hit. All while not building train lines.

Anyone thinking that building another road is the resolution is not looking at what we have done for the past 50 years. That road will be built and no sooner than it’s finished it will be “ahh we should have put 3 lanes on it” etc

Rail is the only answer. We have thousands of example to show building a road doesn’t actually work

Edgware

markodaly wrote: »

Kinda like how SF want to build an extra 100,000 social houses, even when developers and builders tell them they are living in fantasy land

Some of the Green policies are indeed ambitious but at least one is talking about it now. There are plenty of easy wins out there that won't cost us anything/

Are you saying that SF policies are unachievable?
To quote Homer Simpson "not if we hire more men"

end of the road

efanton wrote: »

Its going to cost way more than that. What about the trains, carriages, and upgrades to the stations to handle the additional traffic.
You still haven't dealt with the commute to these new rail services either, Are you expecting people to still drive to a rail station? If so will they actually save significant time in their journey, or will they see that driving direct to their destination makes little difference. Either way the plan to reduce road usage hasn't worked.
The alternative is to provide a feeder bus service from the surrounding towns and villages to these stations, but now you are now adding yet more time to journeys and yet more expense.

You haven't dealt with the fast intercity trains being able to pass the commuter trains between Cork and Charleville either and the electrification of that stretch.

I am absolutely certain that you will find that the cost of providing any sort of feasible rail service between Cork and Limerick that will significantly reduce commuter traffic by car is going to cost multiples of building a motorway. Some of the surplus could be used in schemes to encourage people to get rid of their fossil fuel cars and replace them with electric vehicles. The one good thing about that is that virtually all electric cars now have the range required for a commute from Cork to Limerick and vice versa or indeed any of the towns and villages in County Cork without having to recharge until they get home again.

To me its a no brainer, a M20 wins hands down if we can get the majority of the vehicles using it to switch to electric. In every measurable way. It would be far cheaper, be of more use to the people in the areas, and at the same time deal with the congestion and pollution issues that are plaguing the towns and villages along the N20.

As said already no matter what happens, if the M20 is not built the the proposed major upgrades of the N20,and the planned bypasses will still probably have to go ahead.

I'm not totally against rail transport, it's great for inter city or urban environments, but its totally unsuitable to rural environments.
Its getting people to switch to electric vehicles that key in rural areas.

Personally I would simply legislate so that all non electric cars can no longer be on the roads in 5 years time. Obviously this will cause issues to those who cannot simply afford to go out and buy a new car, so have a scheme in place where if people have approached a bank or credit union for the loan necessary to buy an electric vehicle but have been turned down by the banks or credit unions for whatever reason (lack of earnings, credit rating etc) and can provide written evidence they have been turned down then have a government scheme where they pay that loan over a longer or affordable duration but that money is stopped directly at source from their income, pension, or benefits. There's only 18,000 vehicles a day on the M20, the vast majority will not need that government backed loan but it would not come close to the cost of a rail service even if you include the cost of building the M20 as well

we cannot be sure as to whether a new road would or wouldn 't be cheaper then his proposals because as we know, costs go up and then there are the upgrades down the line which are themselves expensive, but you still get little over all capacity for the large space required.
even if a new road is cheaper, it is only ever going to be a part sollution and is going to need on going expensive expansion which will bring those costs up quite a bit, especially without no rail option, with a rail option less expansion is required or if not, it will allow for more time before expansion is neededover all + it means that only those who really need to use the road will be using it.
the m20 will be needed on it's own merrits absolutely, but it's never going to be thee sollution to transport needs between those 2 cities, just a part of it, and a rail option will absolutely be needed, it's unavoidable in fact, the only question now is which would be the best way to achieve it.
we need roads absolutely but ireland's over dependence on motor ways is not a sustainable sollution, and we are going to have to grow up and invest in rail where appropriate.

efanton

Redgirl82 wrote: »

Any sign of that apology or you just decided to ignore?


In response to your “build a road”, every time Ireland has built a road it has not resolved the traffic problem. The M50 has been a constant construction site and still needs more lanes. New land cross just got the traffic faster to the traffic jam on the m50

Similar on other roads, built the M3 road and now Virginia is a traffic jam, by pass that and next village will be hit. All while not building train lines.

Anyone thinking that building another road is the resolution is not looking at what we have done for the past 50 years. That road will be built and no sooner than it’s finished it will be “ahh we should have put 3 lanes on it” etc

Rail is the only answer. We have thousands of example to show building a road doesn’t actually work

You are talking about two totally different settings, Urban an Rural.
I would 100% agree that roads or road improvements in the cities and large urban areas are not going to fix a thing.

Then you go on to talk about the N3 and M3 making my argument for me.
There used to be traffic chaos at all times of the day in Navan for years, now that has that been alleviated by the M3 bypassing the town.

Widening stretches of normal road, and putting national road bypasses around towns and villages simply doesn't work unless you are prepared to put a bypass in to every town and village at the same time. Otherwise all you do is move the congestion from one town or village to another.

