Global warming

The Green party is not the green movement - hence your fixation is based on ignorance of this simple fact. Environmental policies are now universally adopted by just about all political parties.

Sorry, but as far as engines are concerned, no you do not.

As for the claim how the M50 did not take traffic out of Dublin, it obviously has seeing as all 3 lanes of it tend to be pretty much nose to tail 24/7. Now, imagine all that traffic going through Dublin, along with what still goes through the city….sorry, that argument you are trying to make does not hold weight either.

The Limerick tunnel proves what happens when a bypass is planned correctly.

And how do you make out there would be less traffic? Ok, let's assume you are right and the traffic that is currently on the M50 would not go through Dublin itself if the M50 was not there, but remember the people and goods still need to be moved. People and companies will still buy the cars and vans and move by alternative, less efficient routes, but across the Island of Ireland, the same amount of traffic will still be there causing even more emissions into the atmosphere due to travelling at non optimal speeds and RPMs.

A Galway city bypass may have increased emissions in the area of the bypass, because it would have taken the traffic from the local secondary roads, but it would have removed the traffic that had no business in the city that still had to go through the city to get to destinations on the far side, which as far as the whole island is concerned its the same amount of traffic, travelling more efficiently and those "extra" emissions the council claimed would generated are actually only transfers from what would have been generated anyway on the secondary roads, but overall, it would have caused a reduction in emissions across the Island

Again, back to my example of Limerick in the days before the tunnel, people tried to find ways through the city and around the city to avoid the traffic….the result was no change in the trip time but depending on how it was tried anywhere between 10 and 20 miles added to the trip, depending on the route tried. An extra 10 to 20 miles of fuel used and exhausts into the air and MPG as bad as if they had gone through the city.

And yes, when you are stuck in the one mile of road for an hour, engine idling, the emissions generated are extra emissions on to the those created by the route anyway, and should be a concern.

Move along there, then. I don't support the green party or their policies - I've repeatedly said, that ship's sailed. The green 'movement' such as it is, is just another profit centre for a different bunch of corporations/politicians. But yeah, arguing about highway bypasses as was on this thread, or carbon taxes or whatever, is rearranging deck chairs. If anything, government should focus on survival in the coming hot times.

So you don't think thousands of cars stuck idling in city centres across the country don't contribute to Global warming? Or how Green Party policies are contributing to it by turning people away from the Green movement.

There are many contributory factors in global warming, from the natural world to technological to political and any proper debate and discussion on the subject needs to include them all.

As I have already said, I have yet to see anyone in this thread deny that Global warming is actually happening. What I have seen are plenty denials of how there are natural world and political contributions to it, along with the manmade technological ones.

The relationship between levels of CO2 and its warming effect is not linear—it's logarithmic. As CO2 levels increase, the effect on temperature become less and less.

At current CO2 levels we have reached the saturation of the CO2 greenhouse effect. Any further increases in CO2 levels will no longer have a significant effect on temperature.

So we should stop worrying about CO2 levels. The increased concentration over the last decades has had a wonderful greening effect on the planet.

Some people who post don't agree. Criticise the Irish green party and they'll accuse you of witchcraft.

You are asserting something then, without data, just anecdotes. But, I don't really want to argue the details of 'why this Green party policy is bad,' because it's pointless; tiny drop in the global warming bucket from Ireland, when things like 'carbon taxes' and 'stop turf burning' make no difference. It's too late for green policies, the amount of CO2 sequestered in the ocean is a global catastrophe should it be released due to warming. Not burning turf won't matter.

Now, if you want to discuss policies that will, in fact, reverse the coming warming, go right ahead. I don't think there are any, and all we can do is reduce the future number of people on the planet who will suffer from it.

That will improve our emissions/capita ratio which is often wheeled out to show how polluting we are

So you don’t really care about the environment?
What are you voting SF for?

So basically, you are denying the proof of your own eyes? That engjne idling for an hour in an unbypassed town or city centre don't add to the emissions of a trip?

I have all the proof I need in Limerick city and the MPG gage of my car. Higher MPG means more effective burning of fuel. Less emissions.

Next time you are driving though a town or city that has not been bypassed, look at your MPG and watch it drop, assuming you drive an ICE car without start/stop technology

Ok so you won’t answer.
You care about the environment yet you’ll vote for a party whose environmental policies you don’t care about?
You’ve previously said you’ll vote for SF because of the housing crisis yet SF are the largest blocker of housing at council level?

You sound a little confused tbh.