We cant afford the Green agenda !

Darsad

At a time when the country is hemmoraging jobs and the economy overall is in a bad way how can we afford the Green agenda ! Listening to Mr Ryan of FF Glas this morning he was adamant the Carbon tax will be implemented although the specifics have not been set in stone, all this tells me is they will hand it over to the civil service to be treated as a stealth tax and FF will back it all the way. Roll on the general election.

old boy

lots of people are saying wait until the election then when it comes around the same things happen f.f.are back, next time there may be a change when all thats there is debt, then another election f.f. get in theres a turn around they claim the credit and stay in power until they have tha whole lot fecked up once again.

jank

Green is the new economy. We either embrace it or get left behind.

Scofflaw

It's very popular right now to say that we "can't afford" to do anything about climate change. First, we're very obviously a hell of a long way from rock bottom. Second, a stitch in time saves nine. Not doing something now just means more pain later, and who knows whether we'll be able to afford it better then.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mr. Incognito

Yes, Look where Finna's fails policies have gotten us over the last few years..............

Dyr

truth is we could leave the lights on all year around etc in this country and it wont make a lick of difference to the worlds ecology as we're so small, it wil only make a difference to our energy costs. Oul eamo wants to tax us more to save the planet. Classic crusading mentality, punish people until they behave as you see fit. I hope they're decimated at the next election, we don't need them.

Macha

Bambi wrote: »

truth is we could leave the lights on all year around etc in this country and it wont make a lick of difference to the worlds ecology as we're so small, it wil only make a difference to our energy costs. Oul eamo wants to tax us more to save the planet. Classic crusading mentality, punish people until they behave as you see fit. I hope they're decimated at the next election, we don't need them.

You're taking a very narrow look at this. For a start, a carbon tax will encourage major improvements in efficiency. Practically all of the existing housing stock is of very poor quality and leak heat at a shocking rate. Householders pay the price through increased heating bills and will have to invest their own money in retrofitting these properties with insulation, etc. Now if higher environmental regulations had been enforced, we would have excellent quality building stock and lower heating bills all round.

The idea to take Ireland as a whole and dismiss us as small and irrelevant is silly. Firstly, these things have to be measured on a per capita basis. On average, Irish people emit 17 tonnes of C02 per person per year, compared with the EU average of 11 tonnes.

We are part of the problem and a simple trick of history that has left us in a relatively small nation-state is no excuse not to do anything.

Darsad

The Greens are scaremongers !

hot summer = Global warming
Cold Summer = Global warming
wet summer = Global warming
dry Summer = Global warming

Ryan and Gormley and the rest of their party should head off to India or china for good and see real pollution and Carbon emissions.Changes made here dont register on any scale they simply ruin our economy

kmick

So let me get this right to encourage people to move to greener forms of energy like wind, solar etc they will tax things like petrol, housing and other "stuff".

Interesting plan - well thought out.

bnt

Oh, here we go again with the short-sighted outlooks. Have you considered that "global warming" is only one reason to worry about energy in the future? There are other reasons that aren't going away.

If you dismiss "global warming / climate change", you still have the rising cost of energy. Or, do you think that the current low oil price means that's not an issue any more? 2009 has only just begun. What about the supply chain? North Sea oil and gas is getting harder to find and extract. Still, we can always import natural gas from Russia, right? Or from Nigeria, through the planned Russian-owned pipeline?

In the (highly unlikely) event that the Greens decide that Ireland needs to go Nuclear, you're talking a decade or more before a reactor could be up and running. It's not scare-mongering to be concerned about where the energy is going to come from in the future. There's only so much Peat in the ground, y'know... :cool:

jank

hot summer = Global warming
Cold Summer = Global warming
wet summer = Global warming
dry Summer = Global warming

Ryan and Gormley and the rest of their party should head off to India or china for good and see real pollution and Carbon emissions.Changes made here dont register on any scale they simply ruin our economy

Sorry but where did the greens say the above??...hyperbole!


Sure oil, gas and coal is available forever sure......!!
How dare them greens suggest otherwise. Sure uncle sam will help us soon.

Why not have a look at your FF buddies.


Oh and I wont be disturbed about nuclear power in Ireland.

Darsad

jank wrote: »

Sorry but where did the greens say the above??...hyperbole!


.

Any quirk or noticeable change in our climate ( no matter how brief or proven to be repeated patterns ) is immediatly attributed to Global warming by all tree huggers.

If as we all hope this summer is a good one watch how quickly Gormless looks to introduce water metering and as it will be yet another tax to add to the shrinking coffers see how The FF will row in behind him.

murfie

I'm all for reducing cost of our energy consumption and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels BUT lets not be fooled into thinking it has anything to do with the environment. Just cause its a popular theory does not make it true!

Making ourselves efficient and developing cheaper alternatives should be a priority, taxing us into submission is not the answer, all that serves is we will still be using the same fuels for energy while being taxed up to our eyeballs.

Investing in designing these alternatives needs to be priority and incentives to those companies should be the Green direction, make Ireland the leader in the field, may also offset the dells/intels etc that are leaving our country.

