Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Options
16946956976997001067

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 484 ✭✭Ozvaldo


    According to me it costs around 3 k a year -100-150 euro a month on petrol couple of hundred on a service 500 insurance few hundred tax


    Just one question does this fit your agenda ?


    Green party is the most hated party in the country according to a survey I did at work



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,154 ✭✭✭opinionated3


    That survey result is not rocket science. The green party and their partners in government have shown the working people nothing but contempt with their "green" policy linked taxes. All we see is the money being sucked out of our pockets every month. All for some fantasy that little old Ireland is going to somehow save the planet while China, India etc don't really care.



  • Registered Users Posts: 484 ✭✭Ozvaldo


    12 tds and they are causing mayhem



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande



    How much of that 10K is used to support the infrastructure that cyclists and local buses that occasionally run also use? As a cyclist I don't like potholes either, cycling over dirt tracks in this weather is not the done thing. There are no tolls on greenways, where is the money to build and maintain them coming from or do they renew and sustain themselves in the face of nature including human activity? Advocates like to claim wind and sun are free and cheap to convert to electricity, they ignore the contracts between wind generators and government agencies, and price of the supporting infrastructure needed to maintain reliable generation and they make the price of providing that infrastructure much more expensive, we see this in our electricity bills.

    Llew Gardner

    There are those nasty critics, of course, who suggest that you don't really want to bring them down at the moment. Life is a bit too difficult in the country, and that … leave them to sort the mess out and then come in with the attack later … say next year. [end p13]


    Mrs. Margaret Thatcher

    I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. source


    The Greens and their acolytes are using other peoples money to shutdown the activity that pays to maintain their delusions. They do it by restricting and transferring wealth from lower income people, there is a reason about a dozen billionaire foundations fund the climate activists that make all the noise you see in the media, they expect a return on their investments elsewhere.

    Look what Greens are doing in practice, restricting peoples options for heating their homes, they are pushing people to take on debt to retrofit houses from "approved" sources with dubious cost benefit analysis to the individual, what is the payback period for these refurbishments?.

    They subsidise solar panels and battery electric vehicles, yet ignore the materials processing, the energy to make these is provided by coal and oil in other countries. They restrict domestic extraction of materials needed to maintain the infrastructure we currently use, ignoring the timescales needed to bring these products to market, they are burning through the capital investments made years ago to produce these materials and they actively discourage capital investment in what they refer to as "stranded assets", and create legislation that is then used by their own activists to force their ideology using lawfare in the courts.

    Their answer is public transport using buses that run occasionally, and bicycles only for the private citizen, forgetting bicycles are made by contract manufacturers, imported from Taiwan & China and a product of the industrial revolution, the same industrial revolution they despise.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭ginger22




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,993 ✭✭✭✭JRant


    Sure, he's going over to show them the error of their ways, don't ya know. It'll be a road to Damascus moment for China and they will decide to hamstring their economy for years to come after realizing the error of their ways. They'll convert to cheap (well it's not cheap but if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth) windpower and solar, **** down all those nasty coal plants and go back to living off the land like good little peasants should.

    "Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    I've rarely seen anything so ridiculously starry-eyed. To quote:

    The CCC sees cheap – but variable – wind and solar meeting 70% of demand. While nuclear and biomass might meet another 20%, they are “relatively inflexible”. Therefore, the final 10% is key.

    This 10% will largely come from “flexible low-carbon” solutions, such as batteries, compressed air storage and responsive demand. Crucially, however, gaps lasting days to weeks at a time will be filled by gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) and/or hydrogen power.

    As an additional source of security, the committee endorses a small remaining role for unabated gas power in 2035. This would meet “up to around 2%” of annual demand, down from 40% today.

    What planet are they living on? It's taken over a century to build our energy infrastructure, it's going to take about a century to replace it if we start now. They don't even know if they'll go for NG with CCS or hydrogen ... yet they're going to have everything replaced inside 12 years? They'll keep about 2% of unabated gas power just as "an additional source of security".

    Does anyone ever think about how these ultra-low-usage backup systems get funded, or how they pay for themselves? It's may be less of a problem while there's $10 trillion worth of hydrocarbon exploration, extraction and transportation infrastructure around the world. How does it work when it's as niche as whale oil? And if it's not going to be, then what was the point? It's as good as an admission that the UK would be nobbling itself in a world where it's the only good boy in the class.

