"Green" policies are destroying this country

In terms of green policies, I agree with this excerpt from an interview:

JP: American political debates are generally more interested in redistribution than long-term investment for future innovation. What are the incentives creating that problem and can they be fixed?

"A big part of the incentive problem is that future people don’t have the vote. Future residents don’t have the vote, so we prevent building which placates the fears of current homeowners but prevents future residents from moving in. Future patients don’t have the vote, so we regulate drug prices at the expense of future new drug innovations and so forth. This has always been true, of course, but culture can be a solution to otherwise tough-to-solve incentive problems. America’s forward looking, pro-innovation, pro-science culture meant that in the past we were more likely to protect the future.

We could solve many more of our problem if both sides stowed some of their cultural agendas to focus on areas of agreement. I think, for example, that we could solve the climate change problem with a combination of a revenue neutral carbon tax and American ingenuity. Nuclear, geo-thermal, hydrogen–these aren’t just clean fuels they are better fuels! Unfortunately, instead of focusing on innovation we get a lot of nonsense about paper straws and low-flow showers. I hate paper straws and low-flow showers! There is a wing of the environmental movement that wants to punish consumerism, individualism, and America more than they want to solve environmental problems so they see an innovation agenda as a kind of cheating. Retribution is the goal of their practice.

In contrast, what I want is for all of us to use more water, more energy and yes more plastic straws and also have a better environment. That’s the American way."

I agree with the tone of this. I want more mobility, not less. I want to be able to fly abroad. I want to be energy-efficient, yes, but I want continued economic growth.

I get the feeling some GP people might prefer 0% GDP growth.

In contrast, I want my children and grandchildren to reap the benefits of income/output growth.

I welcome more carbon taxes, combined with cuts in other taxes, for example the 48.5% marginal income tax rate on median earnings.

I agree with banning coal, but not gas, we simply and practically need it.

I agree with cycle lanes, but where is the doubling of railway tracks? Still single track lines to all cities (except Cork and Belfast)

Doesn't apply to private operators, very urban centric and probably a backdoor way of funding Bus Eireann

Hyperbole. It's not as if people have their feet stuck to the ground. As stated above, humans are adaptable and better at mitigating than preventing. People will move and adapt. If that means sea levels rise in the Irish Sea and the middle class Dublin Greens have to up sticks a bit or that it devalues their property, well so be it.

Talking of fracked gas and rising energy prices across Europe. This is an interesting article from the Guardian

in 2014 on the possible influence that the Russians were having regarding the issue of fracked gas and wider energy supplies in Europe .

A Nato official told the Guardian that Russia's influence on energy supplies was causing problems for Europe. The official said: "We don't go into the details of discussions among allied leaders, but Russia has been using a mix of hard and soft power in its attempt to recreate a sphere of influence, including through a campaign of disinformation on many issues, including energy. In general, the potential for Russia using energy supplies as a means of putting pressure on European nations is a matter of concern. No country should use supply and pricing terms as tools of coercion.

And remember don't shoot the messenger. Its an article and says what it says

It's the usual tabloid non-science. There are 2 important clues

1. It is written by Seth Borenstein, Associated Press
2. Fiction created with computer models, per the article:

The programs they have written have no demonstrated record of skill in prediction, they are not evidence of climate change and can be safely dismissed.

Similar to John Gibbons, Seth Borenstein is another propagandist masquerading as a journalist, he also showed up in the Climategate email leaks. His usual topic of reporting is "extreme weather". Another fact to consider about Associated Press, they receive funding to distribute propaganda handed to them in press releases. Comrade Di Ho Bi is not the only billionaire controlling news, quite a bit of climate reporting is funded by billionaires who want to control the energy supply.

Nothing that dramatic, just Greedy people manipulating gullible green idiots, same idiots whose grandparents gave half their wages to the Catholic Church while their 10 kids survived on bread and tea. Stupid people have a need to be led and as society seems to be getting dumber the idiots are now easier led than ever. Falling for every gimmick and false prophet, PT Barnum would be the head of the IPCC if he was around now.

If only everyone was as smart as you to be able to see the truth through that cloud of overwhelming scientific evidence

We are supposed to have been underwater for the last 9 years by your predictions

Citation needed

BTW, Al Gore isn't a scientist and doesn't make 'scientific predictions' worth caring about. If Al gore is your idea of the latest scientific evidence I think we've found the reason why you're so uninformed

Meanwhile and in the period of transition we need a safe, secure and reliable source of natural gas including both our tapped and untapped reserves of natural gas and LNG terminals to facilitate the importation of gas from diverse sources.

And no the current UK pipeline doesn't count - see energy regulator a few weeks back if you can't remember why

https://m.independent.ie/news/environment/energy-regulator-says-gas-terminals-must-be-built-for-supply-security-41500986.html