Why Do The Green Party Attract Such Animosity?

Laminations · 08-07-2010 3:19pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

the current government may be a deal with the devil, but at least the devil has (however inadvertently) offered the best ever possible deal for the Irish Green Party. For those of us who voted Green because of the environment first of all (rather than picking them as the environmentally friendly ABFF option), that's important - and voting confidence in Willie O'Dea is a price I wouldn't think twice about paying.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We obviously have differing opinions on whats a good deal. The chance to get in some green policy now at the expense of a greener future is not a good deal. They have very foolishly sacrificed their principles and will be decimated come next election, not because of a public backlash towards the policy as you like to maintain - I think people are beginning to appreciate the importance of the environment and sustainability - they will be decimated for that last sentence, the price you are willing to pay. Myself and (I imagine) the majority of voters do not appreciate deals with the devil or the compromising of integrity as we have seen in the Greens, known now as mouthpieces and crutches for FF.

And for those who voted Green because of the environment, what have the Greens done?

Before their entry into government, the Green Party were vocal supporters of the Shell to Sea movement, the campaign to reroute the M3 motorway away from Tara and (to a lesser extent) the campaign to end United States military use of Shannon airport. Since the Green Party entered government, there has been no substantive change in government policy on these issues, which means Eamon Ryan now oversees the Corrib gas project. The Green Party made an inquiry into the irregularities surrounding the project (see Corrib gas controversy) a precondition of government at their last annual conference but changed their stance during post-election negotiations with Fianna Fáil. The County Mayo branch of the party still supports moves to move the refinery to an alternative location.

Scofflaw · 08-07-2010 3:33pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious where this comes from.

Sorry - there should have been a 'respectively' in there:

...the plastic bag levy... primarily....affect the towns...

I would say that's the case - town life tends to involve a lot more small purchases than country life (at least it certainly did when I lived there).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove · 08-07-2010 3:38pm

Laminations wrote: »

The chance to get in some green policy now at the expense of a greener future is not a good deal.

i tend to agree, at the moment there is a growing perception of a green party rushing through their policies due to fear of election without really convincing people of the need

I fear we are not far from parties running along the lines of 'vote for us and we'll reverse all of this mad green stuff'

Laminations · 08-07-2010 3:47pm

Riskymove wrote: »

i tend to agree, at the moment there is a growing perception of a green party rushing through their policies due to fear of election without really convincing people of the need

I fear we are not far from parties running along the lines of 'vote for us and we'll reverse all of this mad green stuff'

Well I would disagree in that I dont really think there has been any 'mad green stuff'. Are you referring to the recent bills? You cant hunt stag on horseback (i.e. as a sport) and you need a license to breed dogs rather than unregulated puppy farming. Not mad at all. The Greens should have been far more proactive on ethical issues and Dail and expenses reform. The plastic bag levy and the smoking ban are two things that I can really and honestly thank FF for, these are essentially Green issues, the Greens have IMO underperformed in government and it wont be becuase of policy issues that they lose my vote, it will be for what they have supported in government to remain there

Scofflaw · 08-07-2010 3:50pm

Laminations wrote: »

We obviously have differing opinions on whats a good deal. The chance to get in some green policy now at the expense of a greener future is not a good deal. They have very foolishly sacrificed their principles and will be decimated come next election, not because of a public backlash towards the policy as you like to maintain - I think people are beginning to appreciate the importance of the environment and sustainability - they will be decimated for that last sentence, the price you are willing to pay.

The reason I'm willing to pay it is because in fact we don't do environmental legislation in this country. We have, as I said, an appalling track record in implementing EU environmental legislation (which is where most of our environmental legislation comes from) - we're on the receiving end of multiple Commission cases for implementation failure, but under the Greens the implementation is happening. I may not have been happy about the extra year's derogation for the SAC turf cutting ban, but at least it's not a repeat of the previous and outrageous decade-long one. I'm pleased with the change of VRT to a carbon basis, as I'm pleased with the 'carbonisation' of part of the excise on fuel. Under no other party would we have replaced one of our EESC farming reps with an environmental one.

There's a huge backlog of built-up environmental fecklessness and kow-towing to vested interests and rural 'men of the soil' BS in this country - and the Department of the Environment has for years been more regularly part of the problem than the solution. I don't expect decades of environmental idiocy to be completely overturned in one government by one Minister, but what I've seen is positive.