    This stuff may go down well with angst-ridden teenagers convinced that the world's about to burst into flames. And like most stuff that goes down well with that demographic, it should be filed in the fantasy/horror/sci-fi section.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    I said I hadn't seen anything as ridiculously starry-eyed ... but the popular science press is always good for a laugh. How about this one:

    "Scientists Have Discovered an Enzyme That Converts Air Into Electricity".

    What's more, "this breakthrough paves the way for the development of devices that can literally generate energy from thin air". Yaayyy! We're saved!

    You have to wonder if the journos really are this innumerate or if it's all just a cynical play for clicks. Here's the actual research:

    You only need to read the first few paragraphs and whip out a calculator to realise that you'd be talking about filtering fifty billion litres of air to extract the energy to power a single household for a single day. I'd say there's a fair chance the process would be energy negative! 😂😂😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,607 ✭✭✭ps200306


    You have to laugh.

    Three weeks ago:

    Environment Minister Eamon Ryan has defended ministerial trips abroad for St Patrick’s Day saying, it’s part of his job to meet with other world leaders outside to build relationships.


    This week:

    Ryan and officials get ‘burner phones’ for Chinese visit.

    National Cyber Security Centre warns environment minister and functionaries they will likely be under surveillance at all times during St Patrick’s Day trip.


    Sounds like the relationships Sleepy wants to build are pretty abusive. Now if only he wouldn't come home and abuse the rest of us.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    The only people who will notice our heroic effort to "save the planet" will be us. Next logical step will be taxing the air we breath.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭Coolcormack1979




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    In Germany new regulations may mean up to €50K fines if you do not convert your heating. This means if a Germans heating system has to be replaced in the coming year; whether due to a fault in the old gas or oil heating system or due to a new building their only options are freeze, heat pumps, fuel cells or wood pellet heating systems. As you can expect there is much opposition to this so unlikely to find traction at the moment.

    Fine regulations in the GEG: Violations of regulations are expensive (original)

    The Building Energy Act (GEG 2020) regulates the energy certificate, energy standards for renovation, retrofitting obligations and heating replacement. Owners should better not ignore these regulations, because the GEG also provides for fines in the event of non-compliance! The fine regulations for corresponding administrative offenses are regulated in § 108 of the Building Energy Act.

    <snip>

    Fines of up to 50,000 euros if the retrofitting obligations are disregarded

    It gets really expensive for owners if they do not observe the retrofitting obligations and the specifications for renovation! Because the Building Energy Act (GEG) provides for a fine of up to 50,000 euros if, for example, the top floor ceiling is not insulated, if the pipes are not insulated or the obligation to replace the heating system is ignored. This also applies to the restrictions on oil heating from 2026 .


    The Greens and their coalition partners restrictions on turf are their first tentative steps along this path, organisations affiliated with the Green party such as An Taisce, Friends of the Earth and the limited company "Friends of the Irish environment" will draw on this. These NGOs receive taxpayer funding from government departments under the auspices of the Irish Environmental Network (IEN). Worse still it's not just the Greens the Irish political class like to be seen as the "best boys in Europe" and passed the climate action and low carbon development act back in 2015 and import what EU countries like Germany & the Netherlands are doing. It's time to cut off the NGOs from the taxpayers pocket, it's time to challenge the government on it's energy security planing.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm guessing we'll have similar numbers here within a year or so. I see panels going up all over the place




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭kabakuyu


    No we wont, appears the system as set up by the greens is not fit for purpose, people are being ripped off by installers with the consent of the "Green circle".


    https://www.thejournal.ie/solar-panels-grants-supports-microgeneration-5981150-Jan2023/



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Energy efficiency in buildings gets a boost at the EU level with the setting of new targets, though there's always room for higher targets




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    You overlooked the windfall profits from wind generation?

    Look into the ownership structures of the various wind generator sites across Britain and Ireland.

    Looking like wind will be the new "stranded asset".

    Oil and gas are not going away anytime soon, the citizens of some EU countries will have to make do with the consequences of not being able to access it.

