"Green" policies are destroying this country

10-06-2023 3:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120698127#Comment_120698127

No update beyond the planning application was due to be submitted in Q1 this year. That's past and no application has been lodged yet so I'm guessing there won't be any news until that gets submitted.

After that it's just the usual planning rigmarole

WishUWereHere · 10-06-2023 3:43pm

More pontificating by the greens:

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/clips/22261597/

Why oh why is that spoilt do-gooder from Sweden given this ‘award’? The sooner they are wiped out the better.

antoinolachtnai · 10-06-2023 5:39pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120698115#Comment_120698115

You claimed as far as I can see that fossil fuel generation can be procured for the system marginal price. The phrase in quotes was ‘just paying a couple of conventional plant the system marginal price’

machiavellianme · 10-06-2023 5:53pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120698660#Comment_120698660

Are you still at it?

Statement A (which I posted) does not equal Statement B (which you think I posted and alleged to be an exact quote from me). You couldn't find the quote so you pointed at something similar and tried to use it as some sort of proof. Typical Green mentality really.

I hope you paid more attention when you read the Trading and Settlement code late at night. Though it probably just caused you to dream other random thoughts about what you think you read and what you actually did.

antoinolachtnai · 10-06-2023 10:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120698710#Comment_120698710

statement A? Statement B? I don’t know what are you talking about. Anyway you have folded your tent on your incorrect statement (which had nothing to do with the T&SC) and that is fine with me.

Pa ElGrande · 11-06-2023 8:02am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120698261#Comment_120698261

Just in time to celebrate yet another failed prediction. The source professor James Anderson of the University of Chicago.

Once their date has passed, there’s no stopping climate change and there’s no reason for Greens and their acolytes to control everything or even be elected. Greta deleted the tweet because its inconvenient to the narrative and they need to keep the climate grift going, the next target date gets moved into the future.

deholleboom · 11-06-2023 9:51am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120700547#Comment_120700547

We shouldn't really blame Greta for all this. She is (was) a disturbed young girl and has been abused/used for a reason. There is a whole industry behind it. Everytime an article appears with ' a recent climate study shows' or 'a top climate scientist has said' you can predict with 100% certainty a disaster will be predicted.

Somebody probably already compiled a long list of predictions that didnt come true, starting in the late 60s/early 70s w the Population bomb, malthusian trap, Silent Spring, Gaia theory to disappearing islands (remember Prince Charles saying New Zealand would be inhabitable by..dunno 2020!?), Miami needed to be evacuated etc etc. It is always 5 to 10 years in the future, like the cure for cancer. And of course the inevitable 'if we don't do something drastic now...' scenario. You can bet we are in exactly the same place 10 years from now, climate (and species) wise and maybe a little after that we will all be worrying about it getting colder and banning windmills, solarpanels and EVs for breaking newly implemented pollution laws. With a little luck the tide has really turned with the final full embrace of nuclear power in a variety of forms and some fossil fuels used for back up and for effective use (transport?). It will be wise to balance costs and benefits for every location and energy source and to make decisions based on logic instead of ideology. And hey, if windmills and solar panels make sense, let them be, just don't force them by stopping everything else.My country, Holland, being 1/3 below sea level is of course worried about rising sea levels and cannot afford being wrong. Most of my sensible, calculating countrymen have come to the conclusion that we can deal with it and adapt, like we've always done, despite what the alarmists say. We actually have a pretty good handle on the exact levels and they are def nothing to worry about. They also vary depending on location. Most people don't realize that land falling is also a factor which of course make it seem that water levels are rising. So, everything is relative. Anyway, the dutch are not running for the hills any time soon and there is a tremendous backlash against climate policies, like everywhere else with the media very slowly letting through some skepticism (or realism). The way things are going my bet is that climate will get lower and lower on the people's (and politician's) list of concerns and that eventually, non democratic climate policies coming from abroad will be resisted. I think the EU is in trouble trying to force them through.

WishUWereHere · 11-06-2023 10:29am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120700704#Comment_120700704

Excellent post.

Something always galls me ( the reason I’m so anti gp). I bought a brand new diesel car back in 2009 based purely on the ‘predictions’ by the then greens.

15 years on me driving a diesel is public enemy #1.

I will not be one bit surprised if in 15 years time ev’s are the great curse.

I only hope by then the greens will be confined to the history books.

deholleboom · 11-06-2023 11:11am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120700797#Comment_120700797

The thing with a lot of green policies is that the people implementing them have usually not consulted the proper experts like one normally would like say an engineer to construct a bridge (and is not allowed to construct one that might fall down) or an energy consultant weighing up the costs and benefits of a particular system, like grid management. Anybody w a proper understanding of mathmatics can crunch the numbers and see that most of the Green wave of policies do not add up. The ONLY way anybody will be going that route if there is immediate, present and emminent danger (Biden). So, Co2 simply HAS to stay on top of the alarm list in order to force policies through. Any admittence of being even slighly wrong on any green aspect has the clear present danger of the house of cards falling down. That is precisely why most are super sensitive about any form of skepticism. One can usually wait for the 'in the pocket of the oil industry' line. Then you don't have to address the issues. Very handy.

