Green Party wish list.

Mad_maxx

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Rubbish

no , factual

Micky 32

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Is that all you can add to this debate?

I already have.

Thelonious Monk

I just can't believe Michael Martin is going to be Taoiseach for any amount of time. The man makes me want to puke, I'm going to have to avoid all Irish media until he goes away.

Danzy

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I just can't believe Michael Martin is going to be Taoiseach for any amount of time. The man makes me want to puke, I'm going to have to avoid all Irish media until he goes away.

A sneaky rat of a human one could find.

Shefwedfan

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I just can't believe Michael Martin is going to be Taoiseach for any amount of time. The man makes me want to puke, I'm going to have to avoid all Irish media until he goes away.

Personally I wouldnt give a sh*t as long as he is good at his job.

lalababa

The future is green lads and lassies.
Get with the program. The fabrication and consumption of unsustainable goods/ unsustainable energy/the dumping/landfill/polution/species and habitat degradation has to be halted and reversed. There's just the details of how we go about it left.
Look at who is wise...the old people...ask them about material wealth and shiny new things.... they'd prefer to go for a ramble down a country lane or do a spot of gardening.
FF & FG know this and will be policy snatching for a long time.

FrancieBrady

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I just can't believe Michael Martin is going to be Taoiseach for any amount of time. The man makes me want to puke, I'm going to have to avoid all Irish media until he goes away.

FG's rehabilitation of FF is almost complete. A wee bit of facilitation by the Greens required.

All that remains is to see which one of them pays the price next time out. It could be said the 3 of them have ushered SF into power.

Nermal

ianobrien wrote: »

* Right to housing referendum. That's grand, I'll stop the mortgage now. Sure I'll get a free house. I'll take one in Dundrum please. People don't realise that having a right to something doesn't make it free!
* Right to water referendum. If passed, that means that everyone is entitled to have water supplied by mains water. Can you imagine the costs of supplying mains water to every house that currently has a well? It'll be worse than the broadband price!

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

dmakc

Mad_maxx wrote: »

we ( the tax payer ) currently pay beef farmers subsidies to rear cattle we dont need for the most part , im saying we instead pay farmers to grow trees but for longer than the current fifteen years

this goes a long way to offsetting our carbon footprint which is mainly caused by cattle

its about the only silver bullet solution we have , if the government doesnt radically reform the agriculture sector , everyone else has to pay a whole lot more

The subsidies are so that the food can reach the plate cheaper for the consumers. This subsidy is an earned one - not the hand out you portray and it's an important distinction. I stress you're not even seeing half the picture here when it comes to farm accounts and the many variables in each farmer's life beyond that. You're seeing even less of a picture when it comes to switching farming practices and the expenditure involved versus income gained (which there won't be). These are non feasible, pie-in-the-sky, Eamon Ryan solutions you're coming up with. Which is why they're akin to trolling.

Also once again with the mainly caused by cattle BS. Have you given any evidence as to how agriculture is our worst carbon offender yet? I believe someone else corrected you along the way. Also yet to address the state of payments in the forestry sector which you hope to increase?

ELM327

If FF and Smarmy Martin are getting the top job, it would have to be said that most other important posts (DSP, Finance, housing etc) would be up for grabs by the other two. As a slightly less than 45% component party, FF couldnt take Taoiseach and another major post. I'd suggest Eamonn Ryan will get Tanaiste and FG will get the majority of the remaining important jobs.

I despise the greens but am thankful they are facilitating this coalition to save us from anarchy.

Alf Veedersane

ELM327 wrote: »

I'd suggest Eamonn Ryan will get Tanaiste and FG will get the majority of the remaining important jobs.

I can't see Greens getting Tanaiste with their leadership still up in the air.

Jinglejangle69

Right to housing.

Can I stop paying my mortgage now?

Happy days, free houses for all.

ELM327

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I can't see Greens getting Tanaiste with their leadership still up in the air.

Good point, but Ryan is self important enough that he will see himself as Tanaiste

Nermal

We might - might - meet a 7% carbon reduction target this year.

