Green Party wish list.

Shefwedfan

Nermal wrote: »

Might get close this year, all we had to do was entirely shut down a fifth of all economic activity for three months.

So next year, shut down for six months?

7% per year, every year, is only possible by stopping increasingly large amounts of economic activity.

You can’t do it by buying electric cars, building wind turbines, by ‘investing’. It can only be done by not raising animals, not planting food, not digging things out of the ground or making the or transporting them, by not consuming energy.

Be honest about what that target means.

It’s not 7% every year, it’s 21% target over 3 years....

So you invest in solar/wind in 2020/21/22 it will drive the CO2 down in Massively in 2023

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

So your previous points? You drop all them ?

oh for the love of god, read what has been written. stop think about it and if you are not sure, read it again.
Believe it or not the vast majority of the people in this country want a better environment, less pollution, and better services where they are appropriate, even me.

There are things that this country can do that will not cost billions upon billions of euro to dramatically cut down on our emissions. The Greens have not yet put forward one single plan that has been costed, or given one single estimate for how long any of their plans would take to implement.

You were given an example of how with one single project, (build motorways and speed up the switch to electric vehicles) could in one fell swoop cut nearly a quarter of the reductions the green party is demanding in the next 10 years.
A simple idea to which you poured scorn over. up to 25% of you target emission reduction right there and you dont want it!!!!

So far all you have suggested that will happen is that carbon taxes will increase without realising that this will not reduce the amount of petrol or diesel used if people cannot or do not switch to electric vehicles.

So I keep asking you, what do the green propose to do? What project have they put forward in the program for government that was not already planned by the previous government.

You keep talking about the green policies but you obviously have not read them for yourself.
Please, take the time to read them. You are embarrassing yourself with your constant evasions, and lack of understanding with regards transport in rural areas.

I would love nothing more than to have a bus stop down the road that would enable me to get to any major town in the country. It doesn't exist, and it will never exist because the cost would be far beyond what this country could ever afford even if we had decades to do it.

What the greens have is literally a wish list and nothing more. There is no plan to turn them into reality, there is no money to pay for those plans once the green get round to actually making them, and by the time that ever happens our deadlines will be long gone.

The green have agreed to a deal to go into a coalition that does not deliver one single thing more than increased carbon taxes. Anyone who really cared about the environment would be appalled by what they have agreed to, it doesnt even come close to what they were promising..

Shefwedfan

^^^
So your dropping the electric car idea?

Any thought on opening the train line to Navan?

Bass Reeves

Shefwedfan wrote: »

We got the viagra one the first time, you a fan?

The point is still relevant, ireland is not a manufacturing country when compared to other in the World.

Where is all the packaging for Kerry group coming from? Kerry group have massive installation in asia.

I guess our local google expert didn’t hit CRH etc,

Picking a few companies from a desperate google search is hardly relevant in the discussion.

Our CO2 is not high because of manufacturing.

There are a hell of a lot more jobs involved in manufacturing in the export sector than in the non manufacturing sector. However most are not on Navan or Dublin city centre

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

^^^
So your dropping the electric car idea?

Any thought on opening the train line to Navan?

Public transport makes a lot of sense in Dublin and its commuter towns.
I believe the Navan route makes sense because it will have the volume of users to make it a viable service that doesn't lose millions of euro.

No one is arguing with you over commuter services into Dublin from its larger commuter towns.

But to keep it in that locality I doubt a rail service connecting Trim for instance would be viable. The cost of an extension to Trim and the dramatically lower number of commuters would probably make that extension a loss making enterprise as well as being horrendously expensive to construct as there is no existing line to upgrade.

That has been my point all along but you dont seem to get it.
What works in cities and large commuter towns will not work in rural areas.

Tea drinker

Nermal wrote: »

Might get close this year, all we had to do was entirely shut down a fifth of all economic activity for three months.

So next year, shut down for six months?

7% per year, every year, is only possible by stopping increasingly large amounts of economic activity.