In the Diesel case (was it John Gormley?) It is pretty clear that once a certain thing can be used as a solution to a problem the brain simply shuts off. This is a common thing. It is called the 'doctor's diagnosis fallacy' in which the doctor spots certain symptoms, puts a label (diagnosis) on it and stops thinking. Problem solved! Except he didnt do due dilligence and the patient died from something the doctor could and should have spotted. He STOPPED THINKING. Politicians are the first people to fall for this because they want quick fixes for immediate problems so they can get ahead in the ticking box exercise. Everything is short term even their supposedly long term solutions (like most green policies). It only looks that way. Once they have made a 'diagnosis' they tend to stick w it as they dont want to be seen as the person who got it wrong. That is why you should never really trust them. But you might vote for those who have a track record of asking the right questions. And not vote for those attacking those who do..

deholleboom · 11-06-2023 12:27pm

Here you go: 32 falsehoods about climate predictions:

https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw

As a matter of fact(s) the book and website Inconvenient Facts goes into the deep dive..

https://inconvenientfacts.xyz/

12-06-2023 9:26am

BnM might have a mountain of work ahead of them in their transition from brown to green if ABP rule in favour of FIE

https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/2023/06/09/challenge-to-ballivor-wind-farm-may-hit-bord-na-monas-brown-to-green-transition/

The challenge won't stop their planned transition and FIE are not looking to stop them, rather making sure the required analysis and reports are completed prior to any work being done

roosterman71 · 12-06-2023 9:48am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120703925#Comment_120703925

I know this isn't the first such case, but this is retarded stuff. Looking for a retrospective EIA on peat harvesting that's finished there. Is this because they are dumbasses, funded by some shady crew who can make money out of it, or just plain NIMBYism? We want and need wind, but obviously not that badly.

12-06-2023 10:08am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704007#Comment_120704007

You'll note that this is an existing requirement BnM are not following. If BnM wanted to avoid delays with challenges then it would seem logical to complete the requirements as they stand rather than ignoring them and hoping nobody will notice.

roosterman71 · 12-06-2023 10:11am

I noticed that, but the point is why do we need to hold up wind in a climate emergency to produce an EIA on something in the past. The 2 could be done in parrallel. What will the EIA show that would prevent the turbines being built?

12-06-2023 10:34am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704108#Comment_120704108

If "holding things up" was the only criteria, then we'd throw the rulebook out the window

At the end of the day, these are the requirements and they must be adhered to in order to ensure we are not missing something. We've seen in the past where the likes of EIA's were not completed and there were poor outcomes e.g. Derrybrien

Another example could be something along the emissions line, where it might make more sense to fully/partially rewet an area rather then use it fully/partially for wind as there would be a more position emission gain.

Without the info its difficult to make the right call, hence the importance of gathering that info as part of the application

12-06-2023 10:37am

Interesting analysis by Shane Coleman on the GP prospects at the next election

https://www.businesspost.ie/article/shane-coleman-farmers-hate-them-the-working-class-think-theyre-shite-its-tough-being-a-green/

roosterman71 · 12-06-2023 10:42am

But the EIA is for the peat extraction, not for the wind turbine planning. I'm assuming that an EIA was completed fot the build. What's asked for now is an EIA for the peat harvesting in the past

spurious · 12-06-2023 11:00am

North Strand Dublin - site of the Clontarf to city centre cycle lane (yes, and water main works) debacle.

High density area, with high elderly population and low car ownership.

Bus stops being removed because the NTA with their Green nonsense say there is 'no space' for them - er, what?

At least one bus stop being removed to allow for NEW car parking spaces - no space?

Residents (who have put up with disruption literally for years with this project) to be left with the length of O'Connell Street of a walk between bus stops going out of city and the length of Capel Street going in.

By Christ let one of those Green lunatics come near me looking for a vote.

WishUWereHere · 12-06-2023 11:25am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704303#Comment_120704303

I have a customer on that stretch opposite the old cinema. I was there on Friday had to drive down near the bridge to park. There are only 2 lanes right now with no allowances for park & delivery.

Yes, debacle is an apt word.

12-06-2023 12:09pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704225#Comment_120704225

Yup, basically before they change the use of the land, the damage done must be assessed and the impacts of doing X or Y in that context has to be assessed and any damage has to be addressed. The options open to them for each site would vary e.g. rewetting/rewilding/restoration etc or no action at all where its no longer possible to do anything with the land as its been stripped away so much.

