Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Green Party wish list.
Options
Comments
-
Tell me how wrote: »Aside from the moral position of doing what we can, if everyone who signed up to the Paris Agreement makes meaningful effort to achieve their goals then that is the greatest chance to see meaningful change.
If some countries shrug their shoulders and say, there's no point, then it's an out for other countries to do the same.
This is literally the principle of every collective agreement that has ever being signed where people/bodies/countries make a commitment to do what they have signed up to doing.
But surely the issue is not that the ordinary person needs to make the change but its business and industry that should be forced to make the change.
Do you decide how your household goods are packaged, how they are produced, or how they are transported to the shops? NO, you as a consumer have little input on these.
The same with the carbon taxes the Green party wants to introduce.
Do you as a consumer get a choice, of how you heat your home, fuel your car, or how you home is built or the infrastructure you use is. None, really you are limited by what you already have and most cant afford to replace their car, retrofit their homes, or use non existent public transport in their area.
Public opinion and pressure will only go so far to persuade businesses and industry to change their ways, but bottom line and profit will usually win any argument.
You certainly will not make the changes that the environmental lobby want through carbon taxes, all that happens there is that the producers of goods and services pass on any green taxes or additional costs to the consumer. Big business doesn't care that your goods are packaged in tons of plastic, if that the easiest and most efficient way to package something they will continue to do so. If there are carbon taxes so what that cost will be passed to the consumer.
If you really want to address carbon emissions and reduce the use of fossil fuels then you have to make big business pay any green taxes up front.
If a manufacturer now finds that the fossil fuel derived materials they wish to use for packaging are far more expensive than more environmentally friendly materials which ones do you think they would choose to use? If they can sell EV's cheaper than diesel or petrol cars which would they choose to produce and sell.
THat's why I think the Green policy on carbon taxes is so wrong, and they would not even get a preference vote from me, The Green parties policies and carbon taxes punish the consumer not the producer, those that have no other choice rather than those that do have a choice. They are in effect taxing poverty or those least able to afford to pay. Those that can least afford to change get taxed more. Its absolutely disgraceful that the Green party claims to be a left of centre party and yet punishes those who are the poorest.0 -
Jinglejangle69 wrote: »Heard today only 8% of people in Ireland have climate change as top priority post covid.
Was 42%.
Need a new election.
The whole world has changed.
You cannot have a new election every time the people change there minds, this would be being ruled by opinion polls. After an election if a majority of TD's can find a way to form a government they have an option to continue that government for 5 years if they wishSlava Ukrainii
0 -
The Austerity Greens just what the country and economy needs right now during Covid 190
-
Jinglejangle69 wrote: »Heard today only 8% of people in Ireland have climate change as top priority post covid.
Was 42%.
Need a new election.
The whole world has changed.
So your plan is to have an election every 6 months???0 -
How many times have we seen the same post....oh well we are only a small country
What about your children walking around Dublin and filling their lungs with smoke. Slowly dying. What about the high rate of cancer in this country and not because of smoking.
We as a people will be healthier. To be honest why do you care what China or anyone else does? look after your own country.
Personally, I think it is so stupid to go "oh well we dotn need to do anything because XYZ is not". Grow up. People are supposed to be adults.
This austerity s**t as well. what is it based on? half of you havent even bothered to read the Green manifesto or the current program for government but going on about austerity.
Its the same point said over and over and over again. Majority are ill-informed and irrelevant to be honest
Very few actually realize if we over achieve on CO2 then we can sell our credits, for massive money to other countries. Which means you could invest now and actually selling credits could pay back.....
Instead people want to sit like a pig in poo and point the finger. Then in a few years time when everyone is dying of cancer it will be "but sure nobody told us"0 -
Advertisement
-
This deal gets them nothing - as the very high likelihood of austerity trashes all their policies.I've asked you a second question which hasn't been answered. Tony Holohan?