You can’t do it by buying electric cars, building wind turbines, by ‘investing’. It can only be done by not raising animals, not planting food, not digging things out of the ground or making the or transporting them, by not consuming energy.

Be honest about what that target means.

It means a lot of involuntary uhhh intermittent fasting?
It means taxing essentials like electricity, heating and food to reduce consumption. Same as forcing cars off the road forces road users to use bikes.
We have to reduce our population and stop any and all immigration.
Lets go really mental and get rid of allowances for children, instead introduce a tax on babies and close maternity hospitals! Actually knowing the greens they will put refugees in the coombe ;-)

You know some of my mad predictions are at least partly true.

blanch152

efanton wrote: »

Public transport makes a lot of sense in Dublin and its commuter towns.
I believe the Navan route makes sense because it will have the volume of users to make it a viable service that doesn't lose millions of euro.

No one is arguing with you over commuter services into Dublin from its larger commuter towns.

But to keep it in that locality I doubt a rail service connecting Trim for instance would be viable. The cost of an extension to Trim and the dramatically lower number of commuters would probably make that extension a loss making enterprise as well as being horrendously expensive to construct as there is no existing line to upgrade.

That has been my point all along but you dont seem to get it.
What works in cities and large commuter towns will not work in rural areas.

Navan won't ever have the volume of users to make it worth it.

"Option 1: Extension of the rail line North from M3 Parkway to Navan was ruled out because the level of target public transport growth of 300 trips to the City Centre during the AM peak hour would not justify such a scheme. The option was also considered against the upper range of demand catering for 500 trips, and still this scale did not justify a rail extension. A large proportion of demand remains outside the M50, where land use is dispersed and congestion is
low making a rail less attractive as an option.

 Option 2: Extension of the rail line from Navan eastward to Drogheda was ruled out for the same reasons. Additionally the journey time for this trip would not be competitive with a journey time by car"

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Navan_Corridor_Study.pdf

efanton

blanch152 wrote: »

Navan won't ever have the volume of users to make it worth it.

"Option 1: Extension of the rail line North from M3 Parkway to Navan was ruled out because the level of target public transport growth of 300 trips to the City Centre during the AM peak hour would not justify such a scheme. The option was also considered against the upper range of demand catering for 500 trips, and still this scale did not justify a rail extension. A large proportion of demand remains outside the M50, where land use is dispersed and congestion is
low making a rail less attractive as an option.

 Option 2: Extension of the rail line from Navan eastward to Drogheda was ruled out for the same reasons. Additionally the journey time for this trip would not be competitive with a journey time by car"

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Navan_Corridor_Study.pdf

I have little knowledge of that local area, nor how many might use that service.

The argument has been throughout this thread, whether the Greens idea of public transport everywhere is at all sensible, especially in rural areas.

I can see the logic of these public transport links into Dublin from its larger commuter towns if there is a sufficiently large enough amount of people using them to not make it a loss making enterprise.
I simply could not agree that these types of scheme would work in rural areas.

Thanks for the link by the way. I have been asking for links from those that support these schemes, but no one provided anything.

Shefwedfan

blanch152 wrote: »

Navan won't ever have the volume of users to make it worth it.

"Option 1: Extension of the rail line North from M3 Parkway to Navan was ruled out because the level of target public transport growth of 300 trips to the City Centre during the AM peak hour would not justify such a scheme. The option was also considered against the upper range of demand catering for 500 trips, and still this scale did not justify a rail extension. A large proportion of demand remains outside the M50, where land use is dispersed and congestion is
low making a rail less attractive as an option.

 Option 2: Extension of the rail line from Navan eastward to Drogheda was ruled out for the same reasons. Additionally the journey time for this trip would not be competitive with a journey time by car"

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Navan_Corridor_Study.pdf

Even as I opened it I guessed the answer would be a f**king bus!! seriously....they are going to run a bus every 15 mins which according to the map goes in via Philsboro :P so the first 4 buses from 7-8 will all be parked in a row waiting to get past the traffic. THey will then wonder why nobody uses it.