Tomk1

jank wrote: »

Oh and I wont be disturbed about nuclear power in Ireland.

Yep get green and go Nuclear, don't forget solar energy is nuclear. But people believe n-power is baddd, and burning dino-juise pumping co2 back into the atmosphere (that took millions of years for the earth to remove) and paying tne Arabs is ok.

If we get off depending on outside fuel spend the money here making jobs here, not for all those that can still afford SUVs to bring their kids down the half mile to school.

Green can become the new economy, but f*ck the "green party" staying in power wtih F-Fail, because they know they will never ever get back in. Raise car tax charge higher parking fees and then increase charge of public transport, and lets never do a report into N-power.

Danuogma

The carbon tax would be more accurately described as a tax on life, after all we all emit CO2, the day we stop is the day we die.After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century, that doesn't seem to matter, the politicised "global warming" agenda gets pushed ahead regardless. Industry is leaving this country faster than Brian Clown can say "going forward", that also doesn't seem to matter, Green FF are pushing the tax on life plan regardless.

This carbon tax con is a fallacy based on an shoddy theory, the "scientific consensus" that some people bleat on about doesn't exist. A carbon tax will cripple the economy beyond repair and disproportionately affect those who already live on tight budgets. Carbon credits are akin to the indulgences that the catholic church handed out (for a price) during the medieval period.

Everybody needs to look beyond the simplistic propaganda that is being peddled as truth by a politicised movement with a larger agenda and ignore the parroted slogans that its associated lunatic fringe repeat ad nauseum.

Macha

Danuogma wrote: »

The carbon tax would be more accurately described as a tax on life, after all we all emit CO2, the day we stop is the day we die.

That depends on how the carbon tax is administered. It isn't a tax on life, it is a tax on unnecessary and inefficient practices. It is also an attempt to make sure that these costs are not externalised to the rest of society, but actually paid for by the polluter. If you drive and SUV and I cycle, why should my taxes go towards paying for the carbon emitted by your SUV?

The principle is polluter pays: one that was adopted by the EU as far back as the 1970s.

Danuogma wrote: »

After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century, that doesn't seem to matter, the politicised "global warming" agenda gets pushed ahead regardless. Industry is leaving this country faster than Brian Clown can say "going forward", that also doesn't seem to matter, Green FF are pushing the tax on life plan regardless.

So basically you're saying that the recent cold-snap negates the entire theory of global warming? Newsflash: no one is arguing about whether global warming is happening or not. The only remaning small controversy is over its cause.

Manufacturing industry is leaving this country because costs are cheaper elsewhere. Perhaps if we had invested in greater efficiency in our energy, transport and general infrastructure, we might have a more competitive edge.

Danuogma wrote: »

This carbon tax con is a fallacy based on an shoddy theory, the "scientific consensus" that some people bleat on about doesn't exist. A carbon tax will cripple the economy beyond repair and disproportionately affect those who already live on tight budgets. Carbon credits are akin to the indulgences that the catholic church handed out (for a price) during the medieval period.

This is just silly. It isn't the poor people that are emitting the most carbon: it is the rich people in their SUVs, monthly flights and huge houses. Yet everyone contributes equally to the payment of the carbon fines. A carbon tax will remove the cost of these credits from the people who are not creating the emissions.

Danuogma wrote: »

Everybody needs to look beyond the simplistic propaganda that is being peddled as truth by a politicised movement with a larger agenda and ignore the parroted slogans that its associated lunatic fringe repeat ad nauseum.

I see more propaganda in your post than any "green agenda".

Hand_Of_Steel

The fact of the matter is that the very foundations of society need to be shifted, we can no longer expect to rely on cheap, energy dence resources as they are finite and running out fast.
The last 5 global recessions can be linked to spikes in oil price, this is because our economys are based a ready supply of large amounts of enegy. When this energy disapears, production is effected. When production is effected jobs start to go. When jobs start to go people start to get scared. When people start to get scared, they stop spending which effects production in a negative feedback loop. Our dependance on these resources leaves our economy vunerable to outside influnces(russian gas supplies for example).

We have to move past this ever demanding system, needing more more to maintain itself, and create a society that is sustainable and reseliant. The carbon tax is not a stealth tax, its the first step in moving society forward.

Don't want to pay a carbon tax? Then cut your emmissions.
Get out of the car once in a while.

jmayo

A carbon tax will be implemented not because FF give a jack sh** about the ecology of the world, but becuase they will see it as another way to get much needed tax.
They have the added plus they can blame the greens for it and they can fire the answer that it is needed to save the planet.
It is a win win for FF.

I will take the greens endeavours on climate change seriously, when they propose Ireland build a nuclear power plant, then and only then we will be removing our major dependency on fossil fuels and outside influences.
Of course gormless, ryan the smug and the rest of the sellouts will be tilting at windmills like Don Quixote.