Now suppose we have the new election. My guess is that alot of voters will say we need a government come hell or high water and consequently the smaller parties will regrettably get squeezed. Ok, you don't share that view so let's take it from there. The Greens come back with more or less the same, unless you are predicting that they will be up there with the big three. They again refuse to go into coalition, and refuse again 4-5 years later. So they get nothing instead of the half a loaf that is on offer. Meantime the planet is frying. How much time does the human race have? I thought the issue of the planet's survival was in the minds of environmentalists bigger than the survival of any party, Green or otherwise.
And people should shelf that old shibboleth about politicians wanting a coalition to feather their nests. Pursue that to its conclusion and there would never be a government.
Very high likelihood they get nothing from this coaliton (other than another decade-long voter backlash) - when if they had any amount of spine or principles, they may actually grow into a proper competing party, and have a chance at getting something done.
The Greens exactly are a party that appears to be career politicians without any principles - existing only to co-opt the 'green vote', and ensure it never leads anywhere except into supporting FF/FG.0 -
Government finances do not work like household finances, and they never have. Balanncing books never has to be a goal (but it can be an incidental effect, of slowing down an overheating economy), Public Debt vs GDP is historically eroded away through GDP growth, not by balancing books and strangling the economy...Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »And where is all the magic money going to come from?
The books have got to be balanced, not immediately for sure (belt tightening right now would cause a recession, no doubt about it), but in the next few years we absolutely have to start closing down on the deficit.
One never knows what is around the corner, and we were fortunate that the previous Government was some way financially prudent and had the money to pay out the pandemic payment, get all the PPE, etc.
Money does not grow on trees. People don't spend what they can't afford - and neither should Governments over a sustained period of time.
You do realize the gold standard was a century ago, and that in a fiat money system the term "money does not grow on trees" is meaningless, right?
Private banks and the ECB do create money from nothing, all the time - and thanks to the latter, we indirectly have ready access to funds at almost 0% interest...0 -
Carbon taxes can work - but only when combined with a significant and lasting stimulus to promote alternative/non-carbon energy sources - otherwise it's just punishing the poor for being poor (i.e. for not being able to afford the necessary retrofits etc.).But surely the issue is not that the ordinary person needs to make the change but its business and industry that should be forced to make the change.
Do you decide how your household goods are packaged, how they are produced, or how they are transported to the shops? NO, you as a consumer have little input on these.
The same with the carbon taxes the Green party wants to introduce.
Do you as a consumer get a choice, of how you heat your home, fuel your car, or how you home is built or the infrastructure you use is. None, really you are limited by what you already have and most cant afford to replace their car, retrofit their homes, or use non existent public transport in their area.
Public opinion and pressure will only go so far to persuade businesses and industry to change their ways, but bottom line and profit will usually win any argument.
You certainly will not make the changes that the environmental lobby want through carbon taxes, all that happens there is that the producers of goods and services pass on any green taxes or additional costs to the consumer. Big business doesn't care that your goods are packaged in tons of plastic, if that the easiest and most efficient way to package something they will continue to do so. If there are carbon taxes so what that cost will be passed to the consumer.
If you really want to address carbon emissions and reduce the use of fossil fuels then you have to make big business pay any green taxes up front.
If a manufacturer now finds that the fossil fuel derived materials they wish to use for packaging are far more expensive than more environmentally friendly materials which ones do you think they would choose to use? If they can sell EV's cheaper than diesel or petrol cars which would they choose to produce and sell.
THat's why I think the Green policy on carbon taxes is so wrong, and they would not even get a preference vote from me, The Green parties policies and carbon taxes punish the consumer not the producer, those that have no other choice rather than those that do have a choice. They are in effect taxing poverty or those least able to afford to pay. Those that can least afford to change get taxed more. Its absolutely disgraceful that the Green party claims to be a left of centre party and yet punishes those who are the poorest.
So a regressive carbon tax must be combined with a progressive stimulus helping to fund alternatives for those who can't afford it.