I did read it but not sure if any consideration was put to the growth of a town due to a train link. It just seemed to be take the current growth of town and project it. Which is the wrong baseline.


It is interesting the line would only cost 300m.

Jizique

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It’s not 7% every year, it’s 21% target over 3 years....

So you invest in solar/wind in 2020/21/22 it will drive the CO2 down in Massively in 2023

Not sure it would make much difference - there is no coal generation, and gas is pretty efficient; and you are obviously not counting the carbon released in the erection of the wind turbines let alone the manufacture thereof

efanton

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Even as I opened it I guessed the answer would be a f**king bus!! seriously....they are going to run a bus every 15 mins which according to the map goes in via Philsboro :P so the first 4 buses from 7-8 will all be parked in a row waiting to get past the traffic. THey will then wonder why nobody uses it.



I did read it but not sure if any consideration was put to the growth of a town due to a train link. It just seemed to be take the current growth of town and project it. Which is the wrong baseline.


It is interesting the line would only cost 300m.

But hey its more public transport, exactly what you were demanding.

Are we hearing now, that because its not convenient or is slower, that you are against any public transport provided.
Would you use a car instead?

Its not the cost of upgrading line, its whether that service could be run without making a loss. Obviously they have determined a rail service will not be profitable but a bus service will.

And now you see why I have been arguing that trying to put rail services in rural areas that have even less population than the Navan area is lunacy.

Shefwedfan

Jizique wrote: »

Not sure it would make much difference - there is no coal generation, and gas is pretty efficient; and you are obviously not counting the carbon released in the erection of the wind turbines let alone the manufacture thereof

Not sure I understand? you are saying do nothing because to create a cleaner environment we need to generate CO2?

efanton

Jizique wrote: »

Not sure it would make much difference - there is no coal generation, and gas is pretty efficient; and you are obviously not counting the carbon released in the erection of the wind turbines let alone the manufacture thereof

To be fair that would be the same for any infrastructure you would use.
There will always be a carbon cost no matter what power plant you build be that wind, solar, oil, coal, turf, nuclear or hydro.

what matters is the carbon cost over its lifetime and solar, wind and hydro beat anything else hands down.

The biggest issue Ireland will have is not generating the electricity we need, but storing the electricity so that it is available when it is needed.
Solar is great if there are no clouds, or no night (not exactly ideal for Ireland then). Wind is something that is either on or off, you cant increase or decrease output like you can with a fossil fuel power plant.
Gas would have been the perfect solution to ramp up supply in peak periods, but the Greens have nerf'd that by stopping the Shannon LNG facility and stopping all exploration or development of our gas fields.

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

To be fair that would be the same for any infrastructure you would use.
There will always be a carbon cost no matter what power plant you build be that wind, solar, oil, coal, turf, nuclear or hydro.

what matters is the carbon cost over its lifetime and solar, wind and hydro beat anything else hands down.

The biggest issue Ireland will have is not generating the electricity we need, but storing the electricity so that it is available when it is needed.
Solar is great if there are no clouds, or no night (not exactly ideal for Ireland then). Wind is something that is either on or off, you cant increase or decrease output like you can with a fossil fuel power plant.
Gas would have been the perfect solution to ramp up supply in peak periods, but the Greens have nerf'd that by stopping the Shannon LNG facility and stopping all exploration or development of our gas fields.

Gas is not a long term solution. Building a station in Shannon is not even a good solution. It’s just a big issue that ina few years will be left for the Irish government to clean up

Wind, solar and wave. Wind if you put out on the sea will supply. Irish companies designed this solution years ago.

The whole point of smart meter is balance the grid, noT build a grid which is constantly up and down. Connecting to mainland Europe will allow us to control the grid. Push excess to Europe and pull if required but long term looking to have a fully stable grid

Johnny_BravoIII

efanton wrote: »

The argument has been throughout this thread, whether the Greens idea of public transport everywhere is at all sensible, especially in rural areas..

