Green Party wish list.

mgn

ELM327 wrote: »

Some of us have real work to do eamon, back to the vw big diesel (pre euro 5) polluting van!

And make sure you take the bike to Leinster House when you know that there will be plenty of camera there.

ELM327

Again, the greens wont be able to get anything in. There's no money for it. Plausible deniability

mgn

Sheep_shear wrote: »

After their "sure you don't need the car even if you're living in the country," and wanting to re-introduce wolves to the country-side among other... interesting policies, I think FG and FF should be very careful here. The rural consistencies will hold them to account for giving the Greens power.

Not just giving the Greens power but its the bending over backwards and giving into all there petty demands is where i have the big problem with.

mgn

ELM327 wrote: »

Again, the greens wont be able to get anything in. There's no money for it. Plausible deniability

FF/FG will find it because if the don't the Greens will sulk and threaten to pull the pin on Government,

Sheep_shear

ELM327 wrote: »

Again, the greens wont be able to get anything in. There's no money for it. Plausible deniability

At the least they can shove their electorally rejected friends into the Seanad. Look at the likes of Naill O'Brolochain last time they got into bed with FF.

efanton

With regards to data centres there some interesting trials being done in the Nordic countries using sterling engines to generate electricity from the heat exhausted by the air conditioning from data centres. A sterling engine is basically a engine that runs using the difference in temperature (hot air being exhausted / ambient air temperature in the case of data centres).


Data centres use horrendous amounts of electricity, and there is no way to prevent that. Its not just the power required for hundreds or thousands of data servers that is the problem it keeping those servers cool as well.

Should we get rid of them or prevent them from being built in Ireland?
On balance I would say no, while they ramp up our carbon emissions fairly substantially they also provide an awful lot of employment and fairly large tax revenues.

What I think should be argued by any Irish government and in any talks regarding climate is that the emissions from these data centres are not solely Irish emissions, after all that data is being distributed worldwide. The case should be argued that when emissions are being totalled up with regards environmental calculation, the Irish government should be either allowed to deduct a large proportion of those emissions for any totals for the country, or that those emissions should be shared by all countries that are served by the data centre.

Leonard Hofstadter

mgn wrote: »

FF/FG will find it because if the don't the Greens will sulk and threaten to pull the pin on Government,

And then blame the Greens for causing an election. I'm rather more sanguine about it now, so many commissions and reviews, it's a lot of aspirational guff (thankfully).

mgn

efanton wrote: »

With regards to data centres there some interesting trials being done in the Nordic countries using sterling engines to generate electricity from the heat exhausted by the air conditioning from data centres. A sterling engine is basically a engine that runs using the difference in temperature (hot air being exhausted / ambient air temperature in the case of data centres).


Data centres use horrendous amounts of electricity, and there is no way to prevent that. Its not just the power required for hundreds or thousands of data servers that is the problem it keeping those servers cool as well.

Should we get rid of them or prevent them from being built in Ireland?
On balance I would say no, while they ramp up our carbon emissions fairly substantially they also provide an awful lot of employment and fairly large tax revenues.

[What I think should be argued by any Irish government and in any talks regarding climate is that the emissions from these data centres are not solely Irish emissions, after all that data is being distributed worldwide. The case should be argued that when emissions are being totalled up with regards environmental calculation, the Irish government should be either allowed to deduct a large proportion of those emissions for any totals for the country, or that those emissions should be shared by all countries that are served by the data centre]

You see it's something like that Greens should be focused on, but no tax, tax, tax.

PommieBast

efanton wrote: »

The case should be argued that when emissions are being totalled up with regards environmental calculation, the Irish government should be either allowed to deduct a large proportion of those emissions for any totals for the country, or that those emissions should be shared by all countries that are served by the data centre.

That sounds exactly like what the Irish government does not want to happen to corporation tax...

efanton

ELM327 wrote: »

Again, the greens wont be able to get anything in. There's no money for it. Plausible deniability

And that is why I can see this government collapsing within two years.

The country simply does not have the money to cover all the promises this program for government makes.

FG were arguing not more than 4 month ago before the covid crisis that SF spending 6 billion extra on housing was lunacy and not affordable, now we have FG not only committing to build 50,000 homes (half that promised by SF), but dealing wih the 30 billion (possibly more) debt due to covid, the Green policies, the promises made on behalf of FF, and apparently if FG are to be believed tax cuts in the last year or so of this government.
You would have to ask the question were FG lying about the SF housing plan being totally unaffordable, or are they lying now, and agreeing to a program of government that simply is not feasible, just so that a government can be formed.
FF are equally to blame, so I'm not picking just on FG here. They must know that this program for government is simply undeliverable.

