Green Party wish list.

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

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.

So what alternative are you suggesting?

Because the climate issue hasn't lessened because the rest of the world is gone to sh*t at the moment.

Action is needed! Or do you disagree?

KyussB

I agree - massive/gigantic government spending on retrofitting houses (heat pumps, full insulation, solar panels on every roof etc.), a Job Guarantee employing all of the unemployed who are willing, to do all of this - build massive amounts of housing to the highest energy spec - expand public transport infrastructure (far beyond the pitiful plans the Greens agreed to, proper high speed rail and underground metro systems in major cities) - overhaul the countries energy infrastructure for prioritizing renewables (again far beyond the Green's pitiful plans, mass rollouts of solar farms and expansion of wind farms and offshare wind farms, massive grid battery storage infrastructure to lesson the energy-storage load on houses with solar etc.).

Saw me discussing most of this stuff in the climate change threads - it all requires gigantic government spending, as people don't have the money to do all this in the private sector - they can't even afford homes...

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

I agree - massive/gigantic government spending on retrofitting houses (heat pumps, full insulation, solar panels on every roof etc.), a Job Guarantee employing all of the unemployed who are willing, to do all of this - build massive amounts of housing to the highest energy spec - expand public transport infrastructure (far beyond the pitiful plans the Greens agreed to, proper high speed rail and underground metro systems in major cities) - overhaul the countries energy infrastructure for prioritizing renewables (again far beyond the Green's pitiful plans, mass rollouts of solar farms and expansion of wind farms and offshare wind farms, massive grid battery storage infrastructure to lesson the energy-storage load on houses with solar etc.).

Saw me discussing most of this stuff in the climate change threads - it all requires gigantic government spending, as people don't have the money to do all this in the private sector - they can't even afford homes...

At tunnel under the Irish Sea while we are at it.....

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

I agree - massive/gigantic government spending on retrofitting houses (heat pumps, full insulation, solar panels on every roof etc.), a Job Guarantee employing all of the unemployed who are willing, to do all of this - build massive amounts of housing to the highest energy spec - expand public transport infrastructure (far beyond the pitiful plans the Greens agreed to, proper high speed rail and underground metro systems in major cities) - overhaul the countries energy infrastructure for prioritizing renewables (again far beyond the Green's pitiful plans, mass rollouts of solar farms and expansion of wind farms and offshare wind farms, massive grid battery storage infrastructure to lesson the energy-storage load on houses with solar etc.).

Saw me discussing most of this stuff in the climate change threads - it all requires gigantic government spending, as people don't have the money to do all this in the private sector - they can't even afford homes...

But if the only group who is trying to ensure any action at all, in the face of massive derision, has their plans described as pitiful, what hope is there?

mgn

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.

And why blame and tax the people of this country when the big polluters pay nothing.

Shefwedfan

KyussB wrote: »

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.

5 rolls of fibreglass would be 100 quid in local supplier, a huge amount of house have none of them, firing that up into the attic would massively reduced heating bills....


Less oil, less CO2

Tell me how

mgn wrote: »

And why blame and tax the people of this country when the big polluters pay nothing.

You're absolutely right.

We should demand all parties enforce environmental laws and consider sustainability.

Not rip the sh*t out of the only party that does.

combat14

"The economic health of our country has been profoundly damaged in recent months. The number one priority for an incoming government will be to repair and rebuild the Irish economy, support businesses in these tough times, and help people get back to work.” @mmcgrathtd


wonder is this signalling to fianna fail voters that green party policies are really way down the list of the government's priorities...

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

But if the only group who is trying to ensure any action at all, in the face of massive derision, has their plans described as pitiful, what hope is there?

Abandon all policies of budget balancing and austerity. Those policies make no economic sense.

Until massive expansionary government spending is accepted, all green policies will be inadequate.

KyussB

Shefwedfan wrote: »

5 rolls of fibreglass would be 100 quid in local supplier, a huge amount of house have none of them, firing that up into the attic would massively reduced heating bills....


Less oil, less CO2

Fibreglass is very poor insulation - proper insulation boards are 3x as good at insulating a home, and are required (in combination with a ton of other things) if you want to get anywhere near a 50% reduction in emissions.