The Green Party stand for regressive carbon taxes combined with the very high likelihood of regressive austerity along with it - which will harm the least well off, worse than austerity alone.
The Green Party are like the tories of climate politics, it seems. We need a Progressive Green Party.0 -
They just agreed to a deal resulting in budget-balancing in 2-2.5 years! That means - unless they are incredibly lucky with economic conditions - a very high likelihood of austerity...Shefwedfan wrote: »...
This austerity s**t as well. what is it based on? half of you havent even bothered to read the Green manifesto or the current program for government but going on about austerity.
...
Even Green Party councillor's have said this:...https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/two-thirds-of-speakers-at-green-meeting-favour-entering-coalition-1.4282818?mode=amp
However, later Cllr Lorna Bogue said: “This is an austerity programme for government. There can be no doubt about that.”
...0 -
Carbon taxes can work - but only when combined with a significant and lasting stimulus to promote alternative/non-carbon energy sources - otherwise it's just punishing the poor for being poor (i.e. for not being able to afford the necessary retrofits etc.).
So a regressive carbon tax must be combined with a progressive stimulus helping to fund alternatives for those who can't afford it.
The Green Party stand for regressive carbon taxes combined with the very high likelihood of regressive austerity along with it - which will harm the least well off, worse than austerity alone.
The Green Party are like the tories of climate politics, it seems. We need a Progressive Green Party.
I would totally agree with that.
The Green are too fond of telling people what they cant do, but never have the wit to put a viable alternative in place before trying to implement policies that punish those that have no other choice.
Put the viable alternative in place, that is both affordable and available to all, and then I would have no problem with these Green penalty taxes. But to do so first without the alternatives in place is simple stupidity.
The green were gaining support before the election, now that people see they haven't a clue on how to achieve their policies in a fair and equitable way they will be lucky to get the 5 or so seats they previously had.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
In fairness, the Greens should have never returned after betraying their voters a decade ago - can't believe anyone voted for them again after that. The current Green Party needs to die off completely.0
-
In fairness, the Greens should have never returned after betraying their voters a decade ago - can't believe anyone voted for them again after that. The current Green Party needs to die off completely.
Hard to see the sense in that
'We've been at this a while and we have finally moved from Step Zero to step 1 with a view towards step 2, let's drop everything and go back to Step 0'
People seem to be in favor of paying penalties for not meeting emissions targets rather than paying anything towards changing behavior.
General population isn't going to be any wealthier one way or another, but the latter would at least help the environment.0 -
You could say the same about Sinn Fein.In fairness, the Greens should have never returned after betraying their voters a decade ago - can't believe anyone voted for them again after that. The current Green Party needs to die off completely.
We wont go into Leinster House
We wont go into Stormont.
What do you want? New parties every five years0 -
The bolded part is EXACTLY what they have agreed to, with budget-balancing i.e. very likely austerity in 2-2.5 years...Tell me how wrote: »Hard to see the sense in that
'We've been at this a while and we have finally moved from Step Zero to step 1 with a view towards step 2, let's drop everything and go back to Step 0'
People seem to be in favor of paying penalties for not meeting emissions targets rather than paying anything towards changing behavior.
General population isn't going to be any wealthier one way or another, but the latter would at least help the environment.
Do you understand or not, that budget-balancing/austerity is going backwards in terms of green policy?0 -
The bolded part is EXACTLY what they have agreed to, with budget-balancing i.e. very likely austerity in 2-2.5 years...
Do you understand or not, that budget-balancing/austerity is going backwards in terms of green policy?
You yourself know that we cannot predict the future because you always write this has 'very likely austerity in 2-2.5 years.
I don't know if you think that austerity in that time frame is pretty much guaranteed then how you can say that a better approach now would have been to commit to massive financial stimulus for green projects.0 -
The same with the carbon taxes the Green party wants to introduce.
If you really want to address carbon emissions and reduce the use of fossil fuels then you have to make big business pay any green taxes up front.
The carbon tax already exists. The GP want to increase it.