That's disingenuous.
The conversation is what should the investment mix be between roads versus public transport over the next 30 years.
Greens would argue that we are so heavily under-invested in public transport that we need to prioritise this investment above roads. We know from other countries that this type of approach inturn reduces car usuage and road investment in the medium to long-term.

That said, Ireland has a particularly dispersed population for historical reasons going back to small tenant farm holdings plus bad planning since the 1980's.
Nobody is arguing for a railway station and bus-stop on every boreen across the country. We are saying that the priority here should be to invest heavily into public transport so that we connect our towns and villages enough so that they become more 'livable places'.

We will most likely always have people living on inherited farmsteads in the bogs of offally who will need cars. EV's if possible super.

The other questions is what is the balance of roads/rail that is the optimum for the economy/community which also maintains some of the inherited beauty of countryside.

Motorways are ugly beasts, the crash through some beautiful countryside.
We need some, but many are unnecessary.
Do we want to concrete Ireland completely over the next 30 years?
Is it necessary to do so?

efanton

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

That's disingenuous.
The conversation is what should the investment mix be between roads versus public transport over the next 30 years.
Greens would argue that we are so heavily under-invested in public transport that we need to prioritise this investment above roads. We know from other countries that this type of approach inturn reduces car usuage and road investment in the medium to long-term.

That said, Ireland has a particularly dispersed population for historical reasons going back to small tenant farm holdings plus bad planning since the 1980's.
Nobody is arguing for a railway station and bus-stop on every boreen across the country. We are saying that the priority here should be to invest heavily into public transport so that we connect our towns and villages enough so that they become more 'livable places'.

We will most likely always have people living on inherited farmsteads in the bogs of offally who will need cars. EV's if possible super.

The other questions is what is the balance of roads/rail that is the optimum for the economy/community which also maintains some of the inherited beauty of countryside.

Motorways are ugly beasts, the crash through some beautiful countryside.
We need some, but many are unnecessary.
Do we want to concrete Ireland completely over the next 30 years?
Is it necessary to do so?

Well we will just have to disagree on that one.

The greens argue that people should stop using cars and switch to public transport.
Fair enough argument, but for that to be the case it would also mean public transport also being provided in rural areas so that they too can stop using their cars.

There is not any chance whatsoever of public transport being introduced between even the towns, (lets forget about the villages), in rural areas, the money simply is not there for that scale of investment.

Effectively what we will have is a system where rural Ireland will subside public transport in the larger towns and cities.

So would it not be reasonable for me to say their carbon tax policies on fuel for vehicles are not at all sensible or fair?

Shefwedfan

efanton wrote: »

Well we will just have to disagree on that one.

The greens argue that people should stop using cars and switch to public transport.
Fair enough argument, but for that to be the case it would also mean public transport also being provided in rural areas so that they too can stop using their cars.

There is not any chance whatsoever of public transport being introduced between even the towns, (lets forget about the villages), in rural areas, the money simply is not there for that scale of investment.

Effectively what we will have if a system where rural Ireland will subside public transport in the larger towns and cities.

So would it not be reasonable for me to say their policies are not at all sensible or fair?

No it doesn't. Who ever said that?

Let take Navan. Put a train station and you can have people drive from Kells and Virginia and surround area to get a train into Dublin. The fact all those people are driving 20km instead of 120km(this is just a example) will massively reduce CO2

Nobody said that public transport would get rid of the car. Where you come up with that?

Go back to your swapping the car fleet to electric. Well one of the huge issues with that is range. Electric cars dont have the range at motorway speeds. But if you had to travel 20-50km instead of 120-150km each way then suddenly electric makes sense.

I really am not sure if you are taking the pi** at this stage?

Johnny_BravoIII

efanton wrote: »

Well we will just have to disagree on that one.