PS I would get the French to build it, since if we do it ourselves then it will be a f*** up like every other major infrastructure project we have undertaken recently :rolleyes:
It is one thing having an unsafe half finshed road or tunnel but quiet another when it happens to be something using uranium

Danuogma

taconnol wrote: »

That depends on how the carbon tax is administered. It isn't a tax on life, it is a tax on unnecessary and inefficient practices. It is also an attempt to make sure that these costs are not externalised to the rest of society, but actually paid for by the polluter. If you drive and SUV and I cycle, why should my taxes go towards paying for the carbon emitted by your SUV?

Who defines what "unnecessary and inefficient practices" are?, Green FF?, God help us if that is the case. Besides that why should people even have to pay some faceless bureaucracy for their CO2 emissions?. Imposition of carbon taxes goes under the guise of "saving the environment", the end result will be more bureaucracy, more control over how how people live their lives and less money in peoples pockets. A convenient excuse to tax and control people based on politicised "science" and biased computer models.
CO2 is not the stalking horse it is made out to be.

So basically you're saying that the recent cold-snap negates the entire theory of global warming?

On the whole, the world is getting colder, there is a cooling trend not the opposite. Does anyone ever wonder why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels started to prove the alarmists wrong and their apocalyptic warming predictions failed to materialise? .

Newsflash: no one is arguing about whether global warming is happening or not. The only remaning small controversy is over its cause.

More "the debate is over", we have "scientific consensus" blather. Slogans slogans slogans, we will win the war with slogans :rolleyes:.

Manufacturing industry is leaving this country because costs are cheaper elsewhere. Perhaps if we had invested in greater efficiency in our energy, transport and general infrastructure, we might have a more competitive edge.

They will leave even faster if they have to pay a carbon tax, no doubt about it.

This is just silly. It isn't the poor people that are emitting the most carbon: it is the rich people in their SUVs, monthly flights and huge houses. Yet everyone contributes equally to the payment of the carbon fines. A carbon tax will remove the cost of these credits from the people who are not creating the emissions.


I see more propaganda in your post than any "green agenda".

A carbon tax on fuel for example will equate to increased costs for business, when business gets hit with a carbon tax it will pass the pain down the line.
That's the way things work, if you pretend otherwise then you are living in fantasy land. Fiddle and fudge all you like, people will be worse off if a carbon tax is imposed on them, directly or indirectly.

Macha

Danuogma wrote: »

Who defines what "unnecessary and inefficient practices" are?, Green FF?, God help us if that is the case. Besides that why should people even have to pay some faceless bureaucracy for their CO2 emissions?. Imposition of carbon taxes goes under the guise of "saving the environment", the end result will be more bureaucracy, more control over how how people live their lives and less money in peoples pockets. A convenient excuse to tax and control people based on politicised "science" and biased computer models.

Unnecessary and inefficient practices are not difficult to identify. The previous example I used of our poor quality housing stock is an example of unnecessary inefficiency. Driving larger cars than required is inefficient, using more water than necessary. Everyone driving to work in private cars, rather than using public transport is inefficient.

I actually couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone's personal concept of "freedom". Freedom is an illusion that people convince themselves of when the reality is, no one has real freedom. I don't call me having to pay for someone else's carbon emissions "freedom". I don't call having to buy a car and incur the huge costs of purchase and maintenance because the only place I can afford a home is in the sticks "freedom". I hope all those people on the M50 carpark are enjoying their "freedom".

Danuogma wrote: »

On the whole, the world is getting colder, there is a cooling trend not the opposite. Does anyone ever wonder why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels started to prove the alarmists wrong and their apocalyptic warming predictions failed to materialise?

You're so misinformed it's unreal. Global warming didn't suddenly become "climate change". The latter phrase is more useful for describing the wide range of meteorological changes that will happen, for example more drought and floods, more storms, cloud cover etc.

Danuogma wrote: »

More "the debate is over", we have "scientific consensus" blather. Slogans slogans slogans, we will win the war with slogans :rolleyes:.

If you'd like to prove otherwise, be my guest. Scientific consensus exists insofar as scientific consensus exists on any issue. You're doing a pretty good job with blowing a lot of hot air yourself.

Danuogma wrote: »

They will leave even faster if they have to pay a carbon tax, no doubt about it.

A carbon tax will not work unless everyone adopts it.

Danuogma wrote: »

A carbon tax on fuel for example will equate to increased costs for business, when business gets hit with a carbon tax it will pass the pain down the line.
That's the way things work, if you pretend otherwise then you are living in fantasy land. Fiddle and fudge all you like, people will be worse off if a carbon tax is imposed on them, directly or indirectly.

So you think that we should have a voluntary carbon tax? Are you insane?

False: A carbon tax will only increase costs for those businesses that emit too much carbon or make no effort to reduce carbon emissions. Businesses that cut emissions will be rewarded by being able to make money by selling their credits to more polluting firms Do you even know how the ECTS works?

murfie

What an absolute con-job these carbon credit are! Its a money spinner, and all will happen is carbon credits will become a commodity just like oil or gas is right now. We may as well put it up on the stock exchanges like oil, as there is going to be someone who is going to make a profit from them! We all now it wont be you and me!

