Greens: "10,000 green jobs created since March"?

Sleipnir

Has anyone seen this? I've seen it up on quite a few lamposts and I'm wondering if it's true?
I mean, ten thousand green jobs in 3 months? Where?

solice

Is it specifically Green jobs?
Are the jobs in place or is it just that they have been announced?

Sleipnir

I would have thought it was a promise for future jobs but it says "since March"
"10,000 green jobs since March"
Maybe it's since March 1990?

Darsad

This is what really pi**es me off about the greens they will try to take credit for anything with an environmental slant despite the fact that every party has environemental policies. There is no doubt many companies with no afffiliation to Gormless and his clowns are working to create alternative jobs or industries but this in no way entitles the Greens to take credit for them. These people are dangerous tree hugging fools who would have us all back living in caves if they had their way. We cannot afford to give these clowns a comfort vote.

manc

have seen the posters too, from a google

"The Green Party has unveiled figures showing that over 50 per cent of new Irish jobs created this year are green. Research shows over 10,000 of the jobs created in Ireland over the past three months have been in \the green economy,"



Also Fine Gael have ones with "a plan for 180,000 jobs" or similar


from their website....

“On June the 5th the public should vote for Fine Gael because we have the plans and the ideas to get our economy back on track. We have published detailed plans to get 100,000 people back to work through an €11bn stimulus package for major investment in new infrastructure and just last week we set out how 80,000 jobs in the SME sector can be saved. The choice couldn’t be clearer. Unfair, job killing tax hikes from Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael’s plans to protect and create jobs.”

ednwireland

if you on their website and click on that poster you get a blank page - think that explains it

solice

manc wrote: »

have seen the posters too, nothing to back it up thought.

Also Fine Gael have ones with "a plan for 180,000 jobs" or similar

FG are saying that they have an independently assesed plan which will create 98k jobs.

bijapos

Darsad wrote: »

This is what really pi**es me off about the greens they will try to take credit for anything with an environmental slant despite the fact that every party has environemental policies. ]


In fairness other parties have "environmental policies" because the environment has become such an issue today, mostly through the success of the green party policies.

The 10,000 jobs (if it is that many) are in areas such as wind power, and the grants for home energy efficiency improvemants amongst others, its on their website.

In all fairness some of the work they have done in their own departments makes sense, like new planning legislation and investment in renewable energy and the spin offs from this. I dont agree with them being in with FF but they are actually doing something positive in this area in my opinion.

People voting today will make up their own minds on it. And yes I voted today and after some thought gave them a nr 1 in the locals.

fly_agaric

bijapos wrote: »

In fairness other parties have "environmental policies" because the environment has become such an issue today, mostly through the success of the green party policies.

didn't know it was a Irish green party policy to wreck the planet:pac:

The Irish Greens care more about the big stuff like election posters disfiguring the glory of Sorrento on the Irish Sea and the evils of water fluoridation.

And many of them go on about how the EU is the great Moloch of our times despite the fact that it has been a major force for good when it comes to trying to get the Irish not to p!ss in their own bed when it comes to the nice countryside and coastline we are fortunate to possess.

edit: as for the "10k Jobs" thing - saw it on a leaflet of theirs and even if true they show massive effrontery and arrogance to be boasting about job creation given the growth in unemployment during their period in govt.

Raiser

Darsad wrote: »

This is what really pi$$es me off about the greens they will try to take credit for anything with an environmental slant despite the fact that every party has environemental policies. There is no doubt many companies with no afffiliation to Gormless and his clowns are working to create alternative jobs or industries but this in no way entitles the Greens to take credit for them. These people are dangerous tree hugging fools who would have us all back living in caves if they had their way. We cannot afford to give these clowns a comfort vote.