To do that, we had to literally shut down large fractions of the economy for months, and incur debt that will take generations to pay off.

People don't realise how poor 7% reductions, year on year, will make us.

Wanderer78

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Right to housing.

Can I stop paying my mortgage now?

Happy days, free houses for all.

well the fact banks can create the credit(money) thats used to buy houses in the first place virtually for free, its actually the financial sector that gains control of the asset for free

Alf Veedersane

ELM327 wrote: »

Good point, but Ryan is self important enough that he will see himself as Tanaiste

Maybe but the other parties will remind him that he's not favourite to be leader in the not-too-distant future and they will in their holes have Catherine Martin as Tanaiste.

Shefwedfan

Nermal wrote: »

We might - might - meet a 7% carbon reduction target this year.

To do that, we had to literally shut down large fractions of the economy for months, and incur debt that will take generations to pay off.

People don't realise how poor 7% reductions, year on year, will make us.

Why would 7% reductions make us poor?


Also the Greens said they are aware that 7% each year might not be possible but if we invest with the goal of 7% potentially over a period of time we hit the targets....

ELM327

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Right to housing.

Can I stop paying my mortgage now?

Happy days, free houses for all.

I'm not in favor of a right to housing.
But I do hope it is worded in the way that it's a right to shelter and not as a right to a free asset.

ELM327

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would 7% reductions make us poor?


Also the Greens said they are aware that 7% each year might not be possible but if we invest with the goal of 7% potentially over a period of time we hit the targets....

Because it costs money, and/or reduces output.

10000maniacs

I don't know where they are going to get the €10 Billion+ to build these 50,000 social houses.
People are already taxed to the hilt as a result of the last financial crash.
That together with the inevitable economic depression brought on by the COVID19 lockdown mean they are in cloud cuckoo land.

Mad_maxx

dmakc wrote: »

The subsidies are so that the food can reach the plate cheaper for the consumers. This subsidy is an earned one - not the hand out you portray and it's an important distinction. I stress you're not even seeing half the picture here when it comes to farm accounts and the many variables in each farmer's life beyond that. You're seeing even less of a picture when it comes to switching farming practices and the expenditure involved versus income gained (which there won't be). These are non feasible, pie-in-the-sky, Eamon Ryan solutions you're coming up with. Which is why they're akin to trolling.

Also once again with the mainly caused by cattle BS. Have you given any evidence as to how agriculture is our worst carbon offender yet? I believe someone else corrected you along the way. Also yet to address the state of payments in the forestry sector which you hope to increase?

farm subsidies have nothing to do with making meat in the supermarket cheaper for the consumer , they are simply due to the political influence of the agriculture sector across europe

anyway , thats getting off the point , we dont need to produce the amount of beef we currently do , planting a lot more forestry gets us off the hook re_ carbon penalties

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm not in favor of a right to housing.
But I do hope it is worded in the way that it's a right to shelter and not as a right to a free asset.

we also need to build up our public stock of housing, to prevent the financial sector from gaining control of these assets, virtually for free

Muahahaha

ianobrien wrote: »

I
* Stopping the LNG storage in the Shannon and offshore exploration. Now, given the lack of preparedness we had for pandemics, wouldn't it be sensible to have an independent energy supply?

Whatever about stopping the LNG terminal the idea of banning gas exploration altogether is bat sh1t crazy. For one (and unlike oil) we know there is a very good likelihood of more gas fields off shore of Ireland, theres a fair possibility of a field at least as big as the Kinsale one out in the Porcupine basin.

Banning gas exploration wont make a blind bit of difference because we'll just end up importing gas from Russia instead anyway. If its in our waters we should be getting it out of there. Not doing so puts us at a competitive disadvantage to other countries and will only end up with transfers of wealth from here to Russia. Im all for wind but that isnt a full solution and you need gas when the wind doesnt blow. If cheap gas that helps the Irish economy to remain competitive is lying under the seabed the we should be getting it onshore. There'll be more carbon emissions getting it from Siberia than there will be getting it off the Kerry coast.