You need: 1: Get rid of oil/gas-fired boilers, 2: Full insulation of all parts of the house, to the highest quality (cavity block insulation, attic insulation boards, double/triple-glaze windows), 3: Install underfloor heating, heat pumps, solar panels, battery storage, etc..

It costs many tens of thousands per home, with a payback period of 20+ years, to target large emissions reductions.

Tell me how

KyussB wrote: »

Abandon all policies of budget balancing and austerity. Those policies make no economic sense.

Until massive expansionary government spending is accepted, all green policies will be inadequate.

Maybe if there was widespread belief and intent in meeting Paris Agreement obligations then it might be argued that a future step may be ginormous investment without budget considerations but there's no way that is going to fly in the current environment.

Anyone remotely concerned about fiscal responsibility would balk at the suggestion.

Rows Grower

KyussB wrote: »

Fibreglass is very poor insulation - proper insulation boards are 3x as good at insulating a home, and are required (in combination with a ton of other things) if you want to get anywhere near a 50% reduction in emissions.

You need: 1: Get rid of oil/gas-fired boilers, 2: Full insulation of all parts of the house, to the highest quality (cavity block insulation, attic insulation boards, double/triple-glaze windows), 3: Install underfloor heating, heat pumps, solar panels, battery storage, etc..

It costs many tens of thousands per home, with a payback period of 20+ years, to target large emissions reductions.

Ah shur you're preaching to the choir there KyussB, that lad has so many solar panels on his roof he's creating enough electricity to sell back to the national grid.

Think he has a windmill on the ridge tiles too, or else he is going to get one.

Can't remember.

Shefwedfan

KyussB wrote: »

Fibreglass is very poor insulation - proper insulation boards are 3x as good at insulating a home, and are required (in combination with a ton of other things) if you want to get anywhere near a 50% reduction in emissions.

You need: 1: Get rid of oil/gas-fired boilers, 2: Full insulation of all parts of the house, to the highest quality (cavity block insulation, attic insulation boards, double/triple-glaze windows), 3: Install underfloor heating, heat pumps, solar panels, battery storage, etc..

It costs many tens of thousands per home, with a payback period of 20+ years, to target large emissions reductions.

Do you think Fibreglass is better than nothing?

Shefwedfan

Rows Grower wrote: »

Ah shur you're preaching to the choir there KyussB, that lad has so many solar panels on his roof he's creating enough electricity to sell back to the national grid.

Think he has a windmill on the ridge tiles too, or else he is going to get one.

Can't remember.

You still around these parts?



Maybe go and ask the Healy Rae what Green initiatives they have?



Gobsh*ts thought an electric car would cut out when it hits potholes, thats the level of stupidity you wasted your vote on :P

dundalkfc10

It will be grand for us in Dundalk, we can just go 10 mins up road and get cheap Oil, Diesel etc

Alf Veedersane

KyussB wrote: »

Fibreglass is very poor insulation - proper insulation boards are 3x as good at insulating a home, and are required (in combination with a ton of other things) if you want to get anywhere near a 50% reduction in emissions.

Fibreglass has a conductivity of about 0.044 W/mK. The boards don't have a conductivity of 0.015 so I'm not entirely sure what metric you used to quantify it being three times better.

Poorly fitted insulation boards aren't great either.

KyussB

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe if there was widespread belief and intent in meeting Paris Agreement obligations then it might be argued that a future step may be ginormous investment without budget considerations but there's no way that is going to fly in the current environment.

Anyone remotely concerned about fiscal responsibility would balk at the suggestion.

Austerity and budget balancing is the opposite of fiscal responsibility. Government finances do not work like household finances - and it's important not to treat/discuss them as such.

Green policies inherently depend on massive government spending - and this is macroeconomically sound policy, it is perfectly doable and financially sustainable - so the narrative against massive government spending needs to die before green politics can get anywhere.

The Green Party are betraying their own cause, are making their own policies unworkable, by allowing that false austerity/budget-balancing narrative, to be official government policy - it's a betrayal of their voters and what they claim to stand for.