Danuogma

taconnol wrote: »

Unnecessary and inefficient practices are not difficult to identify. The previous example I used of our poor quality housing stock is an example of unnecessary inefficiency. Driving larger cars than required is inefficient, using more water than necessary. Everyone driving to work in private cars, rather than using public transport is inefficient.

First of all public transport in this country is a joke. When the coffers were full it wasn't sorted. A carbon tax certainly won't sort it out. Shoddy housing can largely be be put down to scumbag developers who were given carte blanche to do whatever the F the liked, a carbon tax won't sort that out either. The impending economic depression will de-yuppify this country pretty quickly, people won't have jobs to drive to in the SUVs they can no longer afford.

I actually couldn't give a rat's arse about anyone's personal concept of "freedom". Freedom is an illusion that people convince themselves of when the reality is, no one has real freedom. I don't call me having to pay for someone else's carbon emissions "freedom". I don't call having to buy a car and incur the huge costs of purchase and maintenance because the only place I can afford a home is in the sticks "freedom". I hope all those people on the M50 carpark are enjoying their "freedom".

Obviously :rolleyes:. Everybody should have the right to be free from government interference in their lives, nobody should have to pay a tax for simply existing and living. The economic depression will put an end to the current excesses, a blanket carbon tax on top of that will put the country on its knees.

You're so misinformed it's unreal. Global warming didn't suddenly become "climate change". The latter phrase is more useful for describing the wide range of meteorological changes that will happen, for example more drought and floods, more storms, cloud cover etc.

lol, it used to be called "weather". Pick a flood or a storm and hysterically blame "climate change", genius, simply genius.

If you'd like to prove otherwise, be my guest. Scientific consensus exists insofar as scientific consensus exists on any issue.

Could you be any vaguer?. No consensus exists. Five minutes on google and you could find that out for yourself. If you are too lazy to look for yourself then you shouldn't expect people to hand things to you on a plate.

You're doing a pretty good job with blowing a lot of hot air yourself.

Yeah, according to yourself. People with an almost religious belief system do not like the dogmas they live by challenged by "heretics".

A carbon tax will not work unless everyone adopts it.

There is a difference between imposition and adoption. I am sure you have an English dictionary lying around your gaff somewhere. Pick it up, dust it off, have a look.

So you think that we should have a voluntary carbon tax? Are you insane?

I think we should have no carbon tax AT ALL. Comprende?.

False: A carbon tax will only increase costs for those businesses that emit too much carbon or make no effort to reduce carbon emissions. Businesses that cut emissions will be rewarded by being able to make money by selling their credits to more polluting firms Do you even know how the ECTS works?

It is all down to what limits are set, if the limits are impossible or impractical to stick to then operation costs will go up, simple as that. Carbon credits are just another con. A carbon tax on fuel would be another nail in the coffin.

Hand_Of_Steel

Danuogma wrote: »

Could you be any vaguer?. No consensus exists. Five minutes on google and you could find that out for yourself. If you are too lazy to look for yourself then you shouldn't expect people to hand things to you on a plate.

Ah, I see we're dealing with a career academic here. The breath and scale of your research is impressive.
You find what you are looking for on google, as you are defining the search.

I presume, in those five minutes on google, that your gave a quick look at the work of the people in NIRSA?

djpbarry

Bambi wrote: »

truth is we could leave the lights on all year around etc in this country and it wont make a lick of difference to the worlds ecology as we're so small, it wil only make a difference to our energy costs.

Indeed – who needs lower energy costs, eh?

djpbarry

Darsad wrote: »

If as we all hope this summer is a good one watch how quickly Gormless looks to introduce water metering and as it will be yet another tax to add to the shrinking coffers see how The FF will row in behind him.

Absolutely. After all, everybody knows that water is an infinite resource and it doesn’t matter how much the individual uses, the cost of providing clean water to the population will remain the same, even though the laws of physics may say otherwise.

djpbarry

Danuogma wrote: »

After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century…

Methinks you may want to double-check this:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png

Warming may have levelled off slightly over the last few years, but 2008 is still expected to be the 10th warmest year on record.

Danuogma wrote: »

Besides that why should people even have to pay some faceless bureaucracy for their CO2 emissions?

Faceless bureaucracy? You are familiar with the concept of taxation, aren’t you?

Danuogma wrote: »

On the whole, the world is getting colder, there is a cooling trend not the opposite.

Sure, if by “on the whole” you mean it’s cooler now than it was in July.

Danuogma wrote: »

Does anyone ever wonder why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels started to prove the alarmists wrong and their apocalyptic warming predictions failed to materialise?

The term “climate change” was in widespread use even before 1998, the warmest year on record. It was possibly popularised following the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988.

Danuogma wrote: »

First of all public transport in this country is a joke. When the coffers were full it wasn't sorted.