You've saved me the trouble of having to type the above sentiment.........Thanks

Dubh Geannain

Maybe by that statement they mean than 10,000 jobs in the Green Party have been created this year e.g. New Members join and they're given "jobs" like canvassing and what not

Macha

Darsad wrote: »

This is what really pi**es me off about the greens they will try to take credit for anything with an environmental slant despite the fact that every party has environemental policies. There is no doubt many companies with no afffiliation to Gormless and his clowns are working to create alternative jobs or industries but this in no way entitles the Greens to take credit for them. These people are dangerous tree hugging fools who would have us all back living in caves if they had their way. We cannot afford to give these clowns a comfort vote.

So you're perfectly happy with 90% of Ireland's energy coming from abroad? You think it's a good idea for billions to leave our economy every year on energy, something that we can produce here?

The minute you wrote "tree hugging fools" you lost me.

Oafley Jones

taconnol wrote: »

So you're perfectly happy with 90% of Ireland's energy coming from abroad? You think it's a good idea for billions to leave our economy every year on energy, something that we can produce here?

The minute you wrote "tree hugging fools" you lost me.

Care to back up those figures of 90% and "billions"?

Macha

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Care to back up those figures of 90% and "billions"?

Most certainly:

Imported oil and gas accounted for 82% of energy supply and Ireland's overall import dependency was 89% in 2007.

(pg 3)

http://www.sei.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland/Energy_in_Ireland_1990-2007.pdf

And the cost of imported fuel:

Eamon Ryan, the energy minister, has discussed plans with the cabinet to reduce Ireland’s €6 billion fuel import bill by 20% in 12 years. Between now and Christmas, Ryan will allow backyard electricity producers to sell surplus power to the national grid at a higher price than that paid to the ESB.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5163065.ece

Darsad

[quote=bijapos;60551550

People voting today will make up their own minds on it. And yes I voted today and after some thought gave them a nr 1 in the locals. quote]


Hopefully the rest of us wont have to reap the consequences of what you are trying to sow ! :rolleyes:

Just had a look and there are 10 candidates in my constituence for the MEP seats and Deburca will be my first one on the paper at number 10 followed by the annoying P McKenna at 9 its pretty much a toss up after that.

bijapos

Darsad: Like I said I gave a nr 1 in the Locals. Take South Dublin Coco, FF, FG and Labour voted in favour of the incinerator in our backyard (Rathcoole). Greens opposed it, I cant remember how SF voted tbh. Doubt if even 1% of the population in this area would be in favour of the bloody thing and the politicians know this, so why did they still vote in favour of it?? Thankfully it has been overturned (provisionally at least) by An Bord Pleannala. This is one of the reasons why I voted Green.

I voted green because they dont take corporate donations and therefore IMO will have a better chance of representing ME on the council rather than than the crowd who donateto/bribe the others.

Are they perfect? No, far from it but some of their stuff makes sense, and at what I have done today is try to look at the election for what it is, a local and not a national election.

Darsad

Personally I dont know what all the hooha is about an incinerator i would have no problem with one its just grand standing by the greens , There is plenty around europe and in holland one of the most environementally cocious countries in the world. I think disposing of our rubbish in a modern facility and deriving the benefit of it would be far better than shipping it to China in bulk containers to be mixed in with and burnt in open coal fires. The greens of europe would be far better off heading off to China and India where there is real environemental polluting and leave us to try and recover so economic stability

bijapos

There is no hooha about it, fact is nobody in the area wants it, plenty of petitions etc to that effect too, but they still voted it in. I just used it as an example, plenty of other examples too.

As you use Holland as an example, go look at how their communities are run there, then look here, in fairness years of continuous FF-FG led councils have done sweet FA for us here, at least on issues like urban planning and sustainability. On this basis I think the Greens are better than what went before them.

Like I said, I voted for them locally, if there was a general election next month I dont know how I would vote. Btw didnt vote Green in 2007.

Darsad

if building an incinerator in Gormleys back yard means he will loose his seat next time out then im all for one !

Macha

Are you going to bother responding to any posts that don't suit your argument?

Darsad

taconnol wrote: »

So you're perfectly happy with 90% of Ireland's energy coming from abroad? You think it's a good idea for billions to leave our economy every year on energy, something that we can produce here? .