KyussB

Rows Grower wrote: »

Ah shur you're preaching to the choir there KyussB, that lad has so many solar panels on his roof he's creating enough electricity to sell back to the national grid.

Think he has a windmill on the ridge tiles too, or else he is going to get one.

Can't remember.

Not quite, though - the bigger picture is that it doesn't matter what we do personally about climate change - it only matters what we do macroeconomically (i.e. across the whole economy) at a government level, about climate change - and that the only possible way to do enough, fast enough, at that level, is massive government spending.

Until austerity/budget-balancing dies - green politics will always lose.

KyussB

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Do you think Fibreglass is better than nothing?

What we are debating, is: Will it provide the Green Party's pledge of a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030?

If people just throw some fibreglass in the attic, and do nothing else - then no, it won't provide the reduction in emissions that they've pledged.

KyussB

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Fibreglass has a conductivity of about 0.044 W/mK. The boards don't have a conductivity of 0.015 so I'm not entirely sure what metric you used to quantify it being three times better.

Poorly fitted insulation boards aren't great either.

100mm insulation board is 0.018 W/mK - so 2.5 is more accurate.

Shefwedfan

KyussB wrote: »

What we are debating, is: Will it provide the Green Party's pledge of a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030?

If people just throw some fibreglass in the attic, and do nothing else - then no, it won't provide the reduction in emissions that they've pledged.

I’m not debating. I made a point and you went off on a rant. Your such an expert on insulation I couldn’t possibly debate with you.....I could never defeat such knowledge plus you can install as well....

Shefwedfan

KyussB wrote: »

Not quite, though - the bigger picture is that it doesn't matter what we do personally about climate change - it only matters what we do macroeconomically (i.e. across the whole economy) at a government level, about climate change - and that the only possible way to do enough, fast enough, at that level, is massive government spending.

Until austerity/budget-balancing dies - green politics will always lose.

http://www.epa.ie/ghg/residential/

Residential is responsible for 10.2%....why would anyone go after residential for huge gains which might reduce by 5%?

As I mention, from a residential point of view it is a case of every little helps, people who do have the money should invest in higher insulation as this reduces cost, those that don’t can make small changes which all add together. If you take 100k houses with no attic insulation and add tainted glass, that could reduce let’s say 100 ltr of oil per year which reduces burning of 10 million ltr of oil

Would removing 10 million ltr of oil help?

Bass Reeves

Shefwedfan wrote: »

http://www.epa.ie/ghg/residential/

Residential is responsible for 10.2%....why would anyone go after residential for huge gains which might reduce by 5%?

As I mention, from a residential point of view it is a case of every little helps, people who do have the money should invest in higher insulation as this reduces cost, those that don’t can make small changes which all add together. If you take 100k houses with no attic insulation and add tainted glass, that could reduce let’s say 100 ltr of oil per year which reduces burning of 10 million ltr of oil

Would removing 10 million ltr of oil help?

If houses have poor insulation and are cold usually bringing up on there energy rating can have little effect on there emissions as owners now heat the house to higher internal temperatures to gain from insulation of houses you need to bring energy rating up to where houses have passive energy demands.

Just to put it he Green Party's plan into perspective in five years we need to be below 70% of present emissions and in 10 years 50%. With a possible slowdown in the economy it may be possible to hit the 7% target and maybe higher over the next 2 years. However as the economy recovers it will be very hard to achieve reduction in emissions as it recovers. This is why we should have gone with a 3,5 and 10 year targets.

To hit these targets we cannot afford to have half empty trains of students and free travel pass holders in under used rail lines. Neither can we continue to allow data centers to technically buy renewable energy pushing other consumers technically on the non renewable electricity.

As area's like agriculture and transport are technically the biggest contributors it hard to see us achieving such targets. Unless there is a change in agri measurements for Ireland we will have to decimate our food export sector to achieve these targets

Shefwedfan

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If houses have poor insulation and are cold usually bringing up on there energy rating can have little effect on there emissions as owners now heat the house to higher internal temperatures to gain from insulation of houses you need to bring energy rating up to where houses have passive energy demands.