Possibly because public opinion favoured infrastructural projects such as motorways and bypasses. Besides, there’s only so much that can be done in 10-odd years. Having said that, while there’s still a hell of a lot to be done to improve public transport in this country, a lot has improved over the last decade.

Danuogma wrote: »

Shoddy housing can largely be be put down to scumbag developers who were given carte blanche to do whatever the F the liked…

People were still happy to pay ridiculous sums of money for said shoddy housing. Oh wait, I forgot; it’s the banks’ fault for lending consumers the money that they asked for.

Danuogma wrote: »

Everybody should have the right to be free from government interference in their lives, nobody should have to pay a tax for simply existing and living.

You complain about poor public transport that wasn’t “sorted” by FF when the money was available to do it. You complain about the “shoddy housing” developments that FF (apparently) did nothing to improve. Now you proclaim that everyone should be free from “government interference”? So you want the government to intervene, but only when it suits you?

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

I will take the greens endeavours on climate change seriously, when they propose Ireland build a nuclear power plant…

How much will that cost us I wonder?

CtrlSource

Nuclear has been a big issue in this country for decades (Windscale and Sellafield, not to mention Chernobyl). i'm still very suspicious of it, even though some eminent research seems to indicate that modern plants are a safer.

However, the issue of radioactive waste and what we'd be leaving successive generations to deal with is reason enough for me to continue to say no to it

grahamo

CtrlSource wrote: »

Nuclear has been a big issue in this country for decades (Windscale and Sellafield, not to mention Chernobyl). i'm still very suspicious of it, even though some eminent research seems to indicate that modern plants are a safer.

However, the issue of radioactive waste and what we'd be leaving successive generations to deal with is reason enough for me to continue to say no to it

The small amount of Radioactive waste won't cause global warming but the massive amounts of CO2 from a fossil fuel power plant will.

P.S. Carbon tax is a massive con job. None of the money invested will be used to improve public transport nor will it be invested in renewable energy. It will just go to govt. coffers

djpbarry

grahamo wrote: »

The small amount of Radioactive waste won't cause global warming but the massive amounts of CO2 from a fossil fuel power plant will.

So there are no CO2 emissions associated with the construction, maintenance, fuelling and decommissioning of a nuclear power plant?

oscarBravo

Moderator note: this isn't the Green Issues forum. Discussion of whether or not climate change is influenced by human activity can take place over there.

For the purposes of discussion on this forum, I'm going with the scientific consensus. If you're not prepared to engage in political discussion on that basis, stay off this topic.

If you want to claim that there's a scientific consensus that human activity isn't a factor in climate change, do it over on Green Issues - but be prepared to defend the assertion with something more concrete than "Google it".

This is my only warning.

Danuogma

djpbarry wrote: »

Methinks you may want to double-check this:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png

Warming may have levelled off slightly over the last few years, but 2008 is still expected to be the 10th warmest year on record.

LOL, it is 2009 now, and bloody freezing.

This is almost Orwellian, the current cooling is masking the warming, apparently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html

I really trust those guys:rolleyes:

Faceless bureaucracy? You are familiar with the concept of taxation, aren’t you?

So where would the carbon tax money go?. Answer that truthfully.

Sure, if by “on the whole” you mean it’s cooler now than it was in July.
The term “climate change” was in widespread use even before 1998, the warmest year on record. It was possibly popularised following the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988.

Yes the phrase has been around for a while, it is now more prevalent than the phrase "global warming" correct or incorrect?.

Possibly because public opinion favoured infrastructural projects such as motorways and bypasses. Besides, there’s only so much that can be done in 10-odd years. Having said that, while there’s still a hell of a lot to be done to improve public transport in this country, a lot has improved over the last decade.

Maybe in Dublin things have improved (slightly), public transport in the rest of the country is either woefully substandard or non-existent. Try getting a train from Limerick to Dublin or vice versa, an extortionate fare and nearly always late, there is hardly any incentive to use it. The road network needed to be improved, it was at almost third world levels fifteen years ago (a lot of roads still are), public transport could have been improved also, all we got was token improvements and extortionate fares.

People were still happy to pay ridiculous sums of money for said shoddy housing. Oh wait, I forgot; it’s the banks’ fault for lending consumers the money that they asked for.

People have to live somewhere I suppose, should they have pitched tents in the Phoenix Park instead?. Oh well, most of them are up sh*t creek now, I suppose that will make you happy. The banks got bags-o-free-cash and they will still be nailing people who can't afford their mortgages (death pledges).

You complain about poor public transport that wasn’t “sorted” by FF when the money was available to do it. You complain about the “shoddy housing” developments that FF (apparently) did nothing to improve. Now you proclaim that everyone should be free from “government interference”? So you want the government to intervene, but only when it suits you?

That is what they are supposed to be there for isn't it, government should exist to serve the public, not analyze their lives and interfere where they no right to interfere. Government could have improved public transport and turned the heat up on scumbag developers, that would have been service in the public interest, not interference.

Danuogma

oscarBravo wrote: »

For the purposes of discussion on this forum, I'm going with the scientific consensus. If you're not prepared to engage in political discussion on that basis, stay off this topic.

