"Green" policies are destroying this country

We have so much money in the coffers we don't have a bulls notion what to do with it. Shouldn't we use some of it for the PT options I said. We don't need charges ringfenced for it. We have the money now

We're part of a globalised world, we won't be banning imports. How are the million odd people in Dublin going to grow their own? Allotments? We have very professional people running very professional businesses contributing billions to the exchequer and producing world class food to boot.

You do understand don`t you that it is not the responsibility of government to give everyone everything they wish for ?

It is a governments responsibilty to spend taxpayers money where it will give the best value for the money invested i.e. be economically viable. You appear to believe that an investment of €36 Bn to connect the entire island with a rail network is a good investment, but not only do the authors of the report not agree with you as they do not seeing it make any discernible difference on freight or people travelling by road, you cannot even make a case for the economic viabilty of a Letterkenny to Derry rail link.

What is odd carry on is believing in magic money trees which will pay for everybody`s wish lists.

But you want the opposite - introduce the charge and ring fence it to then put in the alternative

And how do they get that fertile ground?

Why aren't they doing it already?

Its important to note a few things in relation to this.

Firstly, its not for the NTA or the TII (with their road pricing submission last week) to make and enact revenue raising policy for the Exchequer.

The way these discussion papers are published and debated is only compounded by our shyt media and their dreadful reporting of these, which makes them appear to the uninitiated as if they are a done deal.

They aren't anything of the sort of course and it drives the Government effing mental when these agencies do an end-run around their Minister and start flying kites.

They do have one positive, I suppose, when it compels senior Ministers, like the Tánaiste last week, to come out and say 'absolutely no chance'.

They are only a no-brainer to you, Da Cor, and a few fellow zealots no doubt. But for ordinary people just trying to work hard and live their lives while facing increasing costs on every front, this sort of bullcrap is just disheartening and we need to stop hearing about this stuff from characters that nobody elected to do anything for anyone.

We're in an election cycle on several fronts now and The Greens have a decision to make; whether to moderate their ambitions to make them proportionate, realistic and acceptable to taxpayers, or to double-down and end themselves politically.

I wouldn't normally be in the habit of quoting Priti Patel, but something she said this weekend shows the political danger of strong public pushback against overly punitive 'green' measures. Bear in mind, she said this about a Country and a City (London) with far better public transport generally speaking than Ireland. And so what she did say, may be even more applicable here in Ireland.

LOL. You favour a spend of €36 Bn on a rail network and you cannot even give a viable economic reason for a spur line estimated to cost €200 - €300 million.

The authors of the report said it was a nonsense waste of money. Even Varadkar recognised it as such the first look he took at it. Stop kidding yourself, only you and possibly Eamon Ryan believes otherwise. It`s dead in the water and is not going to happen so get over it.

The Conservatives are starting to see the potential of vote winners toning down the green agenda as Labour is insisting on it. They can claim they are dealing with reality even after proposing the same green policies as Labour. They are also afraid of Nigel Farrage / Reform party coming back into politics and offer a real alternative. Labour was meant to get a landslide victory in next year's election. That looks doubtful now and it's a long way to go. All parties have witnessed what has happened in Europe with elections. They dont want the Green Agenda dragging them down except Labour.

A bit of good news. The majority of climate change research has focused on implausibly bad emissions trajectories (and the media has then taken the worst case scenarios from those reports based on implausible emissions). Last month, a scientific steering committee met to set the direction for scenario modelling for AR7, the next IPCC report which will come out sometime around the end of this decade.

AR5 used Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) while AR6 used Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP), but both of them leant heavily toward studies based on the worst scenarios, RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5. The number in the scenario names means 8.5 watts per square metre of radiative forcing. Climate models based on these scenarios were then grouped together under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).

The committee that met last month is the CMIP7 ScenarioMIP steering committee. Their report is available here (pdf link). It's been clear for a long time that the 8.5 W/sq.m forcings are implausible even as worst cases. ScenarioMIP has finally recognised this. They are considering a new high-end emissions scenario of SSP 7.0. They admit even this is very unlikely, involving "aggravating developments that would contribute to high emissions, such as policy rollbacks, high population growth, deforestation, slow energy technology development, etc".

You won't read this anywhere in the news media. The press only does climate porn and this boring procedural change doesn't really fit the bill. However, it might limit the supply of doom-mongering material available for future reporting. Unfortunately it will likely take a long time for these changes to filter through into new research and researchers are still likely to take the worst case scenarios available to them, while the press still leaps on the worst worst case among modeled scenarios. After all, who wants to cover research that says "it might get a tad warmer" when you can have this:

Anyone who pays attention to what is actually in the IPCC reports wouldve noticed that they are now moving away from their models that run too hot. They can no longer connect it to actual observations. But there is a powerful group within the IPCC that still hold on to the old modelling in their advice to institutions (like the UN) and governments as if nothing has changed. And of course the media who make everything look worse. There are armies of climate warriors fighting for their cause blind to actual observations ie proper science. Some of them even think that the IPCC is too conservative and that things are much worse than the data shows! Apocalypse Now..

The green party is a junior coalition partner. Like all coalitions in our system of government, they have their red lines that they put forward as part of the program for government, and FF/FG agreed with those because they shared those objectives

FF and FG did not agree to things they oppose, they agree with the GP objectives to improve public transport, and reduce carbon emissions, and replace our fossil fuel infrastructure with renewables over time

They agree with those objectives, largely because the public support them too

The anti environment people on here are in the minority in Ireland. People actually want to live in a country where we don't have to sit in traffic jams all day long, where we can go for a walk in our community in a pleasant and nice environment without having to breath in toxic fumes from traffic. Where our homes are better insulated, and constructed to a higher standard, and where we are less reliant on imported fossil fuels etc.

The methods used to get to net zero are more controversial. Nobody likes paying more tax, but these carbon taxes are intended to be fully avoidable, and the objective is for as many people as possible to avoid as much of those taxes as possible. The 'libertarian's' are using this as a stick to beat the greens with. I would prefer that the carbon taxes are revenue neutral and fully offset with either tax cuts in other areas, or direct payments to pay for the full cost of avoiding those taxes.

The government should be pushing for these home and energy efficiency upgrades much more aggressively. I think the government should be making it easier for people to avail of the upgrades than to avoid them. Similar to how the smart meters were rolled out to everyone, with people able to opt out by jumping through some hoops. The government should be rolling out insulation, Solar PV, EV chargers, etc to all households with the households told to opt out of the upgrades if they don't want them. The upgrades should be carried out by a state body using firms under contract similar to how rural electrification, and the national broadband plans are being implemented, (and how water meters were installed) (this is to avoid the corruption and price gouging that would happen if individuals were expected to contract and source the works themselves on the 'free market')

It will take a lot of government investment but in the long term, it will be cost effective as a more efficient grid, with more energy efficient houses will provide long term benefits.