Substitute consent is a process through which a developer is required to make good, insofar as possible, environmental damage caused by legacy operations, such as peat harvesting, which did not have an environmental impact assessment [EIA]. The process requires a new, retrospective environmental impact assessment report and planning consent.

This is a legal requirement for them to complete. They can huff and puff but at the end of the day a court judgement was handed down previously that these studies must be completed before proceeding

a High Court judgment handed down by Mr Justice Garrett Simons in April 2022 “made it crystal clear that a development which required an EIA but never had one – as is the case with all of Bord na Móna’s bogs – must be regularised by substitute consent before any further development takes place”.

Their only option and ABP's only option, is to go to the Supreme Court to get the High Court judgement overturned. Thats very unlikely to happen based on environmental related judgements over the last few years

Its also worth noting the FIE are not against the use of the bogs for wind/solar etc, just that the required assessments/studies are completed in line with the requirements.

To not do so opens us up to more Derrybrien-like silliness.

JRant · 12-06-2023 12:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704007#Comment_120704007

It's a government funded organisation that loves nothing better than to take semi-states and the government to court on a regular basis. All public funding should be stripped from such organisations.

https://ewww.friendsoftheirishenvironment.org/funding

roosterman71 · 12-06-2023 12:29pm

What are you talking about? Not doing anything to the land cos it's stripped away too much would prevent a wind turbine being built? WTF is happening in thie country? If the land is wrecked, then build away to ****. At least ya'd have a bit of power being generated the days the wind blows. Wind farms are builto n land that is not stripped away too much. Are we saying we need a certain type of land now with certain qualities to build these things? Come on, this is crazy.

Lets say the EIA says there's some damag done that has to be fixed. And that then means a bit of rewetting, maybe a bit of rewilding. Perhaps drainage in parts. Etc. Then all that's done does planning need to be applied for again? What if the planning says yeah build away but ya need to drain that rewetted bit and remove them trees. That's possible right. Doesn't that sound crazy?

Derrybrien is a different story where things weren't done and the place built and it is a **** show. This already has all the required analysis done to build a wind farm. What's being asked is an EIA on the past. That is madness. Should the new housing estste be held up because there's no EIA on the houses next door built in the 70s? Crazy stuff.

And why can't the EIA for the past take into account that any corrective actions (what are they correcting exactly?) be done in addition to the additional approval for the turbines?

machiavellianme · 12-06-2023 12:52pm

So much for wind and solar. Eirgrid have issued an Amber Alert because RES are doing nothing useful.

charlie14 · 12-06-2023 12:59pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704649#Comment_120704649

If this litigious self-righteous bunch were not tying up court time with their nonsense and having the taxpayer pay for both sets of legal eagles, (as I assume this challenge is covered by climate concern where win lose or draw it will not cost them a cent), then this would be funny.

What do they want the courts to do, tell BnM to put the turf back or throw a drop of water on it with the hope that it would grow back in a few hundred thousand years ? Do they not know that their fellow runners are telling us all the world will end in the next 6 years ?

I don`t know why you are holding up Derrybrien as an example. Where were they and the rest of their ilk when the local community in Derrybrien was telling them exactly what was going to happen with that construction other than standing on the sidelines cheering it on. And Derrybrien was not the only instance either.

It smacks as nothing more than a bunch of nimby`s who run to the courts to force their wishes on others, and then run to the courts to prevent something they themselves do not want in their own back yard. Typical two-faced green codology all at the taxpayers expense.

12-06-2023 2:07pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704713#Comment_120704713

s say the EIA says there's some damag done that has to be fixed. And that then means a bit of rewetting, maybe a bit of rewilding. Perhaps drainage in parts. Etc. Then all that's done does planning need to be applied for again?

No. The EIA would provide the info to ABP who would attach X number of conditions related to the EIA results.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704713#Comment_120704713

This already has all the required analysis done to build a wind farm

The objection would indicate that the required analysis has not been done

And why can't the EIA for the past take into account that any corrective actions (what are they correcting exactly?) be done in addition to the additional approval for the turbines?

Umm, thats literally what they are asking for. They are not looking to stop the wind farm, just that an EIA be done to see what else should be done to mitigate against the damage that exists and assess emissions.

In terms of emission reduction, it makes little sense to whack up turbines on drained peatland if the peatland is emitting 10 times the amount of carbon you are reducing by using turbines. Without an EIA its not possible to say how much emissions are coming from the peatland and how they might be addressed as part of the overall project

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120704699#Comment_120704699

They are one of the best org's we have in the country for ensuring adherence to environmental regulations. I've donated to them in the past myself, they do awesome work 👍️

The fact that they win something like 70-80% of cases shows we have a big problem with the flouting of planning requirements

Indeed, it was their case against the govt that resulted in our current climate action legislation as the previous version wasn't worth the paper it was written on