Large firms are already in the ETS, the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Power stations, cement plants, etc. are already in the ETS, designed to reduce emissions.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Hard to see the sense in that
'We've been at this a while and we have finally moved from Step Zero to step 1 with a view towards step 2, let's drop everything and go back to Step 0'
People seem to be in favor of paying penalties for not meeting emissions targets rather than paying anything towards changing behavior.
General population isn't going to be any wealthier one way or another, but the latter would at least help the environment.
So tell me how exactly is hitting someone with a carbon tax going to help if the only source of heating in their home is an open fire or solid fuel stove?
What would you suggest they heat their home with?
It cant be gas because the Greens have just nerf'd the gas storage facility on the Shannon that would have provided the additional supply of gas required to convert all the homes using solid fuels to gas.
It obvious cannot be coal, or oil. So it has to be electricity. Do you realise how expensive it is to heat a home using electricity? That's the same electricity which over 60% is currently sourced from fossil fuels.
Please tell me the Greens have thought that one out and they have a solution ready and waiting0 -
If you really want to address carbon emissions and reduce the use of fossil fuels then you have to make big business pay any green taxes up front.
If a manufacturer now finds that the fossil fuel derived materials they wish to use for packaging are far more expensive than more environmentally friendly materials which ones do you think they would choose to use? If they can sell EV's cheaper than diesel or petrol cars which would they choose to produce and sell.
THat's why I think the Green policy on carbon taxes is so wrong, and they would not even get a preference vote from me, The Green parties policies and carbon taxes punish the consumer not the producer, those that have no other choice rather than those that do have a choice. They are in effect taxing poverty or those least able to afford to pay. Those that can least afford to change get taxed more. Its absolutely disgraceful that the Green party claims to be a left of centre party and yet punishes those who are the poorest.
Be careful here - we need to know about the incidence of taxation.
Tobacco excise duties are charged to the tobacco firms.
Beer excise duty is charged to and paid by the brewers.
Who writes the cheque to Revenue is often not who actually pays the tax.
Diageo pay the excise duty to Revenue, but I actually pay it.
It doesn't matter who writes the cheque to Revenue, what matters is the elasticity of demand/supply of the product.
Let's say you increase Corporation Tax, and foolishly think "big business will pay that extra tax".
Only people pay taxes. Only people pay taxes.
The higher CT will be paid by:
the customers
the workers
the shareholders
of the firm.
The same goes for any tax applied to a firm.0 -
It has a high likelihood of happening because of the budget-balancing they agreed to. Budget balancing like that makes no economic sense, and it also make zero sense in terms of green policies - especially occuring in such a short amount of time.Tell me how wrote: »You yourself know that we cannot predict the future because you always write this has 'very likely austerity in 2-2.5 years.
I don't know if you think that austerity in that time frame is pretty much guaranteed then how you can say that a better approach now would have been to commit to massive financial stimulus for green projects.
Do you not see that green policies require gigantic amounts of government spending? And that budget-balancing inherently cuts into green policies?0 -
Advertisement
-
So tell me how exactly is hitting someone with a carbon tax going to help if the only source of heating in their home is an open fire or solid fuel stove?
What would you suggest they heat their home with?
It cant be gas because the Greens have just nerf'd the gas storage facility on the Shannon that would have provided the additional supply of gas required to convert all the homes using solid fuels to gas.
It obvious cannot be coal, or oil. So it has to be electricity. Do you realise how expensive it is to heat a home using electricity? That's the same electricity which over 60% is currently sourced from fossil fuels.
Please tell me the Greens have thought that one out and they have a solution ready and waiting
How did they do anything to the gas storage on the Shannon? I didn’t see anything about that ?
PS loads of options to heat a home by the way0 -
Be careful here - we need to know about the incidence of taxation.
Tobacco excise duties are charged to the tobacco firms.
Beer excise duty is charged to and paid by the brewers.
Who writes the cheque to Revenue is often not who actually pays the tax.