Sorry where did i say that ! absolutly we need to look at ourselves and our energy resources and imports but I object to the greens slapping themselves on the back for any and all green projects it is not their sole preserve.Its almost like they think they own the franchise for all things green.

Now got to go give ms Deburca my No 10 !

Macha

Darsad wrote: »

Sorry where did i say that ! absolutly we need to look at ourselves and our energy resources and imports but I object to the greens slapping themselves on the back for any and all green projects it is not their sole preserve.Its almost like they think they own the franchise for all things green.

Now got to go give ms Deburca my No 10 !

If the Greens weren't in power, it wouldn't even be on the agenda. We had our first carbon budget once the greens were in, DCC has it's first cycling officer..There have been a lot of firsts since the Greens came in.

FF have done the complete opposite of what would be considered 'green' policies to the point where Ireland has the highest per capita carbon emission in Europe. I really don't see other parties with strong environmental policies, do you?

the_syco

Well, the Greens seem to count gas as a "green" source or energy...

taconnol wrote: »

Ireland has the highest per capita carbon emission in Europe

If you look into it you'll see it's cos of the amount of cows we have, compared to the amount of land. Lots of cows, small country equals highest per capita carbon emission in Europe...

Macha

the_syco wrote: »

Well, the Greens seem to count gas as a "green" source or energy...

One person slip and an entire party is slammed. Nice.

the_syco wrote: »

If you look into it you'll see it's cos of the amount of cows we have, compared to the amount of land. Lots of cows, small country equals highest per capita carbon emission in Europe...

Seriously? Have you looked at a break-down of Irish carbon emissions? Your statement is totally misleading.

is_that_so

taconnol wrote: »

One person slip and an entire party is slammed. Nice.


Seriously? Have you looked at a break-down of Irish carbon emissions? Your statement is totally misleading.

I do love the redirection of the Green supporters towards "look at all we have done" and deliberately ignoring the reason why people are annoyed with them The initial claim is utter nonsense along with a lot of the rest of the rubbish Gormley et all produce and it is insulting to us to claim that they have. Perhaps they might address their own emissions first.

As to the case that FF might not done anything it has a degree of merit but circumstances would have forced us down that route anyway. And as regards an even more important question if would you vote for the Greens again because they're good for the environment, well I can't say they have much of a case.

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

I do love the redirection of the Green supporters towards "look at all we have done" and deliberately ignoring the reason why people are annoyed with them The initial claim is utter nonsense along with a lot of the rest of the rubbish Gormley et all produce and it is insulting to us to claim that they have. Perhaps they might address their own emissions first.

The initial claim is not utter nonsense. No one here has proven it to be nonsense. No one here has even gone as far as looking at the definition of a green vote!

is_that_so wrote: »

As to the case that FF might not done anything it has a degree of merit but circumstances would have forced us down that route anyway.

What exactly does that mean? That we were fated to have the highest emissions in Europe and we had no choice but to build ourselves into one of the highest-carbon economies in the world? Come off it.

is_that_so wrote: »

And as regards an even more important question if would you vote for the Greens again because they're good for the environment, well I can't say they have much of a case.

Where's your case to the contrary? They are a minority party in a coalition and so they are limited in what they can achieve. Even so, they have pushed through considerably more measures than previous governments.

is_that_so

taconnol wrote: »

The initial claim is not utter nonsense. No one here has proven it to be nonsense.

Well at a glance 3,600 of those jobs have nothing to do with the Greens and had been in planning by the ESB long before the Greens showed up, yet Mr Ryan claimed them.

taconnol wrote: »

What exactly does that mean? That we were fated to have the highest emissions in Europe and we had no choice but to build ourselves into one of the highest-carbon economies in the world? Come off it.

I think you're projecting here and this is not what I said at all. This is pretty self-evident and this confirms it.

taconnol wrote: »

Where's your case to the contrary? They are a minority party in a coalition and so they are limited in what they can achieve. Even so, they have pushed through considerably more measures than previous governments.