To shorten that - there is no 'greener future' that the Green Party are trading off against. That greener future will either happen anyway, or it won't. The existence of the Green Party has made virtually no difference to protection of the Irish environment before this stint in government, and would probably have made virtually no difference in any other coalition setup.
environment before this government

Laminations wrote: »

Myself and (I imagine) the majority of voters do not appreciate deals with the devil or the compromising of integrity as we have seen in the Greens, known now as mouthpieces and crutches for FF.

Sure - and the other people are bitching about "the Green tail wagging the FF dog" and "mad green stuff".

Laminations wrote: »

And for those who voted Green because of the environment, what have the Greens done?

Before their entry into government, the Green Party were vocal supporters of the Shell to Sea movement, the campaign to reroute the M3 motorway away from Tara and (to a lesser extent) the campaign to end United States military use of Shannon airport. Since the Green Party entered government, there has been no substantive change in government policy on these issues, which means Eamon Ryan now oversees the Corrib gas project. The Green Party made an inquiry into the irregularities surrounding the project (see Corrib gas controversy) a precondition of government at their last annual conference but changed their stance during post-election negotiations with Fianna Fáil. The County Mayo branch of the party still supports moves to move the refinery to an alternative location.

That you think of those as environmental issues tells me a lot - they're not. Of the three, only the M3 is even a heritage issue, but it's one that was signed off by the Minister's predecessor (yes, I've seen the conspiracy theories). The other two are in no sense environmental issues. Neither is fluoridation, vaccination, or a whole load of other things that appeal to Patricia McKenna. Nor, if it comes to it, is either stag hunting or dog breeding - or the smoking ban.

The turf-cutting ban on bog SACs is an environmental issue. Proper licensing of septic tanks is an environmental issue. Planning to prevent sprawl, pollution, service overload and pointless brownfielding is an environmental issue. Planning for greater use of public transport is an environmental issue. Proper implementation of the Nitrates Directive, or the Waste Water Directive, or the Habitats Directive - those are environmental issues. The ones you've raised aren't, and never have been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Riskymove · 08-07-2010 3:51pm

Laminations wrote: »

Well I would disagree in that I dont really think there has been any 'mad green stuff'.

you misunderstand me

its not that i think the Green's policies are 'mad'

but I think the more they distance themselves from the public, and the more they are prersented as a party simply staying in government to rush through things without a real madate, the more likely it is I think an anti-Green policy may arise in other parties to get votes

Laminations · 08-07-2010 4:07pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

T

That you think of those as environmental issues tells me a lot - they're not. Of the three, only the M3 is even a heritage issue, but it's one that was signed off by the Minister's predecessor (yes, I've seen the conspiracy theories). The other two are in no sense environmental issues. Neither is fluoridation, vaccination, or a whole load of other things that appeal to Patricia McKenna. Nor, if it comes to it, is either stag hunting or dog breeding - or the smoking ban.

The turf-cutting ban on bog SACs is an environmental issue. Proper licensing of septic tanks is an environmental issue. Planning to prevent sprawl, pollution, service overload and pointless brownfielding is an environmental issue. Planning for greater use of public transport is an environmental issue. Proper implementation of the Nitrates Directive, or the Waste Water Directive, or the Habitats Directive - those are environmental issues. The ones you've raised aren't, and never have been.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Accepted. The issues I raised were more a list of Green broken promises. How many of the issues above have had Green policy implemented so far? I realise they are on the program fro government and I recognise the importance of these issues, but the Greens have still sacrificed their future for whatever else they can rush through before this government collapses. How can the Greens stand by while bye-elections are being denied?

Scofflaw · 08-07-2010 4:28pm

Laminations wrote: »

Accepted. The issues I raised were more a list of Green broken promises. How many of the issues above have had Green policy implemented so far?

I'd need to go into a detailed search back over the various things I've seen over the last couple of years to see where Green policy has been implemented and exactly to what extent. I'm not reluctant to do so (indeed, it could be quite a useful exercise), but not right now.

As to 'broken promises', though - what didn't get into the PfG didn't get in. It's not possible for any coalition party (even the major one) to realise all its policy aims n negotiations - well, unless you're talking Fianna Fáil, whose only aim appears to be to form the government.