Diageo pay the excise duty to Revenue, but I actually pay it.
It doesn't matter who writes the cheque to Revenue, what matters is the elasticity of demand/supply of the product.
Let's say you increase Corporation Tax, and foolishly think "big business will pay that extra tax".
Only people pay taxes. Only people pay taxes.
The higher CT will be paid by:
the customers
the workers
the shareholders
of the firm.
The same goes for any tax applied to a firm.
I understand the point you are making, but I think you misunderstood me or maybe I did not explain myself clearly.
I suppose a simple example might clear it up.
A manufacturer of snake oil sells his product in small glass bottles, that are lavishly packaged in a plastic container that has a polystyrene liner to prevent the glass from breaking. He is forced to pay all levies regarding the plastics up front before the product is sold on to a wholesaler, but obviously he could pass that cost onto the consumer.
His competitor sells a very similar product but forgoes the lavish packaging and simply packages his product is a small glass bottle that is protected by recycled cardboard. As there are no plastics or fossil fuel derived packaging involved he pays no green taxes with regards the packaging..
Would it not be fair to say that if production costs of the actual product were identical the second supplier would have an advantage as his outlay before sale is less?
The point I am making here is profit margins might not be affected by carbon taxes but if producers are hit with additional running costs sufficiently high enough then are they not more likely to find ways to reduce those costs.0 -
So tell me how exactly is hitting someone with a carbon tax going to help if the only source of heating in their home is an open fire or solid fuel stove?
What would you suggest they heat their home with?
It cant be gas because the Greens have just nerf'd the gas storage facility on the Shannon that would have provided the additional supply of gas required to convert all the homes using solid fuels to gas.
It obvious cannot be coal, or oil. So it has to be electricity. Do you realise how expensive it is to heat a home using electricity? That's the same electricity which over 60% is currently sourced from fossil fuels.
Please tell me the Greens have thought that one out and they have a solution ready and waiting
First off, if anyone sees the only way of heating their home as being using an open fire then they need someone to step in given how inefficient they are.
But maybe a tax will encourage people to insulate their home so as not to burn as much fuel.
What the Greens are saying is action is needed and here is something which might start some motivating people to act.
Your last sentence is so frustrating at this point, why should the greens come with a full and complete solution when everyone in Dail Eireann (outside of DHR probably) acknowledges that action is needed and yet no one else is suggesting any action whatsoever.0 -
It has a high likelihood of happening because of the budget-balancing they agreed to. Budget balancing like that makes no economic sense, and it also make zero sense in terms of green policies - especially occuring in such a short amount of time.
Do you not see that green policies require gigantic amounts of government spending? And that budget-balancing inherently cuts into green policies?
I do, but that is always going to be the case. But, no one from any of the other parties is coming remotely near advocating for doing anything.
So which is better, doing something (however small the chances of success) or doing nothing but being able to say what should be done?0 -
Interesting to read the tweets from a GP member on twitter yesterday who is voting against the plan for government. His reasoning is this is much of the same with green policies tacked on and feels that the party will get decimated for it.
He would have been in favor of it if they got what they wanted but he doesnt think they will.0 -
God love them, the poor old GReen havent got a clue.
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/green-party-will-continue-to-fight-hard-says-catherine-martin-1006334.htmlGreen Party deputy leader, Catherine Martin, says that when the Taoiseach changes there will be an opportunity to renegotiate the terms of the programme for government.
In the meantime, the Green Party will conduct internal analysis every two to three months to monitor how policies are being implemented, she said.
They are signing agreement regarding a program for government lasting 5 years, and some how they think its going to expire after two.
Or is it they think thy are being cute hoors and only staying in government while the spending spree is on, and then think they can bail out once playtime is over. If they pull that stunt no party, not even DF, would have in them in a coalition in any future government.