But completing the M3 motorway would solve those congestion issues, would mean no new bypasses would need to be built in towns a villages.

Virgina is now a bottle neck because they did not continue the motorway beyond it.
Those bottle necks are simply a result of poor planning or not being prepared to complete a solution.

What are you going to do instead, build a rail system? How much is that going to cost and how long will it take?
If you cant answer those questions then you simply do not have an argument.
Rail will not solve the problems of towns and villages like Virginia. For that you are going to eventually extend the M3.

Rail and public transport win hands down in cities and urban environments, motorways win hands down for the rest of the country.
What we need to do is get improve public transport in the cites and finish building the motorway networks across the rest of the country the but also ensure that we make the switch to electric cars as soon as possible.

ELM327

efanton wrote: »

You are talking about two totally different settings, Urban an Rural.
I would 100% agree that roads or road improvements in the cities and large urban areas are not going to fix a thing.

Then you go on to talk about the N3 and M3 making my argument for me.
There used to be traffic chaos at all times of the day in Navan for years, now that has that been alleviated by the M3 bypassing the town.

Widening stretches of normal road, and putting national road bypasses around towns and villages simply doesn't work unless you are prepared to put a bypass in to every town and village at the same time. Otherwise all you do is move the congestion from one town or village to another.

But completing the M3 motorway would solve those congestion issues, would mean no new bypasses would need to be built in towns a villages.

Virgina is now a bottle neck because they did not continue the motorway beyond it.
Those bottle necks are simply a result of poor planning or not being prepared to complete a solution.

What are you going to do instead, build a rail system? How much is that going to cost and how long will it take?
If you cant answer those questions then you simply do not have an argument.
Rail will not solve the problems of towns and villages like Virginia. For that you are going to eventually extend the M3.

Rail and public transport win hands down in cities and urban environments, motorways win hands down for the rest of the country.
What we need to do is get improve public transport in the cites and finish building the motorway networks across the rest of the country the but also ensure that we make the switch to electric cars as soon as possible.

As an EV owner myself, the fuel of propulsion makes no difference. Traffic is traffic.
EV is irrelvant here.

efanton

ELM327 wrote: »

As an EV owner myself, the fuel of propulsion makes no difference. Traffic is traffic.
EV is irrelvant here.

O course it make a huge difference.
The idea of the green policies is to reduce carbon emissions and surely that is what electric vehicles do best.

If you are talking about traffic congestion in towns and villages then outside of the cities motorways are the best solution.

If you build rail lines how do people get from these towns and villages to the rail stations? You dont reduce the number of car journeys at all, you might just shorten them.

Also you now increase the congestion in the towns that have the rail stations.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

I agree to an extent on what you re saying. there's an awful lot of self interest uninvolved in any climate debate, on both sides of the argument.

But if Ireland is not producing the dairy products and beef, and we reduce the national herd, is not inevitable that the production of dairy products and beef will increase elsewhere to compensate for that lost production? If that is the case then the climate doesn't benefit one bit, the worlds climate doesn't respect country borders.

This is why the EU as a whole have climate targets when it comes to the reduction of CO2 emissions. Like, you should really know even the basics of something you want to discuss.

This is also why international, global cooperation is important as well.

Redgirl82

efanton wrote: »

You are talking about two totally different settings, Urban an Rural.
I would 100% agree that roads or road improvements in the cities and large urban areas are not going to fix a thing.

Then you go on to talk about the N3 and M3 making my argument for me.
There used to be traffic chaos at all times of the day in Navan for years, now that has that been alleviated by the M3 bypassing the town.

Widening stretches of normal road, and putting national road bypasses around towns and villages simply doesn't work unless you are prepared to put a bypass in to every town and village at the same time. Otherwise all you do is move the congestion from one town or village to another.

But completing the M3 motorway would solve those congestion issues, would mean no new bypasses would need to be built in towns a villages.

Virgina is now a bottle neck because they did not continue the motorway beyond it.
Those bottle necks are simply a result of poor planning or not being prepared to complete a solution.

What are you going to do instead, build a rail system? How much is that going to cost and how long will it take?
If you cant answer those questions then you simply do not have an argument.
Rail will not solve the problems of towns and villages like Virginia. For that you are going to eventually extend the M3.

Rail and public transport win hands down in cities and urban environments, motorways win hands down for the rest of the country.
What we need to do is get improve public transport in the cites and finish building the motorway networks across the rest of the country the but also ensure that we make the switch to electric cars as soon as possible.

No apology so? after the abuse you gave me for your own mistake? some people don't have basic manners

So when does the motorway stop? virginia next? then where next? Seems we have not really figured it out yet for a long term plan. Driving from Cavan to Dublin daily is not really a long term solution for people. We need to reduce the demand in Dublin on houses. A train from Cavan to Dublin would take what? an hour?

That is just one example. Plenty more if you draw a big red circle. Build a train system helps
Reduce house costs
Reduce housing crisis
Reduce CO2 levels
Increase tourism
Increase quality of life outside Dublin
Help sports(GAA & Rugby), how easy to get trains up to games instead of driving?
Reduce road deaths

The list goes on. It is an extremely blinkered view for anyone in 2020 to recommend the answer to transport is build more roads.