Once the Green realise the spending spree is not on the cards, and FG will not agree to borrowing yet more billions for the Green projects I can see this government collapsing.

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

With regards to data centres there some interesting trials being done in the Nordic countries using sterling engines to generate electricity from the heat exhausted by the air conditioning from data centres. A sterling engine is basically a engine that runs using the difference in temperature (hot air being exhausted / ambient air temperature in the case of data centres).


Data centres use horrendous amounts of electricity, and there is no way to prevent that. Its not just the power required for hundreds or thousands of data servers that is the problem it keeping those servers cool as well.

Should we get rid of them or prevent them from being built in Ireland?
On balance I would say no, while they ramp up our carbon emissions fairly substantially they also provide an awful lot of employment and fairly large tax revenues.

What I think should be argued by any Irish government and in any talks regarding climate is that the emissions from these data centres are not solely Irish emissions, after all that data is being distributed worldwide. The case should be argued that when emissions are being totalled up with regards environmental calculation, the Irish government should be either allowed to deduct a large proportion of those emissions for any totals for the country, or that those emissions should be shared by all countries that are served by the data centre.

If they did that the companies would moev out at the loss of jobs


DC's can be built more green, use water cooling and use the water to then heat houses etc.....

efanton

PommieBast wrote: »

That sounds exactly like what the Irish government does not want to happen to corporation tax...

Actually good point. I dint consider that. Well played.

If we can distribute our carbon costs due to multinationals, then its possible that there wold be demands for other countries to claim a share of multinational tax returns. Definitely no a good outcome for Ireland.

Alf Veedersane

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Most DC's should be moving towards 100% renewable energy, if facebook can do it then so should everyone else.....

Facebook don't use 100% renewables though. Don't they just buy renewables certificates to the value of what they use to allow them to say that?

MrMusician18

efanton wrote: »

With regards to data centres there some interesting trials being done in the Nordic countries using sterling engines to generate electricity from the heat exhausted by the air conditioning from data centres. A sterling engine is basically a engine that runs using the difference in temperature (hot air being exhausted / ambient air temperature in the case of data centres).


Data centres use horrendous amounts of electricity, and there is no way to prevent that. Its not just the power required for hundreds or thousands of data servers that is the problem it keeping those servers cool as well.

Should we get rid of them or prevent them from being built in Ireland?
On balance I would say no, while they ramp up our carbon emissions fairly substantially they also provide an awful lot of employment and fairly large tax revenues.

What I think should be argued by any Irish government and in any talks regarding climate is that the emissions from these data centres are not solely Irish emissions, after all that data is being distributed worldwide. The case should be argued that when emissions are being totalled up with regards environmental calculation, the Irish government should be either allowed to deduct a large proportion of those emissions for any totals for the country, or that those emissions should be shared by all countries that are served by the data centre.

Data centres provide **** all employment.

The largest centres have maybe a team of thirty (three shifts of 10) minding the place.

If you are going to argue that data carbon costs should be shared, I assume you are ok with China distributing it's carbon globally for it's manufacturing?

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

If they did that the companies would moev out at the loss of jobs


DC's can be built more green, use water cooling and use the water to then heat houses etc.....

I believe something like that was considered in the Nordic countries where they were considering using waste heated water in under road piping to keep them clear of snow and ice.

Problem is although data centres produce a huge amount of heat, it simply is not enough to be usable in a meaningful way for anything else unless used within the data centre or very close to it.

The sterling Engine idea though does make sense and is an interesting proposition as there little or no infrastructure required, and basically it is 'free' energy. Basically cover the roof and walls with sterling engines and a reasonable fraction of the heat energy could be converted back into electricity.

The problem with the data centres is that its simply physics, there is nothing that can be done to reduce the heat produced, and moving the data centre to another country makes no difference whatsoever to the world climate. They will just have to be accepted as a necessary evil.

Water John

Lots of people were saying the deal FG had with FF wouldn't last also. They were wrong.
Haven't read the full plan yet so will withhold judgement, esp on what may be missing.
If the two 'big' opponents are only O'Cuiv and McHugh then it probably mostly ok.
O'Cuiv is a relic from the past at this point. McHugh is turning out to be a new incarnation of McKenna.

Tell me how

mgn wrote: »

Not just giving the Greens power but its the bending over backwards and giving into all there petty demands is where i have the big problem with.

You do realise that all the greens are looking to do is to find a way to deliver on the promises FG signed up to.

mgn

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise that all the greens are looking to do is to find a way to deliver on the promises FG signed up to.

FG signed up to what? 1 million a day for walking and cycling, you do know that this country is heading for massive recession and these Green fools carrying on like school kids.