There are a number of these that were proposed before they got in but no-one got round to eg Mayor for Dublin. The word limited here I think also applies to the ministries they could be trusted with. All of the other parties, even Labour could fill ministries. The Greens are a niche party. They are also a soft option for left leaning voters who do not want to go to Labour or who find SF and others unpalatable. They are have also been seen as a vote against FF.

Eh it really really really doesnt matter what the greens have done except that they, while in Government, will be throwing BILLIONS down the hole that is Anglo Irish Bank.

Im all for green research and projects to get us off importing energy but think of how much faster we would be able to do it had they let the banks go under.

Very disillusioned with the greens they are pissing into the wind.

wilson10

Sleipnir wrote: »

Has anyone seen this? I've seen it up on quite a few lamposts and I'm wondering if it's true?
I mean, ten thousand green jobs in 3 months? Where?

Electioneering lies as far as I can see.

My son has spent the last 3 months looking for an interview for one of these mythical jobs and failed, despite having an engineering trade, a first class honours degree in mechanical engineering and three years experience in electro mechanical R&D and excellent references, not even an interview.

The jobs just aren't there.

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

Well at a glance 3,600 of those jobs have nothing to do with the Greens and had been in planning by the ESB long before the Greens showed up, yet Mr Ryan claimed them.

Nonsense. ESB only announced it's 'green' agenda in 2008, almost a year after the Greens had been in power. Before that, they actively pushed against the unbundling of the grid, a vital step in allowing renewables better access to the grid. Actually here's the news story, dated 27th March 2008:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojeyidsnsn/

is_that_so wrote: »

I think you're projecting here and this is not what I said at all. This is pretty self-evident and this confirms it.

I'm sorry but this section is not comprehensible. What is self-evident and what confirms what? In response to my statements about Ireland's high CO2 emissions, you stated that:

As to the case that FF might not done anything it has a degree of merit but circumstances would have forced us down that route anyway.

I don't see how I was projecting anything but if you'd like to make your statement more comprehensible, go ahead.

is_that_so wrote: »

There are a number of these that were proposed before they got in but no-one got round to eg Mayor for Dublin.

What do you think "no-one getting around to it" means? It's proof that an item is not a political priority. The Greens made items like local government reform and renewable jobs a priority. Er..that's what political parties do - put it on the agenda.

is_that_so wrote: »

he word limited here I think also applies to the ministries they could be trusted with. All of the other parties, even Labour could fill ministries. The Greens are a niche party.

I've answered this issue here before. Anyone who thinks the Greens are a single-issue party are just being lazy. The greens have policies on all issues.

is_that_so wrote: »

They are also a soft option for left leaning voters who do not want to go to Labour or who find SF and others unpalatable. They are have also been seen as a vote against FF.

If that results in people voting for them, so be it but I don't see how you can label them the "soft option", or what that really means, to be honest.

wilson10 - I'm sorry but your own personal anecdote is not exactly scientific evidence.

blindjustice - I think you need to accept that there are limits to what a minority party can achieve when in power.

is_that_so

taconnol wrote: »

Nonsense. ESB only announced it's 'green' agenda in 2008, almost a year after the Greens had been in power. Before that, they actively pushed against the unbundling of the grid, a vital step in allowing renewables better access to the grid. Actually here's the news story, dated 27th March 2008:

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojeyidsnsn/

Again the salient point is that the ESB is providing the jobs and the Greens are playing politics with it. If you find that acceptable then who am I to argue?

taconnol wrote: »

I'm sorry but this section is not comprehensible. What is self-evident and what confirms what? In response to my statements about Ireland's high CO2 emissions, you stated that:
I don't see how I was projecting anything but if you'd like to make your statement more comprehensible, go ahead.

Higher emissions bad for the environment. High emissions = Fines under Kyoto, ie more costs. Higher imported energy costs = need for other solutions. Not that hard really.

What do you think "no-one getting around to it" means? It's proof that an item is not a political priority. The Greens made items like local government reform and renewable jobs a priority. Er..that's what political parties do - put it on the agenda.

The point here is that the Greens have continually attempted to give the impression they've come up with all of these policies, under the category of all the things they've achieved. One thing I will give them credit them for is fantastic spin.