The greens argue that people should stop using cars and switch to public transport.
Fair enough argument, but for that to be the case it would also mean public transport also being provided in rural areas so that they too can stop using their cars.

There is not any chance whatsoever of public transport being introduced between even the towns, (lets forget about the villages), in rural areas, the money simply is not there for that scale of investment.

Effectively what we will have is a system where rural Ireland will subside public transport in the larger towns and cities.

So would it not be reasonable for me to say their carbon tax policies on fuel for vehicles are not at all sensible or fair?

Thats just false.
I've never heard a green narrative which talks about a transport mix which excludes cars.
It wouldn't be possible for reasons stated above.

Do you understand strawman tactics?
You are creating a false narrative and arguing against it. It's a little bizarre.

The coversation being had is what is the correct mix of roads, cars and public transport which promotes quality of life, supports economic growth and protects heritage and the environment.

You are obsessing about EV's which is super. We need people to promote EV but its not a solution to the transport challenges of the country over the next 50 years.

The greens are talking about house building whilst you are talking about a new type of heating solutions. Important but the question at the higher level is a structural one.

It seems with the 2 to 1 committment the other parties have recognised this. Nobody is banning cars but we need to invest heavily in public transport.

Water John

Newer EVs have over 400 km range. Over 90% of users would be fine with EV. The biggest drawback at this point is, the price.
We're a 2 EV family, living in the countryside.

political analyst

Why did the Green Party set two-thirds as the majority of members needed for this coalition deal and any other important motion to be accepted? Why was the threshold set so ridiculously high?

Shefwedfan

Water John wrote: »

Newer EVs have over 400 km range. Over 90% of users would be fine with EV. The biggest drawback at this point is, the price.
We're a 2 EV family, living in the countryside.

Cost is an issue. Range is an issue.
Even the newer EV's are not doing 400km at motorway speed.



I am a huge advocate from electric cars but it will be a long time before the full Irish fleet will be close to swapped. Plus no reason for it to be. Balance is the right way, some people will need electic, some petrol, some diesel. The issue was Ireland at one stage was 80% diesel.



But putting 200 people onto a train instead of in 200 cars is the real goal and only way to reduce CO2.

Water John

I live in the countryside, never will be close to a bus or train service. Nearest train is 40km away. The solutions for the main cities, are not the solutions for the rest of the country.
The only reason any person in the country would need a vehicle that's not EV, is for towing.

Jimmy Garlic

Jizique wrote: »

Not sure it would make much difference - there is no coal generation, and gas is pretty efficient; and you are obviously not counting the carbon released in the erection of the wind turbines let alone the manufacture thereof

Each one needs 15 tones of lubricant a year, and a Diesel engine to start it.

Johnny_BravoIII

Water John wrote: »

I live in the countryside, never will be close to a bus or train service. Nearest train is 40km away. The solutions for the main cities, are not the solutions for the rest of the country.
The only reason any person in the country would need a vehicle that's not EV, is for towing.

Brilliant, get your EV, move about as you wish.
That said, there is an honest conversation which needs to be had with rural Ireland. If you live rurally outside of planned residential area where should state money be spent on service delivery, water, electricity, broadband, bus, etc?.

Given the history of the land it will be almost impossible to stop people living rurally but we need to manage it. One thing we need to do is to make it clear, we are prioritising investment in cities, towns and villages, through good urban design, super fast broadband, livable affordable accomodation, access to schools, childcare, free public transport. We need to make it a no-brainer for people to prefer to live in communities.

In fact, my view is we are going to see 2 new drivers of a renewed growth in towns and villages post-covid.
1. WFH - more people with the option to not live in Dublin
2. Retail Armageddon - death of the high-street freeing up space for retail not easily replicated online, laundry, cobbler, fruit & veg, craft food, coffee shops etc.

We need to be clear with people who choose to build the 5 bed dream monster in grannys field 20km from nowhere. You are not a priority for state services including broadband.