Shefwedfan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Of all the people I know living in one offs I have never heard any of that, some would complain down the pub about having to bring little billy to football and little Rosie to dancing on the same day etc.. but not once has the school bus thing come up.

most one offs are within <3km of a town or village , people are happy for teens to cycle to school / see their friends, theres a short timeframe when their kids are 4-14 say where these might be an issue but thats one decade of slight hardship for every other happy moment.

No point discussing if you are making stuff up now.



The school bus is a running argument since I was a child. Then the bus would run along the main road and f**k you if you couldnt get to it. Now the bus has to run all over the countryside to pick up kids or mammy will be on the radio complaining.


Millions is spent every year on private bus companies to get kids to school. Just look at all the companies complainign because Bus Eireann wouldtn pay up during Covid.



Down the pub? people complaining because they cant have a drink and then drive home. Talk to the boyos in Kerry about that.



Most one off houses are within 3km? where you come up with that one?


No kids either after 14 are cycling anywhere, and you know that, the roads now are seen as too dangerous.



Maybe if I lived in Dublin city centre I might believe you but
A. I live in the countryside
B. I grew up in the countryside
C. My kids go to school in a local village so I am at all the parents meetings about these problems
D My entire family live in the countryside



I just spent the weekend with them and that was the biggest talking point. They all work on a farm so they build beside their job so to speak but interesting your saying they are all wrong.

ExMachina1000

Nermal wrote: »

We might - might - meet a 7% carbon reduction target this year.

To do that, we had to literally shut down large fractions of the economy for months, and incur debt that will take generations to pay off.

People don't realise how poor 7% reductions, year on year, will make us.

University College Cork have priced the 7% reduction at a cost to the taxpayer of 40 billion euro .

Nermal

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Why would 7% reductions make us poor?

Also the Greens said they are aware that 7% each year might not be possible but if we invest with the goal of 7% potentially over a period of time we hit the targets....

Because our GDP is based on consuming energy, and unfortunately all of the best sources of energy involve emitting carbon. Any example you provide of a country increasing their GDP while reducing carbon emissions was simply generated by offshoring them. At a global level, our wealth has grown in perfect lockstep with our carbon emissions.

'Investing' in infrastructure just emits more carbon in the short term. Building the gargantuan infrastructure required to decarbonise the world would emit a giant 'burp' of carbon over the next few decades.

There's no way to achieve 7% global reductions every year without simply stopping economic activity altogether, impoverishing and killing many people in the process.

We need to face reality, and withdraw from Paris.

Kermit.de.frog

Nermal wrote: »

We might - might - meet a 7% carbon reduction target this year.

To do that, we had to literally shut down large fractions of the economy for months, and incur debt that will take generations to pay off.

People don't realise how poor 7% reductions, year on year, will make us.

Yes and given Ireland is so small as to be utterly irrelevant when it comes to the climate it adds up to nothing more than shooting ourselves in the foot through virtue signalling.

dmakc

Mad_maxx wrote: »

farm subsidies have nothing to do with making meat in the supermarket cheaper for the consumer , they are simply due to the political influence of the agriculture sector across europe

anyway , thats getting off the point , we dont need to produce the amount of beef we currently do , planting a lot more forestry gets us off the hook re_ carbon penalties

You mean the subsidies "paid to agribusinesses, agricultural organizations and farms to supplement their income, manage the supply of agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities"?

Yes, speaking of on the point - How about your claim of agri being the worst carbon offender, or an apparently financially strung beef man to make a worthwhile profit switching to tillage (hiring contractors), and how can we sort these forestry payments which are farcical as is? The practicality of it all. Less whimsical and more factual please.

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we also need to build up our public stock of housing, to prevent the financial sector from gaining control of these assets, virtually for free

I'm not getting into your views on wealth creation, which are, shall we say, somewhat (vastly) divergent from my own.


But on the point of social housing, we made a mistake last time in giving them to private ownership

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm not getting into your views on wealth creation, which are, shall we say, somewhat (vastly) divergent from my own.


But on the point of social housing, we made a mistake last time in giving them to private ownership

the problems arent just with wealth creation, but ultimately with money creation