MrMusician18

Water John wrote: »

Lots of people were saying the deal FG had with FF wouldn't last also. They were wrong.
Haven't read the full plan yet so will withhold judgement, esp on what may be missing.
If the two 'big' opponents are only O'Cuiv and McHugh then it probably mostly ok.
O'Cuiv is a relic from the past at this point. McHugh is turning out to be a new incarnation of McKenna.

Why does McHugh get so much attention? Iirc McKenna was an MEP, but McHugh isn't even a councillor, and was rejected as a Senator, TD and MEP last time around.

LawBoy2018

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why does McHugh get so much attention? Iirc McKenna was an MEP, but McHugh isn't even a councillor, and was rejected as a TD and MEP last time around.

The Greens aren't tranfer friendly in Mayo. I could see her doing quite well if she decided to run with SF in the next GE, whenever that may be. Hard to know if she'd be interested in doing so, however.

Tell me how

mgn wrote: »

FG signed up to what? 1 million a day for walking and cycling, you do know that this country is heading for massive recession and these Green fools carrying on like school kids.

FG signed up to Paris Agreement. You know this.
Why blame the Greens for trying to find a way to achieve the targets the country said it would achieve.

LawBoy2018

Do you think the Greens would be respected/rewarded more for accepting the current deal, and bringing down the Government down the line if things were to go pear shaped, or if they instead refused the deal from the get-go?

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

FG signed up to Paris Agreement. You know this.
Why blame the Greens for trying to find a way to achieve the targets the country said it would achieve.

The greens have agreed to budget balancing in the second half of the term - that is in 2-2.5 years - this has a very high chance of meaning austerity.

That means there is ZERO chance of the Green Party implementing their core climate goals - because those goals require massive eyewatering amounts of government spending...

Shefwedfan

KyussB wrote: »

The greens have agreed to budget balancing in the second half of the term - that is in 2-2.5 years - this has a very high chance of meaning austerity.

That means there is ZERO chance of the Green Party implementing their core climate goals - because those goals require massive eyewatering amounts of government spending...

No they dont....but continue on!!!

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

The greens have agreed to budget balancing in the second half of the term - that is in 2-2.5 years - this has a very high chance of meaning austerity.

That means there is ZERO chance of the Green Party implementing their core climate goals - because those goals require massive eyewatering amounts of government spending...

Which further highlights that action should have been taken when the opportunity was there before all this kicked off.

And also, unfortunately, the longer it is left, the bigger the impact and then austerity will probably be a factor anyway.

KyussB

Shefwedfan wrote: »

No they dont....but continue on!!!

We have 9.5 years to reduce emissions by 50% (that is the Greens pledge...), with potentially 2-2.5 years of stimulus, following potentially by 7 years of austerity.

Explain exactly how we are to reduce emissions by 50%, when we have a high risk of spending most of this decade in austerity?

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

Which further highlights that action should have been taken when the opportunity was there before all this kicked off.

And also, unfortunately, the longer it is left, the bigger the impact and then austerity will probably be a factor anyway.

Do you not see that austerity means emissions stay high, because we don't spend the money retrofitting our economy to reduce emissions?

Do you also not realize, that austerity is never economically required? There is no economic purpose for it.

Shefwedfan

KyussB wrote: »

We have 9.5 years to reduce emissions by 50% (that is the Greens pledge...), with potentially 2-2.5 years of stimulus, following potentially by 7 years of austerity.

Explain exactly how we are to reduce emissions by 50%, when we have a high risk of spending most of this decade in austerity?

100 euro of insulation in attic would be a great start for most houses

KyussB

Shefwedfan wrote: »

100 euro of insulation in attic would be a great start for most houses

Do you have any idea how much insulation costs? I'm actually putting in a load of it in the attic of a house here, doing the labour as a favour - the proper more expensive blocks of stuff vs fiberglass, and doing just half the attic costs a couple of grand (which is probably what an average house costs for the full attic).

So that is minus the labour cost. Add on the labour cost - this takes time to do - and it's going to cost a lot more still, again, on top of that.

EDIT: Also, missing the bigger picture in replying to this: That does almost nothing to reduce the countries emissions - people still heat their homes from fireplaces and oil/gas fired burners etc. - so the costs start escalating enormously when it comes to sorting that out.

Tell me how

LawBoy2018 wrote: »

Do you think the Greens would be respected/rewarded more for accepting the current deal, and bringing down the Government down the line if things were to go pear shaped, or if they instead refused the deal from the get-go?

Personally, I'd prefer that they try to do something and then react if the other side don't adhere to their side of the deal.

Refusing to countenance any involvement because of a fear that it will not be enough is basically telling people that you're not living in the real world.

Think their supporters, including Miss McHugh should hammer home the 'we have to start somewhere' message and then support all action that is taken which is positive, even if it is not enough.