Tell me how

efanton wrote: »

You are aware why fruit, vegetables and some other agricultural food are in imported.
Its not that our farmers cant grow some of them its that we don't have the climate to grow multiple crops every year and that we could not do it as efficiently as other countries due to things like suitable land. That's not even considering the inevitable increased cost of these products once they get to the shelves in the shops.

Yes we could build millions of green houses, heated by electricity generated from fossil fuels, and use excessive amounts of fertilisers extracted from oil and other fossil resources, and tonnes of pesticides in order to have multiple crops each year. But isnt all that artificial heating, fertiliser and pesticides sourced from fossil resources and oil, exactly the things we are trying to stop?

Exactly how many acres of good arable land are their in Ireland?
How many acres would it take to provide all the food we currently import, considering we cant produce multiple crops a year without resorting to artificial heating, fertilisers and pesticides?
How much will it cost?

You see the reason that many of the Green policies are laughed at is those that put them forward and support them like yourself haven't even thought their ideas through, haven't stopped to to think can it realistically be done, how long it would take to do it if it could be done, and how much would it cost.

Having answers to the obvious questions is usually a good place to start when trying to persuade people to do something differently.

Answers the questions.

So, the original claim was that they wish to destroy Irish agriculture for no reason at all other than their own bourgeoisie ideological extremism?

I responded that they would ideally like to see food produced more in Ireland rather than being shipped from abroad and you jumped to the assumption that 'all food consumed in Ireland must be produced in Ireland. I didn't say that.

But you, as is common, are trying to negate any movement towards a positive interpretation of Green plans in assuming that they must be capable of be rolled out in 100% of cases across 100% of the country by 100% of the people.

Greens: 'We should consider car sharing'
An Other: 'How is someone living in the middle of connemara going to take part in a car sharing scheme. It's a ludicrous idea'

Greens: We should promote home grown food where possible.
Angry mob member 3: 'The greens want every single thing we ever use to be produced organically within 5 miles of the consumer.'

Greens: In times of quarantine, the maintenance of a patio or window garden could help with mental health while producing food which could be enjoyed later'
Rabble rouser #2: 'F*** science, the greens want us to go back to the stone age'

How is it that any suggestions by the greens of doing something which will be for the betterment of society is ripped to pieces for not being a single, simple solution which will fix everything while affecting no one and allowing everyone to continue doing what they are currently doing while the government can sign us up to achieving climate impact reducing targets but then do not have to do anything to help us achieve those targets?

Some of the arguments against doing 'anything' here would be like telling someone not to bother with a 'couch to 5K' because they are unlikely to win an olympic medal any time soon.

ELM327

efanton wrote: »

O course it make a huge difference.
The idea of the green policies is to reduce carbon emissions and surely that is what electric vehicles do best.

If you are talking about traffic congestion in towns and villages then outside of the cities motorways are the best solution.

If you build rail lines how do people get from these towns and villages to the rail stations? You dont reduce the number of car journeys at all, you might just shorten them.

Also you now increase the congestion in the towns that have the rail stations.

They reduce, not eliminate CO2.
Looking at well to wheel vs well to wheel, my Tesla is using between 20 and 40% of the CO2 per mile of a fossil fuel car.




It's unrealistic to expect mass adoption of public transport. The covid times have shown how dangerous it is for contamination. I'll never get on PT again.

ELM327

Tell me how wrote: »

So, the original claim was that they wish to destroy Irish agriculture for no reason at all other than their own bourgeoisie ideological extremism?

I responded that they would ideally like to see food produced more in Ireland rather than being shipped from abroad and you jumped to the assumption that 'all food consumed in Ireland must be produced in Ireland. I didn't say that.

But you, as is common, are trying to negate any movement towards a positive interpretation of Green plans in assuming that they must be capable of be rolled out in 100% of cases across 100% of the country by 100% of the people.

Greens: 'We should consider car sharing'
An Other: 'How is someone living in the middle of connemara going to take part in a car sharing scheme. It's a ludicrous idea'

Greens: We should promote home grown food where possible.
Angry mob member 3: 'The greens want every single thing we ever use to be produced organically within 5 miles of the consumer.'

Greens: In times of quarantine, the maintenance of a patio or window garden could help with mental health while producing food which could be enjoyed later'
Rabble rouse 2: 'F*** science, the greens want us to go back to the stone age'

How is it that any suggestions by the greens of doing something which will be for the betterment of society is ripped to pieces for not being a single, simple solution which will fix everything while affecting no one and allowing everyone to continue doing what they are currently doing while the government can sign us up to achieving climate impact reducing targets but then do not have to do anything to help us achieve those targets?

Some of the arguments against doing 'anything' here would be like telling someone not to bother with a 'couch to 5K' because they are unlikely to win an olympic medal any time soon.

These two emboldened statements just showed how out of touch they are.