The Greens ignorance and stupidity over the last week just keep on coming. First their finace spokeperson advices not to agree to the coalition, then they declare the M20 plans is cancelled, something both Michael Martin and Leo were quick to contradict knowing that would amount to political suicide in Munster, and now this.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »First off, if anyone sees the only way of heating their home as being using an open fire then they need someone to step in given how inefficient they are.
But maybe a tax will encourage people to insulate their home so as not to burn as much fuel.
What the Greens are saying is action is needed and here is something which might start some motivating people to act.
Your last sentence is so frustrating at this point, why should the greens come with a full and complete solution when everyone in Dail Eireann (outside of DHR probably) acknowledges that action is needed and yet no one else is suggesting any action whatsoever.
Stop with the "what they are saying" nonsense, do you or do not not understand the Green policies. Do you understand the outcome of those policies and the impacts they will have?
action needs to be taken alright by the government that introduces punitive taxes without providing an alternative.
Provide the alternative and then it would be perfectly fair to tax the sh!te out of those that will not change. Until then the Green are simply taxing the poor or those that have no other choice.
I asked you a direct question, a simple and direct answer would be nice. How is that person supposed to heat their home?
Which environmentally friendly fuel do they use?
Many of those homes that still only have a open fire or stove do not even have cavity walls. Do you realise the cost involved to fix those home to the standard the Green Party would like. Where does that money come from ?0 -
Stop with the "what they are saying" nonsense, do you or do not not understand the Green policies. Do you understand the outcome of those policies and the impacts they will have?
action needs to be taken alright by the government that introduces taxes without providing an alternative.
Provide the alternative and then it would be perfectly fair to tax the sh!te out of those that will not change. Until then the Green are simply taxing the poor or those that have no other choice.
I asked you a direct question, a simple and direct answer would be nice. How is that person supposed to heat their home?
Many of those homes that still only have a open fire or stove do not even have cavity walls.
Same way as they are currently heating it. Is that simple enough for you?
Maybe if people demanded FF/FG provided alternatives they might do so instead of taking their bait and focusing all ire on the greens.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Same way as they are currently heating it. Is that simple enough for you?
Maybe if people demanded FF/FG provided alternatives they might do so instead of taking their bait and focusing all ire on the greens.
So basically you have no problem those people burning coal, gas or oil, but you are going to make it very expensive to do so, even if any insulation they install only reduces the emissions by a small fraction.
Nothing to help these people insulate their homes?
What of those on low incomes, pensions, or disability benefits that have no chance whatsoever of getting a large loan from the banks to pay for this. Are the Greens going to guarantee that everyone that wishes to insulate their home will be able to borrow the money required and repay that money in an affordable way?
Why did the Greens nerf the gas storage facility on the Shannon? Surely gas is a far cleaner fuel than turf, coal or oi?0 -
Advertisement
-
So basically you have no problem those people burning coal, gas or oil, but you are going to make it very expensive to do so, even if any insulation they install only reduces the emissions by a small fraction.
Nothing to help these people insulate their homes?
What of those on low incomes, pensions, or disability benefits that have no chance whatsoever of getting a large loan from the banks to pay for this. Are the Greens going to guarantee that everyone that wishes to insulate their home will be able to borrow the money required and repay that money in an affordable way?
Why did the Greens nerf the gas storage facility on the Shannon? Surely gas is a far cleaner fuel than turf, coal or oi?
Again with 'the greens, the greens, the greens'.
What are your thoughts on the strategies of FF/FG/SF or whoever else you care to mention in relation achieving the targets we committed to in the Paris agreement.
Because, if you don't want to talk about them, I am just going to assume you don't really want to see any action.
And before you ask, I'm aware of the thread title, but it's frustrating to see people doing FF/FG's dirty work in undermining the green position while not offering any judgement on how the country actually moves towards the change which is needed.
At this point, what is most likely of happening at the next government is even less commitment to green ideals because if the Green Party are obliterated as many expect they will be, it'll be a get out clause for the next government to say that 'Green action is not high on the wishes of the electorate'.0
Advertisement