"Green" policies are destroying this country

But that is not what you said just earlier today. You said, "Nope LNG has to go. If marginal pricing goes that`s the end of LNG cause nobody will want to pay for it"

Now we do know that currently LNG is needed to fill the electricity generating gap due to renewables being unreliable, so if as you appear to believe by ending marginal pricing will also end the use of LNG, then what is going to fill that gap.?

I do not see how you believe that scrapping the marginal pricing policy would lower renewable generation either. How did you come to that conclusion ?

Btw, the E.U. is among those others who "put it the renewable companies are making a fortune" The E.U. recently suggested that individual countries should impose a windfall tax on their profits. Ironic really when you consider it was the E.U. green backed policy that introduced the marginal pricing policy that has enabled them to make such profits.

Rte had a story up about sea levels rising in New Zealand, usual climate spiel but then when you read it its the land sinking instead. Irish Independent seem to have adopted the Green/Labour cause as well.

Has he ever been to Cloughaneely and Gweedore, jammed between the mountains and the ocean, where does the village start and end?

DaCor You've been in this thread for some time and you, myself and the wall know that 1,300 figure is regularly trotted out by the greens to promote themselves.

Eamon Ryan uses it about turf, Hazel Chu has used it in her tweets pushing a health angle about turf trying to whip up support.

Thing is that figure of 1,300 deaths due to air pollution has already been pointed out as being pulled out of the ether. To paraphrase a comment posted by El grande

The figure of 1,300 (is used) without explaining how that number was derived. It appears to come from  an EPA press release. However the EPA don't say where they got that number. It's possibly a statistically derived number extrapolated from a WHO database and applied to Ireland, so the real number could be 1 person or 5,000 people.

Neither is the figure definitely linked to turf or other fuel use for home heating , with traffic and other emissions known to be a significant source of air pollution amongst other causes.

I`m not playing the game of answering a question with a question. There has been way to much of that on this thread imo. The questions I asked you have nothing to do with why it was introduced. The questions I asked you based on your posts were.

1.You believe that if the marginal price structure was scrapped it would be the end of LNG as LNG would then be so expensive it would no longer be used for electricity generation. We know that LNG is needed to fill the gap of unreliable renewables, so if you scrap LNG what will be used instead ?

2.You also believe that scrapping the marginal pricing policy would lower the level of electricity generated by renewables, so why do you believe that would be the case ?

What does that mean?

Does this mean that you think ocean and sea levels are the same everywhere (as long as they are connected to each other) because that's just factually wrong

Sea level varies even within the same body of water see below for the Atlantic topography. Sea levels are 1.5 metres higher in the gulf compared with the arctic

Water doesn't 'find its own level' as if it is always flat when it settled down. There are dynamics in bodies of water that affect sea level in different regions.. Notice how sea levels are higher along the gulf stream but lower to the west and east of the gulf stream. This is a problem for the east coast of America as the gulf stream is weakening, it won't be drawing as much water from the atlantic coasts and this will lead to faster sea level rises along the eastern US Seaboard

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/5-The-topography-of-the-ocean-Average-sea-level-in-the-Gulf-Stream-is-unusually-high_fig3_299976319

So do you believe that the RTE reporting of a report that the sea level in Dublin Bay is rising at double the rate of global sea levels is due to just climate change is correct or not ?

The Marginal pricing policy was intended to boost the supply of renewable energy capacity by deliberately giving supernormal profit incentives to renewable energy suppliers to attract more investment into the market. This benefited the producers

What this has done, is protect the 'demand' for fossil fuels because the cost was the same for renewables as well as fossil fuels.

Removing the marginal price policy will cut the demand for fossil fuels because they will be less price competitive with reneables, so the Customers will be able to cut their energy costs by avoiding fossil fuels as much as possible. It's using demand side economics instead of supply side. With the spike in energy prices and the crunch in supply of fossil fuels, then we no longer need to incentivise the supply of renewables as much as when it was in direct competition with an abundant cheap resource like Gas.

Neither keeping nor getting rid of the Marginal Price Policy will solve the problem on its own, they're merely different approaches to the same problem that need to be worked out as part of a package of measures that can be tweaked to accomplish varied goals

Removing the marginal pricing might require additional subsidies for new renewables if the pace of the increase in renewable and storage capacity starts to fall.

Dredging doesn't stop your city from sinking or the oceans from rising.

It's a very silly thing to say tbh, along with the rest of your comment. Coastal flood plains tend not to be built on in the tidal range, the problem is that tidal range is changing due sea level rises (and subsidence) This means a lot of infrastructure that was previously safe from flooding is now in the new flood plain.

The cost of barrier defences to prevent rivers from back-flooding during high tides is extremely expensive. 1.6 billion GBP for the Thames river barrier and that can do nothing to prevent the direct incursions from the tide and storm surges and increased coastal erosion

In reality, countries are slowly awakening to the enormous cost of mitigating coastal inundation from rising seas. Its eye wateringly expensive, Hundreds of billions of dollars just to mitigate damage, providing no economic benefit only reducing some of the harms caused by climate change

This cost is ON TOP of the costs we still need to incur to transition away from Fossil Fuels and do not include the inevitable environmental catastrophe's we will see as coastal industrial sites get inundated and see their containment pools breached as they get 'taken by surprise' by 'extreme' flooding that is coming down the tracks

So taxes for Audis and Botox for Green reps instead of a few boulders and some concrete that might damage the values of a few seafront properties, So Green taxes aren't going to be used for any actual physical public works, just to enrich the chosen few, hope it makes them happy, be hard to tell with their faces frozen with all the Botox.

Take it you aren't familiar with Holland/The Netherlands, strange seeing as it caters for your lot in many ways,

The marginal pricing policy is giving "supernormal profits" to renewable energy "producers". Even the E.U. who introduced the policy now recognise that suggesting that individual countries levy them with windfall taxes.Those "supernormal profits" are due to renewable energy producers receiving the same per price as those from gas generators due to the price of gas soaring due to the war in Ukraine. We, like Germany, are over dependent on gas as it is the only alternative we have to make up the shortfall from unreliable renewables which has us similar to Germany in the top 4 most expensive countries in Europe for electricity. Germany are at least attempting to change that to some degree with exploration for gas and using their deposits of coal. We are doing the opposite.

We presently need gas to keep the lights on, and will for well into the foreseeable future which means that by maintaining the marginal pricing policy we will be paying the for electricity at the price of gas. We are being told that renewable energy is much cheaper to produce than energy from fossil fuels, but we have not seen any benefits from that in our electricity charges. And under the marginal pricing policy will not even if our renewables rise to 90% rather than the 42% at present.

Therefore does it not make sense, when it is now accepted that renewable energy producers are making excess profits, to remove the marginal pricing policy and pay renewable energy producers the going rate for their produce rather than the gas rate if we are serious about reducing the price of electricity ?