Laminations wrote: »

I realise they are on the program fro government and I recognise the importance of these issues, but the Greens have still sacrificed their future for whatever else they can rush through before this government collapses. How can the Greens stand by while bye-elections are being denied?

Honestly, I don't think they're sacrificing anything but a future on the opposition benches. Maybe if they'd held their hand they'd be in the next government (if Fine Gael won it, which is a big if, and if they needed the Greens)...or the next one, maybe...perhaps the one after that?

Also, I hate to say it, but given the way most Irish people feel about environmental issues, and the way at least a third of Green support expected totally off-the-wall things to be done if the Greens ever got in, whenever the Greens got in they'd have suffered pretty badly. People (at least, some people) may want 'environmental' matters looked after, but not if it hits them in the pocket - others just don't, and no Irish government is going to stop the US using Shannon.

I don't think most people realise just how abysmal the state of Irish environmental governance has been. We only ever got away with it because we were too poor to have much impact, and the EU keeps us on the straight and narrow to some degree - but we got richer much much faster than we got careful.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne · 08-07-2010 6:58pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that's the case - town life tends to involve a lot more small purchases than country life (at least it certainly did when I lived there).

Personal experience extrapolated again ?

I thought both of us had given that up ?

Scofflaw · 08-07-2010 7:06pm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Personal experience extrapolated again ?

I thought both of us had given that up ?

No, and indeed I doubt we ever will - we just need to note that that's what we're doing rather than claiming it as fact.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View · 09-07-2010 12:31am

Scofflaw wrote: »

... and the way at least a third of Green support expected totally off-the-wall things to be done if the Greens ever got in, whenever the Greens got in they'd have suffered pretty badly.

In retrospect it is hard to see why the off-the-wall element was catered to by the mainstream Greens for so long - I'd suspect that element was an electoral liability for the Greens with most of voting public.

Scofflaw · 09-07-2010 1:11am

View wrote: »

In retrospect it is hard to see why the off-the-wall element was catered to by the mainstream Greens for so long - I'd suspect that element was an electoral liability for the Greens with most of voting public.

To some degree, I'm sure (it was for me, for example) - but then I sometimes wonder to what extent the voting public distinguishes between preventing vaccination and preventing turf-cutting on SACs...it often seems to me that some people see the one being as silly as the other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Uriel. · 09-07-2010 9:34am

The turf-cutting ban on bog SACs is an environmental issue.

I don't agree with you on this one. It's more of a Heritage issue. The primary purpose of the cessation of turf cutting on the sites is for the preservation of an endangered European (& essentially global) habitat. There may certainly be some wider environmental issues, but the purpose of the restrictions is not rooted in environmental considerations. Irrespective of who was in Government, or who was responsible for the the Dept. of Environment, Heritage & Local Gov. the issue would have had to have been dealt with.

Macha · 09-07-2010 9:46am

Uriel. wrote: »

I don't agree with you on this one. It's more of a Heritage issue. The primary purpose of the cessation of turf cutting on the sites is for the preservation of an endangered European (& essentially global) habitat. There may certainly be some wider environmental issues, but the purpose of the restrictions is not rooted in environmental considerations. Irrespective of who was in Government, or who was responsible for the the Dept. of Environment, Heritage & Local Gov. the issue would have had to have been dealt with.

You don't consider the conservation of habitats an environmental issue?

Riskymove · 09-07-2010 9:55am

taconnol wrote: »

You don't consider the conservation of habitats an environmental issue?

I sort of though the same as Uriel when i read Scofflaw's post.....I think the point is that Scofflaw sees Tara as a heritage issue rather than an environmental one but turf-cutting the other way around

its a fine line in such circumstances....conservation of habitat and species might be seen as environmental issues by some but its certainly also classed as heritage

however you can link conservation to biodiversity and thus the environment....e.g. bogs and the link to CO2 and climate change etc....however, that is not why they are being conserved

Macha · 09-07-2010 10:15am

Riskymove wrote: »

its a fine line in such circumstances....conservation of habitat and species might be seen as environmental issues by some but its certainly also classed as heritage

however you can link conservation to biodiversity and thus the environment....e.g. bogs and the link to CO2 and climate change etc....however, that is not why they are being conserved

I think there is confusion because of the multiple reasons for habitat conservation. There is indeed the "save it for our children to look at" motive, which is similar to that expressed with old buildings & structures but the primary motivation of conserving habitats is because they are sources of biodiversity and as ecosystems.