Danuogma

oscarBravo wrote: »

Moderator note: this isn't the Green Issues forum. Discussion of whether or not climate change is influenced by human activity can take place over there.

For the purposes of discussion on this forum, I'm going with the scientific consensus. If you're not prepared to engage in political discussion on that basis, stay off this topic.

If you want to claim that there's a scientific consensus that human activity isn't a factor in climate change, do it over on Green Issues - but be prepared to defend the assertion with something more concrete than "Google it".

This is my only warning.

Sorry,... We can speak freely as long as it is approved "free speech". Sorry. I forgot.

jank

So you like to stick your head in the sand.
Let me ask what do you think Ireland to do regarding future energy needs?

Danuogma

So you like to stick your head in the sand.

I refuse to go along and agree with a highly politicised movement with a much larger agenda.

jank wrote: »

Let me ask what do you think Ireland to do regarding future energy needs?

I never said that I was against renewable energy, in fact I am all for it as long as the returns justify the outlay. I am also a fan of micro energy generation, everyone should get a slice of the pie.

Here is a good website if you want to check it out:

http://www.otherpower.com/

Darsad

Build a big incinerator and Nuclear power plant problem solved !!

jank

Danuogma wrote: »

I refuse to go along and agree with a highly politicised movement with a much larger agenda.




I never said that I was against renewable energy, in fact I am all for it as long as the returns justify the outlay. I am also a fan of micro energy generation, everyone should get a slice of the pie.

Here is a good website if you want to check it out:

http://www.otherpower.com/

And what is this agenda. Does it involve Tinfoil hats?

You are not against renewable energy so long its the cheapest form? Well we have been following this rule for the last 50 years and look where it is getting us. There has to be a large outlay at the begining but the ROI should not be meassured just in fiscal terms.

About the website, do you think governments should give grants/tax breaks to those that want to generate their own power? Do you think there would be a will for people to change if these costs are still really high and cheap gas/oil is still available to many?

Matt Holck

Darsad wrote: »

The Greens are scaremongers !

hot summer = Global warming
Cold Summer = Global warming
wet summer = Global warming
dry Summer = Global warming

Ryan and Gormley and the rest of their party should head off to India or china for good and see real pollution and Carbon emissions.Changes made here dont register on any scale they simply ruin our economy

how are they ruining the economy?
'cause some filters need to be stuffed down chimneys?
'cause some houses need to be insulated?

Matt Holck

jank wrote: »

And what is this agenda. Does it involve Tinfoil hats?

You are not against renewable energy so long its the cheapest form? Well we have been following this rule for the last 50 years and look where it is getting us. There has to be a large outlay at the begining but the ROI should not be meassured just in fiscal terms.

About the website, do you think governments should give grants/tax breaks to those that want to generate their own power? Do you think there would be a will for people to change if these costs are still really high and cheap gas/oil is still available to many?

It's a matter of capital investments.
Logically, a renewable energy source would be virtually free
once the power plants are built.
Maintenance is a secondary cost

jmayo

djpbarry wrote: »

How much will that cost us I wonder?

A huge amount if it is planned and built by our incompetent shower, thus I would propose lets say Hong kong project management and French builders.
For once then we might have something proper (safety important and the French have good record with their huge nuclear industry) and within a preset budget and timescale (what was achieved in Hong Kong aiport development pre handover was beyond believe).

CtrlSource wrote: »

Nuclear has been a big issue in this country for decades (Windscale and Sellafield, not to mention Chernobyl). i'm still very suspicious of it, even though some eminent research seems to indicate that modern plants are a safer.

However, the issue of radioactive waste and what we'd be leaving successive generations to deal with is reason enough for me to continue to say no to it

BTW, Windscale and Sellafield are the same place. They jyust kinda name changed becuase of the bad publicity. Chernobyl tends to viewed badly by every nation :rolleyes:

djpbarry wrote: »

So there are no CO2 emissions associated with the construction, maintenance, fuelling and decommissioning of a nuclear power plant?

Yeah a bit like the CO2 emmissions you will get putting in place all those thousands of wind farms and all thsoe wave generators. How will people get to their often proposed inexcessible locations to maintain them, walk ?

I used to believe the green party in this country are a bunch of clueless do gooders, but now I believe they are a bunch of clueless do gooders who sell out most of their principles although they yet hang on to their superior attitude that they know best.

CtrlSource

jmayo wrote: »

BTW, Windscale and Sellafield are the same place. They jyust kinda name changed becuase of the bad publicity. Chernobyl tends to viewed badly by every nation :rolleyes:

i am aware of that. The 'bad publicity' you refer to is also known as the Windscale fire

Danuogma

jank wrote: »

And what is this agenda. Does it involve Tinfoil hats?

*drumroll* Its the way you tell em.:rolleyes:

You are not against renewable energy so long its the cheapest form? Well we have been following this rule for the last 50 years and look where it is getting us. There has to be a large outlay at the begining but the ROI should not be meassured just in fiscal terms.