    When the push came to the shove the Germans looked after themselves, as did we.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,406 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Profits by Aramco are like that because high energy consumption nations are drilling and exploring for a net zero world but not consuming like such. For as long as there is shortfall and demand gaps there will be high oil prices = more profit for the worlds biggest oil company who happen to have access to resources that are in relative terms cheap to pump.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    The SEAI need to be stood down and fully investigated. The grant system they oversee is nothing more than a scam to gouge as much money as possible from end users. Retrofitting has been an unmitigated disaster because of greed and subpar work. This was all predicted to happen by the way, but the green agenda has ploughed ahead anyway. I'd love to know the political connections that these "one stop shops" have.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,244 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    No we won't. The grants are a bureaucratic nightmare to begin with and the overall costs are outrageous with rampant greed, price gouging and shoddy work, facilitated by the SEAI and the grant system. I certainly don't see panels "going up all over the place".



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    It is not just Ireland. This is from an interview with a UK Labour politician (Tories, Lib Dems & SNP are no better). The comments by Neil sum up Greensh!tting from politicians.

    Jon Ashworth: When the wind don’t blow and the sun ain’t shining, we’ll be investing more in renewables, the future green technologies.


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Lol! It’s like banging your head against the wall.

    At least in the UK you have some in the media who are willing to question this net zero pledge- questioning net zero by 2050 in Ireland just doesn’t happen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,387 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...hardly anything to do with the fact, the widescale privatisation of our energy systems has lead to price fixing by such companies????



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,594 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Maybe the penny is starting to drop?. However, the old school journalists are dying off, since Christoper Booker died (GLOBAL WARMING - A case study in groupthink), there has not been much opposition in UK mainstream media. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) punches above its weight in the UK, most of the public opposition is from people who are close to or at retirement. It took Stewart Dimmock (ab LGV lorry driver and school governor) to stop the lies in Al Gores "Inconvenient truth" propaganda film being shown across UK schools. The BBC is exclusively biased towards catastrophic global warming (CAGW), there is also heavy funding for alarmists coming from billionaire foundations. The Weather attribution "studies" come from people backed by the Grantham institute. They also have Children’s Investment Fund (Hedge fund manager - Chris Hohn) who put money into Extinction rebellion. The UK also has Carbon Brief which provides UK and Irish media with much of the formulated news stories about "climate change".

    When channel 4 broadcast the Great Global Waring Swindle, they got so much flack from activists that no media organisation will deviate far from the narrative. This is described by producer Martin Durkin in the following interview.


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    With any luck the shouting from oil producing nations will be drowned out

    DIPLOMATS FROM 200 nations and leading climate scientists begin a week-long huddle in Switzerland today to condense nearly a decade of published science into a 20-odd-page warning about the existential danger of global warming and how to tackle it.

    Diplomats in Interlaken vetting the text line-by-line cannot change the science in the underlying reports’ 10,750 pages, but they can decide what to leave in or out, and can highlight — or obscure — things through wording.

    “Over time, IPCC meetings became more politicised as government representatives — mainly, but not exclusively, from oil-producing states — interfered in the scientists’ discussions,” the journal Nature said in a recent editorial.

    Despite that, “the main IPCC studies have an extraordinary reach, informing everything from global climate agreements … to the school climate strikes movement Fridays of Future,” Nature said.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The National Youth Assembly on Climate Change convenes again to make more recommendations to the govt and various Ministers

    In advance of the Assembly, each delegate was given the opportunity to vote on key themes arising from the previous Youth Assembly on Climate (March 2022). The three themes that received the most votes are the focus of this Assembly. These are:

    • sustainable transport
    • circular economy and
    • communication, engagement and climate literacy

    This bodes well for the future if these are what they see as the most critical



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭roosterman71


    but they can decide what to leave in or out, and can highlight — or obscure — things through wording.

    Hahahaha! Can't change the science but can leave out bits of it to form a conclusion. It's no conclusion if you leave out part of the science

    Post edited by roosterman71 on


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Indeed, that's where the messing about from the oil producers comes in. Shameful carry on really



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭roosterman71




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    I’d like to ask a question and hopefully it doesn’t get drowned out by the constant link dumping by a certain poster!

    Question being:

    who set the high price of gas?

    As I understand it the gas price spiked on a FORECAST shortage due to Russian shenanigans.

    This forecast shortage was determined by speculators who drove up the price of gas on the market- yes?

    So the likes of Saudi aremco are making massive profits because speculators forecast that there’d be a shortage of gas? Is that correct?

    And obviously the wind companies are making massive profits off the back of this due to the coupled price of electricity generation even though they’ve nothing to do with gas.



Advertisement