And if you read the Habitats Directive, from which the turf-cutting ban ultimately derives, the main purpose of the Directive is:

to promote the maintenance of biodiversity

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML

So yeah, I can see why the motives can be unclear.

On a side note, I often don't think people appreciate the economic benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity.

Uriel. · 09-07-2010 10:17am

taconnol wrote: »

You don't consider the conservation of habitats an environmental issue?

No I don't, not in this guise. Yes, as I said, there are wider environmental factors, considerations and outcomes present. But this is not the reason for the Habitats Directive. It is about the long-term preservation of endangered habitats and species. It is much more of a heritage issue. The matter is also handled by the Heritage function of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Gov.

Uriel. · 09-07-2010 10:21am

taconnol wrote: »

I think there is confusion because of the multiple reasons for habitat conservation. There is indeed the "save it for our children to look at" motive, which is similar to that expressed with old buildings & structures but the primary motivation of conserving habitats is because they are sources of biodiversity and as ecosystems.

And if you read the Habitats Directive, from which the turf-cutting ban ultimately derives, the main purpose of the Directive is:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0043:EN:HTML

So yeah, I can see why the motives can be unclear.

On a side note, I often don't think people appreciate the economic benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity.

Whereas, in the European territory of the Member States, natural habitats are continuing to deteriorate and an increasing number of wild species are seriously threatened;

whereas given that the threatened habitats and species form part of the Community's natural heritage and the threats to them are often of a transboundary nature, it is necessary to take measures at Community level in order to conserve them;

Whereas, in view of the threats to certain types of natural habitat and certain species, it is necessary to define them as having priority in order to favour the early implementation of measures to conserve them;

Again, you are confusing the specific issue of turf cutting in this instance. The SAC/NHA bog issue relates primarily to preserving an endangered habitat.

If it was a wider environmental issue all turf cutting (or more general cutting etc...) would be prohibited. This is a very specific topic however.

Uriel. · 09-07-2010 10:25am

taconnol wrote: »

I think there is confusion because of the multiple reasons for habitat conservation. There is indeed the "save it for our children to look at" motive, which is similar to that expressed with old buildings & structures but the primary motivation of conserving habitats is because they are sources of biodiversity and as ecosystems.

PS. you really can't say there are "multiple" reasons for habitat conservation and then just pick one out of the list and say this is the primary motivation.

The SACs/NHAs in question were selected primarily as a result of the presence of the seriously endangered habitat known as active raised bog. The purpose of the designation is to ensure we don't lose this habitat in it's entirety which will happen if cutting and drainage is not stopped now.

Macha · 09-07-2010 10:28am

Uriel. wrote: »

Again, you are confusing the specific issue of turf cutting in this instance. The SAC/NHA bog issue relates primarily to preserving an endangered habitat.

If it was a wider environmental issue all turf cutting (or more general cutting etc...) would be prohibited. This is a very specific topic however.

To be honest this is splitting hairs. The issue in question is environmental conservation. Is it more an environmental issue than a conservation one? It's a strange question. It's still an environmental issue.

The claim that all turf cutting would be banned if this were an environmental issue is not accurate, in my opinion. The aim of the law is to conserve some of the last remaining parts of a specific type of habitat - Active Raised Bogs. I'm not sure why all turf cutting would have to be stopped in order for this action to qualify as an environmental one, given that the ultimate aim is still the preservation of biodiversity - a primarily environmental aim.

Edit: I say that the protection of biodiversity is primary aim of the Habitats Directive, because it is is just that - the Habitats Directive. The aim of preserving these pieces of land is because they are habitats for other species, not because we want to save them per se.

Uriel. · 09-07-2010 10:34am

taconnol wrote: »

To be honest this is splitting hairs. The issue in question is environmental conservation. Is it more an environmental issue than a conservation one? It's a strange question. It's still an environmental issue.

The claim that all turf cutting would be banned if this were an environmental issue is not accurate, in my opinion. The aim of the law is to conserve some of the last remaining parts of a specific type of habitat - Active Raised Bogs. I'm not sure why all turf cutting would have to be stopped in order for this action to qualify as an environmental one, given that the ultimate aim is still the preservation of biodiversity - a primarily environmental aim.