Just to put it he Green Party's plan into perspective in five years we need to be below 70% of present emissions and in 10 years 50%. With a possible slowdown in the economy it may be possible to hit the 7% target and maybe higher over the next 2 years. However as the economy recovers it will be very hard to achieve reduction in emissions as it recovers. This is why we should have gone with a 3,5 and 10 year targets.

To hit these targets we cannot afford to have half empty trains of students and free travel pass holders in under used rail lines. Neither can we continue to allow data centers to technically buy renewable energy pushing other consumers technically on the non renewable electricity.

As area's like agriculture and transport are technically the biggest contributors it hard to see us achieving such targets. Unless there is a change in agri measurements for Ireland we will have to decimate our food export sector to achieve these targets

How do you work that out? I had a house in Dublin D3 rating. I swapped to TRV and filled the attic with insulation after about 2 years living in the house. That made a serious reduction in oil, at least 200 euro per winter.


Then I done a complete revamp of house. My fuel cost reduced by over half.



Please note, you keep saying Green Party. FG signed Ireland up to Paris agreement. Not the green party. Not sure why people are so confused on this.


Even if the green party didnt go into government, FG/FF or SF would have to implement a green agenda

Bass Reeves

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How do you work that out? I had a house in Dublin D3 rating. I swapped to TRV and filled the attic with insulation after about 2 years living in the house. That made a serious reduction in oil, at least 200 euro per winter.


Then I done a complete revamp of house. My fuel cost reduced by over half.



Please note, you keep saying Green Party. FG signed Ireland up to Paris agreement. Not the green party. Not sure why people are so confused on this.


Even if the green party didnt go into government, FG/FF or SF would have to implement a green agenda

A D3 house would not be a seriously low rated house to begin with. More than likely it was build in the last 15 years. A 3-4 bedroom house with an F or G rating will cost 5K+ to heat to average temp 18c all year round. People gennerally cannot afford this so they limit there energy usage. If they bring that house up to E or D rating it is likely that the house will more liveable in not that they will achieve huge energy savings.

gifted

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How do you work that out? I had a house in Dublin D3 rating. I swapped to TRV and filled the attic with insulation after about 2 years living in the house. That made a serious reduction in oil, at least 200 euro per winter.


Then I done a complete revamp of house. My fuel cost reduced by over half.



Please note, you keep saying Green Party. FG signed Ireland up to Paris agreement. Not the green party. Not sure why people are so confused on this.


Even if the green party didnt go into government, FG/FF or SF would have to implement a green agenda

Aren't you lucky you could afford a revamp of your house....some of us can't afford a can of paint never mind a revamp.....that's the problem with the Greens....they think everyone is loaded.

Shefwedfan

gifted wrote: »

Aren't you lucky you could afford a revamp of your house....some of us can't afford a can of paint never mind a revamp.....that's the problem with the Greens....they think everyone is loaded.

Nothing to do with the Greens. I did that house in 2008....

Shefwedfan

Bass Reeves wrote: »

A D3 house would not be a seriously low rated house to begin with. More than likely it was build in the last 15 years. A 3-4 bedroom house with an F or G rating will cost 5K+ to heat to average temp 18c all year round. People gennerally cannot afford this so they limit there energy usage. If they bring that house up to E or D rating it is likely that the house will more liveable in not that they will achieve huge energy savings.

House was build in 1970...maybe it was D3 I can't honestly remember now, I thought it was D3. Then again when I bought I dont think you had those ratings required. When I sold it I think I was up to a C1 or maybe a B3

My point is, small/low cost changes to a house can reduce heating costs. Yes a full revamp is the best but as post not everyone can afford. To install TRV and insulation in attic I think would have cost me 2-300 quid. In the first year alone I saved at least 200 quid on oil. So pay off was in 2 years

Huntergonzo

Yaaay here come the Green, they seem to have a raging hard on for the big polluted cities but can't stand the nice clean air out here in the countryside.....seems a bit strange that.

Jimmy Garlic

gifted wrote: »

Aren't you lucky you could afford a revamp of your house....some of us can't afford a can of paint never mind a revamp.....that's the problem with the Greens....they think everyone is loaded.

With Papas money. The party is awash with perpetual children bankrolled by their capitalist parents. It’s no wonder the vast majority of them don’t live in or understand the real world.