"Green" policies are destroying this country

Do you always play the man not the ball? Someone like you!, i bet your a green voter, vegan and a atheist / you see we can all make generalisations ions....

Anyway Yaddy ya ya, what do you think people are thick.... We all know of the benefits of triple glazing upgrading etc but guess what we all dont have a spare 25k lying around to get it done.

The people getting it done first most likely would do it anyway as they have the money but guess what your greenie solution is to tax the poor more to subsidise them. Only in the green world is that a solution

The same home owners who after being taxed with "carbon taxes" are then told that these same carbon taxes

"will fund up to 50% of the retrofit costs"

The same "retrofit costs" with even 50% off are more than most can afford with what they've been left with, having been hit with these same carbon taxes and rapidly rising costs of living costs.

Thing is these same carbon taxes have been around since 2010 and have funded fcuk all except the wailings of those only to eager to see the country go down the shiter quicker than a Russian Sukhoi Su-34 in a tailspin.

Who is saying

"carbon taxes should be much higher in order to reduce the cost of the retrofits even more for those less well off."

That would be yourself yes?

So even more people across the board won't be able to afford these "deep retrofits" at all

Well that's a great idea.

Bizarrely you seem to be under the misapprehension that the majority of people in Ireland are not already heavily taxed. The same people who as a result of high taxation have fcuk all disposable income.

Lol. Genuis. Yet another wonderful clueless green policy idea

Perhaps, perhaps not. But taking money from some people and giving it to others doesn't make us any richer.

Today, in the IT, housing targets and climate targets.

You can't have both.

The fact the green party are certain to be booted considering their shenanigans during the period of this government.

And that doesn't mean that green policies have to be bad , but when you've got politicians who are running a personal crusade regardless of EU policy on energy requirements during the period of transition to renewable energy generation and deliberately giving the finger to the population at large, then you can be absolutely sure they're getting the boot. And good riddance.

Wow, the victim mentality is strong in this post.

When I said someone like you, you automatically assumed that I was insulting you.

Your attitude is so short sighted. Using 'triple glazing' as an insult when this is how standards gradually improve.

It's a bit like me laughing at the eejit who payed €2500 for the first smart phone when the bog standard 200 euro phone I use now is a thousand times better in almost every way

Some technologies are purely commercial and live or die based on whether the public buy into them, others are transformational, and governments will deliberately subsidise them in order to 'pump prime' their adoption to accelerate the adoption curve.

There is a chicken v egg scenario with any new transformational technology. They are too expensive without economies of scale, and they are too inconvenient without the infrastructure to support them. This is why we need the people with more money than sense to spend some of their disposable income on being early adopters to alpha and beta test the new technologies and support them while the infrastructure is deployed, so that the price can come down and they become functional enough for the mainstream

The alternative to this is the chinese model, of building everything first, and hoping that it works out afterwards (see their 'ghost cities')

Because everything is opposed for opposition's take.

You'd think that they might reduce / eliminate taxes on smokeless coal to encourage people to change? All stick no carrot.

I reckon that they have set the Green agenda back by about 10 years, with their stupidity.

Perhaps you cannot see the point because you do not wish to ?

On other threads you were blinding us with your supposed knowledge on all thing legal and constitutional, so perhaps you can explain what the greens have failed to do.

How do you even word a proposed bill where it is legal to gift or sell turf to another member of a community of 500 people or less where it would become an offense to do the same within a community of 550, and how would you define and draw borders for a community to even begin with ?

Love the analogy Charlie, and so true, had a LOL moment ! You sure hit the nail on the head there.🤣

trying to wrap up their xenophobia in a transparent cloak of caring about the environment.

Well that's a bit more than disingenuous. The UK green party* and other Green parties are on record recognising that there is a need to consider population presures with regard to environmental and ecological impact. I guess they must be all xenophobic then?

Wrapping your argument up as "stopping" people making choices about fertility etc is simply bs as is trying to sensationalize the normal movements of EU and Irish citizens

*From the UK green party

Follow your logic here step by step:

1. People cannot afford retrofits
2. The retrofit subsidy is too low
3. People cannot afford to pay more tax

Now, lets look at what is being proposed:

1. Higher subsidies to help people pay for retrofits
2. Higher carbon tax to pay for this

What are the outcome of this?

1. More people will be able to afford home upgrades who couldn't afford them before:
2. The cost of these will be lower
3. Their energy bills will be lower
4. Their home values will increase
5. Their carbon tax will be lower
6. Their environmental impact will be lower
7. Their home will be more comfortable
8. Their disposable income will be higher
9. Some people who cannot afford even the cheaper retrofits will have higher energy bills

Solution for point 9 above, increase the subsidy for retrofits or introduce interest free loans to cover the costs

Interest free loans when used for retrofits will:

1. Reduce their energy bills
2. reduce their carbon tax burden
3. increase the value of their home
4. reduce the environmental impact
5. Make their home more comfortable to live in
6. lf the term of the loan is long enough it would likely save more than the cost of the loan repayments, and would the savings would increase year on year due to inflation

Where would we put those people?

We can't house a few thousand from Ukraine or our own.

Yet you think we if we added 5 million people we would still have a long way to go before over populating.

Please explain to me in detail how we could provide housing, accommodation, education and a health service if we added 5 million people to the population.

I look forward to your realistic detailed plan to accommodate 5 million extra people.

A person in the past who derided people for investing in double glazing just like you are deriding people now for investing in triple glazing