If it was a wider environmental aim, turf cutting would just be stopped in general. i.e. in general areas, we've addressed this to an extent in terms of bringing large scale peat extraction into the planning regs and also into EIA territory and IPPC requirements.

The SACs / NHAs are specifically targetted at one habitat. And that habitat is not "turf". It is very specific and it's goal is the preservation of a single specific habitat. Ireland is lucky (or unlucky if you want to see it that way) to have the lions share of this habitat. It's a predominantly a heritage issue in this context.

You have to move away from generalities here and focus on the specifics. Unfortuntely, the general public don't understand this. Largely down to the likes of Ming Flanagan and his cohort and indeed poor PR from the Department of EHLG.

There are plenty of bogs in state ownership - generally preservation of these could be used for environmetal issues. But the state has selected 130 sites (mostly in private ownership) for preservation for a specific reason - preservation of heritage. The environment wins also, yes, but this is not the primary aim.

Scofflaw · 09-07-2010 1:30pm

Uriel. wrote: »

No I don't, not in this guise. Yes, as I said, there are wider environmental factors, considerations and outcomes present. But this is not the reason for the Habitats Directive. It is about the long-term preservation of endangered habitats and species. It is much more of a heritage issue. The matter is also handled by the Heritage function of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Gov.

I can see how that definition works, but the one I was using was much simpler - Tara is built, bog is not. In a simplistic way, that makes Tara "heritage", where preserving bogland of scientific value isn't. One of the arguments for preserving bogland is indeed a heritage argument (and probably the only one that really sells in Ireland), but the only argument for preserving Tara is heritage.

Still, this is angels on the head of a pin stuff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Uriel. · 09-07-2010 2:03pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can see how that definition works, but the one I was using was much simpler - Tara is built, bog is not. In a simplistic way, that makes Tara "heritage", where preserving bogland of scientific value isn't. One of the arguments for preserving bogland is indeed a heritage argument (and probably the only one that really sells in Ireland), but the only argument for preserving Tara is heritage.

Still, this is angels on the head of a pin stuff.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't disagree with you in the sense that as a wider issue of course the bogs topic has many environmental factors. But the specifics of this particular bogs issue - the cessation of turf cutting on 130 nature conservation sites is being done on heritage grounds, not environmental.

Tara is built heritage as you say (or indeed arceological) - part of the build heritage function of Dept. EHLG. This bogs issue is a natural heritage issue. NPWS the competent authority is also part of the heritage function of the Department (and was previously known as "Dúchas - the Heritage Service".

It does sounds like a pedantic issue, splitting hairs etc... but in the context of this thread I do believe it is an important differentiation to make. The Green Party are clearly seen as a mad cap "Environmental Organisation". You see a lot of the opposition to the Turf Cutting issue being thrown at the Green Party, ruining rural Ireland for D4 Environmentalists etc... etc... when this issue is not really an environmental issue. Of course that even ignores the fact that it was never a green issue anyway!

Scofflaw · 09-07-2010 4:51pm

Uriel. wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in the sense that as a wider issue of course the bogs topic has many environmental factors. But the specifics of this particular bogs issue - the cessation of turf cutting on 130 nature conservation sites is being done on heritage grounds, not environmental.

Tara is built heritage as you say (or indeed arceological) - part of the build heritage function of Dept. EHLG. This bogs issue is a natural heritage issue. NPWS the competent authority is also part of the heritage function of the Department (and was previously known as "Dúchas - the Heritage Service".

It does sounds like a pedantic issue, splitting hairs etc... but in the context of this thread I do believe it is an important differentiation to make. The Green Party are clearly seen as a mad cap "Environmental Organisation". You see a lot of the opposition to the Turf Cutting issue being thrown at the Green Party, ruining rural Ireland for D4 Environmentalists etc... etc... when this issue is not really an environmental issue. Of course that even ignores the fact that it was never a green issue anyway!

In all honesty, it always seemed to me that many of what should have been Green issues were given very little airtime by the Green Party, while others that were completely irrelevant to the environment had star billing. Part of what I've enjoyed about the current situation is that by and large the Greens haven't been able to touch those star projects, and have largely knuckled down to clearing a backlog of anti-environmental decisions, practices, and habits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Why Do The Green Party Attract Such Animosity?

Comments