The output should justify the outlay within a reasonable period of time (say 15-20 years) if it doesn't then what is the point?. The notion that renewables should require mega bucks to set up in the first place is a convenient one, the company's involved sure aren't complaining. If this country had the foresight to set up its own production facility's then it would save a hell of a lot of money and create employment at the same time.

About the website, do you think governments should give grants/tax breaks to those that want to generate their own power? Do you think there would be a will for people to change if these costs are still really high and cheap gas/oil is still available to many?

No, If people generate their own power then that is the benefit, if they generate surplus power they should be able to sell that back to the grid.
The website that I linked to illustrates that a huge amount of money is not required to set up an efficient domestic system with salvaged and recycled materials. The less government red tape the better.

Matt Holck

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3273589

jank

Danuogma wrote: »

*drumroll* Its the way you tell em.:rolleyes:



The output should justify the outlay within a reasonable period of time (say 15-20 years) if it doesn't then what is the point?. The notion that renewables should require mega bucks to set up in the first place is a convenient one, the company's involved sure aren't complaining. If this country had the foresight to set up its own production facility's then it would save a hell of a lot of money and create employment at the same time.



No, If people generate their own power then that is the benefit, if they generate surplus power they should be able to sell that back to the grid.
The website that I linked to illustrates that a huge amount of money is not required to set up an efficient domestic system with salvaged and recycled materials. The less government red tape the better.

I agree largely what you are saying so whats your rant?

Dudess

jank wrote: »

Green is the new economy. We either embrace it or get left behind.

Yeah, the jobs are in renewable/sustainable energy. I know engineers in this field who are being flooded with job offers.

Danuogma wrote: »

Sorry,... We can speak freely as long as it is approved "free speech". Sorry. I forgot.

Yeah exactly. This isn't a state website, this is a private enterprise, therefore not obliged to be a democracy.

BroomBurner

jmayo wrote: »

I used to believe the green party in this country are a bunch of clueless do gooders, but now I believe they are a bunch of clueless do gooders who sell out most of their principles although they yet hang on to their superior attitude that they know best.

They harldy "sold out". All across Europe, the Green parties that got to power were quickly out of power shortly after. They don't last, they know they don't last. The Green Party was set up by, and voted for, people who believe in having ideals. This isn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

They are trying to get as much through as possible before they are finished. Also, they are trying to secure their government pension (which they'll get for being in power for 2.5 years). These points mean that they have to compromise, just like everyone else in the world has to do on a day-to-day basis.

As for saying that the Green Agenda will cripple the Irish economy, that is just plain ridiculous.
If we can make our own energy and have enough to export, surely that is a good thing?
If we can reduce our dependence on over-seas energy that is open to international disputes, hence keep our economy in operation, surely that is a good thing?
If we have to pay more for our CHOICE to buy a car that is neither necessary (Chelsea Tractors, as opposed to farm jeeps), nor good for the environment we hope to leave our children, surely that is a good thing?

They are just a couple I can think of straight off.

djpbarry

Danuogma wrote: »

So where would the carbon tax money go?. Answer that truthfully.

Into the state coffers? Where’s the big mystery?

For the record, I have never stated that I would blindly support a carbon tax, or any other tax for that matter.

Danuogma wrote: »

Maybe in Dublin things have improved (slightly), public transport in the rest of the country is either woefully substandard or non-existent. Try getting a train from Limerick to Dublin or vice versa, an extortionate fare and nearly always late, there is hardly any incentive to use it.

I get trains from Dublin to Maynooth, Naas, Cork, Limerick, Carlow and Wexford on a fairly regular basis. Sometimes the trains are a bit late, sure, but I’ve only experienced a cancellation once (to date – fingers crossed it’ll be the last). The only fare which I would describe as expensive is Dublin-Naas. Just checking some other return fares online now:

Dublin-Cork: €40
Dublin-Carlow: €18
Dublin-Limerick: €44

I really don’t think those fares can be described as “extortionate”. I spend a good deal of time in the UK and if it’s extortionate rail fares you’re looking for, then look no further than Old Blighty.

Danuogma wrote: »

The road network needed to be improved, it was at almost third world levels fifteen years ago (a lot of roads still are), public transport could have been improved also…

With what? Monopoly money? I’d be the first to admit that successive Fianna Fáil governments have squandered taxpayers’ funds, but realistically, how much more could have been achieved?

Danuogma wrote: »

People have to live somewhere I suppose, should they have pitched tents in the Phoenix Park instead?

Indeed people do need to live somewhere, but when did the need for a place to live automatically translate into “I need to buy a shoebox for €500,000”? I find it hard to believe that I (along with other people I know) am the only person in this country who thought renting and saving was a viable alternative to getting burdened with a mortgage I couldn’t afford.

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

A huge amount if it is planned and built by our incompetent shower, thus I would propose lets say Hong kong project management and French builders.