I've answered this issue here before. Anyone who thinks the Greens are a single issue party are just being lazy. The greens have policies on all issues.

Indeed so why have most of your posts here focussed almost exclusively on the single issue most closely associated with them?

If that results in people voting for them, so be it but I don't see how you can label them the "soft option", or what that really means, to be honest.

Again you're misreading my posts.
My point is that none of the Green ministers would function effectively outside their current ministries. This has nothing to do with policies, which I didn't mention at all.

This leads me to the niche parties. SF have policies to beat the band, the Socialist Party have their own lists but, politically, they like the Greens, are still niche parties in that certain types of voters will support them.

As for the soft option, this just means that certain types of voters, especially in Dublin suburbs, where the Greens have most of their TDS, who have a slight fondness for the environmental side of the party. It also allows them to make a protest vote and not vote for FF/FG without having to pick parties further to the left. It is the soft left feel to the Greens that I am referring to. These are the type of voters who will give the Greens a lower preference which are essential to them getting elected.

The Green core vote will never be big enough and their perceived behaviour to date is likely to reduce those transfers and therefore produce a reduced number of seats.

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

Again the salient point is that the ESB is providing the jobs and the Greens are playing politics with it. If you find that acceptable then who am I to argue?

Hang on. First you try to argue that the jobs were planned before the Greens got into power. And now that I've proven that to be false, you're now trying to argue the line that the ESB are under no influence from the government. Are you aware that the ESB was the first state body to be set up after independence and today is a semi-state compay. And you're going to argue that ESB, as a semi-state body, receives no direction from the government? Or are you going to go onto a new line?

is_that_so wrote: »

Higher emissions bad for the environment. High emissions = Fines under Kyoto, ie more costs. Higher imported energy costs = need for other solutions. Not that hard really.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your original post.

is_that_so wrote: »

The point here is that the Greens have continually attempted to give the impression they've come up with all of these policies, under the category of all the things they've achieved. One thing I will give them credit them for is fantastic spin.

You have yet to provide any proof that they haven't been the impetus behind these policies. Indeed, you've yet to provide any evidence to back up your argument. You just keep saying that the Greens didn't come up with them - you'll have to do better than that.

is_that_so wrote: »

Indeed so why have most of your posts here focussed almost exclusively on the single issue most closely associated with them?

Sorry but this is just ridiculous. The Greens have policies in all the areas of the other major political parties. They also happen to be the only party that has a decent environmental policy, that is one of the core foundations to their ethos. Just because we're discussing that in particular doesn't mean that their policies in the other areas don't exist.

is_that_so wrote: »

Again you're misreading my posts.
My point is that none of the Green ministers would function effectively outside their current ministries. This has nothing to do with policies, which I didn't mention at all.

Sorry, I'm finding them difficult to understand at times - no offense, just miscommunication.

is_that_so wrote: »

This leads me to the niche parties. SF have policies to beat the band, the Socialist Party have their own lists but, politically, they like the Greens, are still niche parties in that certain types of voters will support them.

You still haven't proven that they're a niche party. You just keep repeating it but that doesn't make it true.

is_that_so wrote: »

As for the soft option, this just means that certain types of voters, especially in Dublin suburbs, where the Greens have most of their TDS, who have a slight fondness for the environmental side of the party. It also allows them to make a protest vote and not vote for FF/FG without having to pick parties further to the left. It is the soft left feel to the Greens that I am referring to. These are the type of voters who will give the Greens a lower preference which are essential to them getting elected.

Fair enough, I'm sure there are some people who feel like that and some that don't.

is_that_so wrote: »

The Green core vote will never be big enough and their perceived behaviour to date is likely to reduce those transfers and therefore produce a reduced number of seats.

Im glad you added the word 'perceived' into your sentence because I really feel that politics is too often separated from the reality on the ground.

As for the future of the Greens, can I have a loan of your crystal ball for the lotto tomorrow night?

is_that_so

There is nothing in any of this about proof. It is about belief. You quite obviously feel that the Greens are justified in their claim and I don't.

While your posts suggest that you want to defend the Greens at all costs you either do not know or care who votes for them, why they vote for them, why those continued transfers are essential and most important of all how those voters perceive what the Greens stand for.

As regards my own posts you appear to consistently misread or misunderstand them, even when I full clarify them, yet this doesn't stop you offering conclusions on things I didn't say. When I challenge you you claim they are not comprehensible. I can only assume that you don't understand what I am saying or that you choose not to. Your demand for proof above is particularly absurd and shows a serious lack of understanding of Irish politics and where the Greens fit into it.

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

There is nothing in any of this about proof. It is about belief. You quite obviously feel that the Greens are justified in their claim and I don't.

Sorry but that is nonsense. To argue that the claims that any party makes are all relative, about "belief" and do not depend on any proof is just silly. I've clearly refuted your arguments in relation to ESB and now that it's clear you were wrong, you've decided that proof isn't needed...!!

is_that_so wrote: »

While your posts suggest that you want to defend the Greens at all costs you either do not know or care who votes for them, why they vote for them, why those continued transfers are essential and most important of all how those voters perceive what the Greens stand for.

This discussion isn't about who votes for the Greens or why. It's about the justification for the claims that the Greens make. You've started off down the path of analysing who votes for the Greens and I don't really know why. You're right that I don't have a deep understanding of who votes for the Greens but that isn't exactly central to this discussion. What I do have is a very clear understanding of the issues facing Ireland today and what the different parties have promised and delivered.

Your attempt to paint me as some sort of political ignoramus on an irrelevant side tangent is a bit pathetic.

is_that_so wrote: »

As regards my own posts you appear to consistently misread or misunderstand them, even when I full clarify them, yet this doesn't stop you offering conclusions on things I didn't say. When I challenge you you claim they are not comprehensible. I can only assume that you don't understand what I am saying or that you choose not to. Your demand for proof above is particularly absurd and shows a serious lack of understanding of Irish politics and where the Greens fit into it.

Unfair. Parts of your posts do not make sense and I have apologised when you have (still unclearly) said that I misunderstood them.

Yes, god, demanding proof to back up your claims is just so unreasonable. :rolleyes:

This ad hominem crap is always the last resort of a debater who knows she's beaten.

wilson10

I just want a breakdown of where these jobs are, simple as that.

Darsad

Taconnol

You are proof were it needed that the Greens are the closest thing to a political cult and you my friend give all the indications that you are a very easily influenced / brain washed individual.

How you can claim a carbon levy as a positive in the current economic mess we are in when we are already taxed to high heaven on carbon based products. The carbon levy will not operate seperatly and the funds generated from it will be put into central coffers so its just an extra tax that your party will try to hide behind.
This is the same party ill add who,s two cabinet ministers voted to remove the medical card for the over 70,s without knowing or asking what the income threshold was , and then were stupid enough to use this fact as a defence .

Darsad

wilson10 wrote: »

I just want a breakdown of where these jobs are, simple as that.

There are no such jobs as you pointed out earlier it is electioneering clap trap from a party full of inept fools !The problem is if they repeat it enough some people may actually believe them.

Macha

First, you need to decide on the definition of a green job. The generally accepted view is that there are direct jobs (eg O&M personnel for wind turbines) and then indirect jobs (eg employees of companies that produce components). Both are considered green jobs.

I can give you some as a start:

16/04 - 3,700 green jobs announcement by ESB
13/05 - €13m green waste fund announced, no specifics of job creation offered.
15/05 - 250 jobs announced by C&F, Athenry for manufacturing of wind turbines
18/05 - 100 jobs announced by Moffett, for wind energy
19/05 - 180 jobs announced by Biospark, Claremorris for bio-processing
03/06 - 150 jobs announced by Galetech Energy for wind farms

SAP announced 100 new jobs and Siemens announced 60 jobs. Both companies are heavily involved in smart grid technology.

That's 4540 there and that's just the ones I can remember plus, these are just the direct jobs.

You can look at projected studies on green jobs released by the EWEA, Copenhagen Climate Council and DG for Energy to see that huge numbers of jobs are expected in future.

But to be honest, you would have to ask the Green Party for a breakdown. I think I might ask them myself. If/when I get a reply, I'll post it up here.


Darsad - see my above comment on ad hominem attacks. It would be more interesting if you stop your wailing and spitting and actually engage in some decent debate, instead of just throwing out jargon and buzz words. I don't believe I even mentioned a carbon levy anywhere in this thread.

I am not a member of the Green party.

edanto

Darsad, are you purppsefully ignoring the information in this thread?

e.g. The ESB jobs.

Darsad

taconnol wrote: »

I can give you some as a start:

16/04 - 3,700 green jobs announcement by ESB
13/05 - €13m green waste fund announced, no specifics of job creation offered.
15/05 - 250 jobs announced by C&F, Athenry for manufacturing of wind turbines
18/05 - 100 jobs announced by Moffett, for wind energy
19/05 - 180 jobs announced by Biospark, Claremorris for bio-processing
03/06 - 150 jobs announced by Galetech Energy for wind farms

.

Again I cant engage in decent debate because these jobs simply have nothing to do with the green party so stop claiming them as such !But what the greens have done is cost this country multiples of the above in job losses in the motor industry alone .

Macha

Darsad wrote: »

Again I cant engage in decent debate because these jobs simply have nothing to do with the green party so stop claiming them as such !But what the greens have done is cost this country multiples of the above in job losses in the motor industry alone .

If you accept that the Greens have the power to "cost this country" thousands of jobs, then you must also accept that they have the power to creat jobs. It looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

Also, you are aware of the whole property bubble issue and the ramifications of it's burst??! And you are aware that the property bubble has been building since the early 200s, long before Greens were in power and that it was largely a directly result of FF/PD policies in relation to developer tax breaks, planning laws and regulation of the banks??

is_that_so

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but that is nonsense. To argue that the claims that any party makes are all relative, about "belief" and do not depend on any proof is just silly. I've clearly refuted your arguments in relation to ESB and now that it's clear you were wrong, you've decided that proof isn't needed...!!

I think you are missing the point completely here. Consider these headlines.

1. ESB creates 3,700 jobs
2. Government creates 3,700 jobs
3. Government creates 3,700 green jobs

For me the only fact or truth here is number 1. One can quite easily "prove" that it is true by highlighting the increase in the number of employees that arise out of that "job creation".

You appear to accept 3 as true and quite probably 2. 2 & 3 are political claims which try to benefit those mentioned. One cannot prove or disprove 2 &3 without getting into the question of how much one believes in the truth of those statements, i.e "I don't believe them to be true because it is my belief they are politically motivated". If you can't see that then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your list of jobs created owes nothing to the Greens any more than jobs previous governments have claimed. It is part of a party's self-promotion and a typical political device used by politicians to get re-elected. It is in this context that I think it is "absolute nonsense".

taconnol wrote: »

This discussion isn't about who votes for the Greens or why. It's about the justification for the claims that the Greens make. You've started off down the path of analysing who votes for the Greens and I don't really know why. You're right that I don't have a deep understanding of who votes for the Greens but that isn't exactly central to this discussion. What I do have is a very clear understanding of the issues facing Ireland today and what the different parties have promised and delivered.

Your attempt to paint me as some sort of political ignoramus on an irrelevant side tangent is a bit pathetic.

It's called context and goes to the heart of the credibility of the Greens and provides some insight into where they are coming from and what their "policies" are about.

It also provides some foundation to the current polarising effect of the Greens and therefore the reason the OP started this thread. And in that respect I would suggest your lack of understanding is preventing you from seeing this.

Unfair. Parts of your posts do not make sense and I have apologised when you have (still unclearly) said that I misunderstood them.

Yet you still managed to comment on points you clearly didn't understand and did not ask for clarification. I might suggest that this is also unfair.

This ad hominem crap is always the last resort of a debater who knows she's beaten.

You may see it as such but seeing as you have admitted that a lot of it is true it's a bit of a stretch. Eventually one forms conclusions from what someone seems to be saying.

I have no issue with supporters of a party and or supporters defending that party. I do have issues with those who appear to blindly follow a party and demand that we see a situation other than what our own judgement tells us.

I also welcome the idea that jobs are being created in green industries but I take issue with any party claiming to be responsible for it. Politics and political expediency ultimately informs these claims.

briktop

it was 10000 temporary jobs ,
each person was given a scissors to trim blades of grass for John Gormless to walk into Newgrange to hog the solstice , safely without getting morning dew on his sandals.

bye bye greens

you useless b@stards

Macha

is_that_so wrote: »

You appear to accept 3 as true and quite probably 2. 2 & 3 are political claims which try to benefit those mentioned. One cannot prove or disprove 2 &3 without getting into the question of how much one believes in the truth of those statements, i.e "I don't believe them to be true because it is my belief they are politically motivated". If you can't see that then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your list of jobs created owes nothing to the Greens any more than jobs previous governments have claimed. It is part of a party's self-promotion and a typical political device used by politicians to get re-elected. It is in this context that I think it is "absolute nonsense".

And you accuse me of not understanding politics. Do you understand the underlying motivations behind a company's decision to locate and create jobs in a certain area? And do you understand the positive or negative role that a government can have through its policies?

Do you think it's just a coincidence that Denmark, Germany and Spain together account for approx. 70% of all wind jobs in Europe? No. It's because those governments actively pursued politices that both attracted FDI and encouraged indigenous companies to branch out into 'green' industries. (Similarly, do you think it was just a coincidence that all the dotcom and pharmaceutical companies decided to set up camp in Ireland? Really?)

There are a huge range of areas where the government can influence green job creation:

Enterprise Policy
- attract FDI from large existing multinationals (eg Siemens)
- identify niche areas, such as nanotechnology and battery technology where we already have expertise and can specialise further
- target emerging technologies in companies with limited international presence
- help build business networks that allow indigenous SMEs to internationalise
- develop market intelligence
- encourage links between university/research centres and business
- encourage innovation.

Then onto Policy/Regulation
- adopt green public procurement guidelines (recently annouced by Minister Ryan)
- ensure correct training and right skills available (Fas just announced green upskilling courses for construction workers)
- ensure access to sufficient credit
- ensure environmental legislation is fully implemented (a key driver)
- tax breaks and subsidies

I could go on. That's just off the top of my head.

is_that_so wrote: »

It's called context and goes to the heart of the credibility of the Greens and provides some insight into where they are coming from and what their "policies" are about.

It also provides some foundation to the current polarising effect of the Greens and therefore the reason the OP started this thread. And in that respect I would suggest your lack of understanding is preventing you from seeing this.

More ad hominem. It really is irrelevant. You say 'context' I say 'tangent'. You try and argue it's relevant because you want to be able to strut around on here and bleat about my "lack of understanding". I am well able to understand the reasoning behing the Greens policies, thanks.

is_that_so wrote: »

Yet you still managed to comment on points you clearly didn't understand and did not ask for clarification. I might suggest that this is also unfair.

At this stage, please stop whining. I've apologised and asked for clarification. Your feigned indignance is getting old.

is_that_so wrote: »

You may see it as such but seeing as you have admitted that a lot of it is true it's a bit of a stretch. Eventually one forms conclusions from what someone seems to be saying.

A lot of what is true? This is what I'm talking about sections that are difficult to understand.

is_that_so wrote: »

I have no issue with supporters of a party and or supporters defending that party. I do have issues with those who appear to blindly follow a party and demand that we see a situation other than what our own judgement tells us.

What's blind about my following of the Greens? Take a look back at this thread at the amount of data and proof I've put up. For all your posting, I've seen little of substance from you.

is_that_so wrote: »

I also welcome the idea that jobs are being created in green industries but I take issue with any party claiming to be responsible for it. Politics and political expediency ultimately informs these claims.

I think this is a result of your refusal to accept the role of government in job creation. See above section.