PommieBast

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

One thing we need to do is to make it clear, we are prioritising investment in cities, towns and villages, through good urban design, super fast broadband, livable affordable accomodation, access to schools, childcare, free public transport.

Quid pro quo don't expect them to pay any taxes.

LegallyAbroad

efanton wrote: »

Public transport makes a lot of sense in Dublin and its commuter towns.
I believe the Navan route makes sense because it will have the volume of users to make it a viable service that doesn't lose millions of euro.

No one is arguing with you over commuter services into Dublin from its larger commuter towns.

But to keep it in that locality I doubt a rail service connecting Trim for instance would be viable. The cost of an extension to Trim and the dramatically lower number of commuters would probably make that extension a loss making enterprise as well as being horrendously expensive to construct as there is no existing line to upgrade.

That has been my point all along but you dont seem to get it.
What works in cities and large commuter towns will not work in rural areas.

True, but if we could get to a situation where only people in rural Ireland used cars, we'd in a much better place.

Furthermore, the majority of car journeys are under 8km, so could easily be taken by bike.

Will people in Trim always need cars? Yes.

Do they need two cars and to use them to nip up and down to the shops? No.

Does anyone who is not a farmer or in construction need an SUV? No.

It's all about reducing our emissions as much as possible so the planet isn't destroyed. That doesn't no one has any cars, it means as few people as possible have cars, that those that do have them use them only for longer journeys, and that those cars are as carbon efficient as possible.

Focusing on rural citizens is a red herring anyway, it's the lazy/selfish gits driving in to town from Blackrock in to town that we need to tackle in the first instance.

Johnny_BravoIII

PommieBast wrote: »

Quid pro quo don't expect them to pay any taxes.

Which would act as a tax incentive for continued one-off housing, further urbanisation of the countryside and therefore unworkable.

I get it.
We all want to build the mansion 5 bed in grannys field for 250k.
The problem is it doesnt work if everybody does it.

LegallyAbroad

People act is everyone has always had two massive cars and flown multiple times a year.

If Ireland could go back to our Transport patterns of even the late 90s we would easily see a 7% reduction in transport emissions.

Water John

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

Which would act as a tax incentive for continued one-off housing, further urbanisation of the countryside and therefore unworkable.

I get it.
We all want to build the mansion 5 bed in grannys field for 250k.
The problem is it doesnt work if everybody does it.

Along with taxes, we pay development levies on any new dwelling to the LA.

paddyisreal

Johnny_BravoIII wrote: »

Brilliant, get your EV, move about as you wish.
That said, there is an honest conversation which needs to be had with rural Ireland. If you live rurally outside of planned residential area where should state money be spent on service delivery, water, electricity, broadband, bus, etc?.

Given the history of the land it will be almost impossible to stop people living rurally but we need to manage it. One thing we need to do is to make it clear, we are prioritising investment in cities, towns and villages, through good urban design, super fast broadband, livable affordable accomodation, access to schools, childcare, free public transport. We need to make it a no-brainer for people to prefer to live in communities.

In fact, my view is we are going to see 2 new drivers of a renewed growth in towns and villages post-covid.
1. WFH - more people with the option to not live in Dublin
2. Retail Armageddon - death of the high-street freeing up space for retail not easily replicated online, laundry, cobbler, fruit & veg, craft food, coffee shops etc.

We need to be clear with people who choose to build the 5 bed dream monster in grannys field 20km from nowhere. You are not a priority for state services including broadband.

You do know that over 35 percent of the country live in rural areas, that's about 1.7 million and take Dublin out of it and that rises to 50 percent. We have always been a rural country and always will be, good luck with trying to change the whole west of this island. In Clare they have 1 Town over 15000! Also not everyone in rural Ireland lives in a 5 bedroom house and not all of us want to life in cities either its called free choice. If the greens had there way there would be no rural ireland but I think they will find out quickly enough how powerful a group rural ireland are.