The Luas was built by Ansaldo (Italy) and MVM (Australia). The Port Tunnel was built by a Japanese-British-Irish consortium. Both projects were completed behind schedule while the cost of the Luas vastly exceeded initial projections. In short, employing non-Irish (or Irish, for that matter) contractors guarantees nothing.

But that’s all beside the point. I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that nuclear is a cost-effective option for Ireland to pursue, relative to the alternatives.

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah a bit like the CO2 emmissions you will get putting in place all those thousands of wind farms and all thsoe wave generators.

Are the CO2 emissions associated with nuclear generation lower? I don’t think so.

jmayo

BroomBurner wrote: »

They harldy "sold out". All across Europe, the Green parties that got to power were quickly out of power shortly after. They don't last, they know they don't last. The Green Party was set up by, and voted for, people who believe in having ideals. This isn't wrong by any stretch of the imagination.

They are trying to get as much through as possible before they are finished. Also, they are trying to secure their government pension (which they'll get for being in power for 2.5 years). These points mean that they have to compromise, just like everyone else in the world has to do on a day-to-day basis.

As for saying that the Green Agenda will cripple the Irish economy, that is just plain ridiculous.
If we can make our own energy and have enough to export, surely that is a good thing?
If we can reduce our dependence on over-seas energy that is open to international disputes, hence keep our economy in operation, surely that is a good thing?
If we have to pay more for our CHOICE to buy a car that is neither necessary (Chelsea Tractors, as opposed to farm jeeps), nor good for the environment we hope to leave our children, surely that is a good thing?

They are just a couple I can think of straight off.

Yes they sold out, lets see some of the things they said they would do and actually garnished votes for.
1. Do something about Tara, of course they can blame Roche for that one...
2. Shannon stopover
3. Ringsend Incinerator
4. Education
5. Going to bed with Bertie, oh forgot Sargant took the drastic step of resigning, but yet took ministerial position :rolleyes:

I do not agree with some of their stances on these issues, but at least they used to have principles and stick to them.
I could see them compromising on some principles, but backing bertie's cosy little ff/developer cartel was one big sell out.
Then they compound it by continuing to back biffo and his policies or lack of.
What have they got in return, a tax incentive to use bicycles and a carbon tax.

If you think we can make enough energy to be sustainable, nevermind export, from wave technology and wind, then you better be prepared to cover the country and our shorelines in both wind farms and wave farms.

djpbarry wrote: »

The Luas was built by Ansaldo (Italy) and MVM (Australia). The Port Tunnel was built by a Japanese-British-Irish consortium. Both projects were completed behind schedule while the cost of the Luas vastly exceeded initial projections. In short, employing non-Irish (or Irish, for that matter) contractors guarantees nothing.

But that’s all beside the point. I’ve yet to see it demonstrated that nuclear is a cost-effective option for Ireland to pursue, relative to the alternatives.
Are the CO2 emissions associated with nuclear generation lower? I don’t think so.

I am not just talking about the contractors, I mentioned foreign project managers as well.
I know the planning process would also need to be overhauled when projects of national importance are being developed.
The only concern would be that the system could not be hijacked by our poltical representatives and council employees in order to feather their nests with handouts from developers.

Our history of delivering major infrastructure projects over the last 20 years has been pathetic.

At least with nuclear we might not be at the mercy of some lunatic in the middle east, be it a home grown one or an invading texan, or at the mercy of the latest czar who thinks he is Stalin's successor.

Are we going to be burning the uranium ?

djpbarry

jmayo wrote: »

Yes they sold out, lets see some of the things they said they would do and actually garnished votes for.
1. Do something about Tara, of course they can blame Roche for that one...
2. Shannon stopover
3. Ringsend Incinerator
4. Education
5. Going to bed with Bertie, oh forgot Sargant took the drastic step of resigning, but yet took ministerial position

That’s a pretty vague list. I could go into each of these in detail, but I don’t really have the time. Besides, it would send the thread off in a variety of different directions, so let’s stick with energy policy, shall we?

jmayo wrote: »

Our history of delivering major infrastructure projects over the last 20 years has been pathetic.

It ain’t been good, no. But assuming that non-Irish contractors and project managers will solve all problems is a touch naïve, to say the least. There have been plenty of infrastructural projects the world over with no Irish involvement that have been plagued by problems.

jmayo wrote: »

Are we going to be burning the uranium ?

I don’t believe so, no. But perhaps you could step off the nuclear bandwagon for just a moment and consider the large amounts of energy required to, for example, mine and refine uranium:

Oxford Research Group wrote:

The extraction of uranium from its ores as found in the ground consumes lots of energy, chemicals, materials and equipment. The energy requirements of uranium recovery depend on the ore grade: the lower the grade, the more rock has to be processed, the more energy is consumed, hence the more CO2 is emitted.

If we assume a gas-fired power station emits 100% CO2, then nuclear power using today’s average ore grade of 0.15% would emit approximately 30% CO2. As the ore grade declines, the CO2 emissions increase. At an ore grade of between 0.01 and 0.02% U3O8, CO2 emissions from nuclear power equal that of a gas-fired power plant.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf