Time for an 'alternative' Green Party?

IrishTonyO

taconnol wrote: »

ei,sdraob, are you aware that the average lead-in time for a nuclear station is 10 years?

And are you familiar with the economics of nuclear power, with variable discount rates and O&M costs?

As you say, let's be pragmatic.

What do you reckon the lead time to have 100% renewables would be????? 10 decades maybe.

Ireland’s target under the proposed EU Renewable Energy Directive for 2020 is for renewable sources to
account for 16% of final energy consumption. The contribution from renewables was 3.3% in 2007

So our target is to have 16% in a decade, and remember that is the target. at the moment under 4% energy provided by renewables.

Source for this is SEI http://www.sei.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/SEI_Renewable_Energy_2008_Update/Renewable%20Energy%20Update%202008.pdf

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

ei,sdraob, are you aware that the average lead-in time for a nuclear station is 10 years?

And are you familiar with the economics of nuclear power, with variable discount rates and O&M costs?

As you say, let's be pragmatic.

yes im quite aware of that,

mainly thanks to various green / environmental / nimby groups

funny how the Chinese are managing to build these very quickly now in few short years, and are now also the leader in renewable power leapfrogging the west
edit: do note that the Swedish and other Nordic states which you admire have also embraced nuclear power and have plants generating energy....


anyways lets say Ireland builds a plant in 2020 and the plant runs until 2050, we still wont have most of our grid running from completely renewable sources for at least 20-30 years from today, even if we accomplish that then > all well and good so since we would end-up having a valuable resource which we can export for money

once again id rather a nuclear plant making the electricity for few decades while the green tech catches up and takes over than continue to rely on fossil plants who would continue to spit things into the air, as @IrishTonyO above has showed we have a very long way to go before renewable reaches anywhere near 100%, id rather not wait that long



anyways nuclear is just one of many issues/technologies the Greens failed to address or embrace, i dont want to go too much offtopic with it

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

What do you reckon the lead time to have 100% renewables would be????? 10 decades maybe.

Who said we have to have 100% renewables? And do you think that all of our carbon emissions only come from electricity generation?

IrishTonyO wrote: »

So our target is to have 16% in a decade, and remember that is the target. at the moment under 4% energy provided by renewables.

Actually that is the EU-mandated target and our national targets are higher.

Our official target just for renewable electricity as set out in the White Paper on Energy released in 2007 was 33% and this was later increased to 40% by John Gormely in the Carbon Budget of 2008.

IrishTonyO

taconnol wrote: »

Are Fianna Fail pro-nuclear? Lord knows, they seem to change their policies to suit the political landscape of the day. Why is it suddenly the Green's fault?

Now that is laughable, a Green Party member complaining about Fianna Fail changing policies! The Green Party no longer has any policies that can be fulfilled as according to themselves this can only be attained by a Green government, which they also admit is not going to happen. So why do they still insist they have these policies, even when they know they can't achieve them and in the current situation vote for exact opposite to these while in government?? Just like Paul Gogarty constantly complaining about Fianna fail, and saying the Green Party wasn't responsible for these things, and then going in and voting for the Fianna Fail policies.
Hypocrisy of the highest order

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes im quite aware of that,

mainly thanks to various green / environmental / nimby groups

Oh isn't it wonderful to live in a universe where everything is the environmentalists fault.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

funny how the Chinese are managing to build these very quickly now in few short years, and are now also the leader in renewable power leapfrogging the west

Yes, it's easy to build them quickly when you don't have do deal with pesky, delaying things imposed on you by democracy.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again id rather a nuclear plant making the electricity for few decades while the green tech catches up and takes over than continue to rely on fossil plants who would continue to spit things into the air

And once again you ignore the potential of renewables while at the same time ignoring the downsides and realities, including the huge economics of nuclear! Where is your pragmatism now?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyways nuclear is just one of many issues/technologies the Greens failed to address or embrace, i dont want to go too much offtopic with it

Don't think you'll get away with throw away comments like this. You have failed to make the case for nuclear, having not even been aware of the long lead-in times and neatly side-stepping any comment on the economics of nuclear, and have also failed to demonstrate that it's because of the Greens that we don't have nuclear in Ireland. And please do explain to us the other technologies (hoping that you know more about them than you do nuclear) that the Greens have "failed to address or embrace".

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Now that is laughable, a Green Party member complaining about Fianna Fail changing policies!

Do you really need me to explain to you the difference between being the majority partner in a coalition government and being a minority partner with just 6 TDs. Comments like this betray a lack of understanding of how coalition governments works.

Please go back and read Scofflaw's posts on this topic in this thread - he puts it better than I could.

IrishTonyO

taconnol wrote: »

Do you really need me to explain to you the difference between being the majority partner in a coalition government and being a minority partner with just 6 TDs. Comments like this betray a lack of understanding of how coalition governments works.

Please go back and read Scofflaw's posts on this topic in this thread - he puts it better than I could.

Then, when you know you can't achieve your policies, why waste our time and your time lecturing us and lying to us before elections repeating them. Why not tell us a nice Fairy Story instead as it seems as much chance of that coming true as you achieving your policies. Time for the Greens to come down from their high horse and live in the real world, and not treat people so dismissively, by saying ah but if we could we would do these things, but sure we can't, anyway, vote for us

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Oh isn't it wonderful to live in a universe where everything is the environmentalists fault.
.

they sure do love slowing these projects down, especially the more extreme variety of "greens" like Greenpeace

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, it's easy to build them quickly when you don't have do deal with pesky, delaying things imposed on you by democracy.
.

i deliberately mentioned China for their authoritarianism to contrast and compare
and i also mentioned the Nordic countries which are a beacon of socialist democracy...

taconnol wrote: »

And once again you ignore the potential of renewables while at the same time ignoring the downsides and realities, including the huge economics of nuclear! Where is your pragmatism now?
.

im not ignoring the potential, but being realistic we wont be able to generate anywhere close to 100% of the needs from renewables alone for many many decades, id rather we not burn fossil fuels until that point is reached

taconnol wrote: »

Don't think you'll get away with throw away comments like this. You have failed to make the case for nuclear and have also failed to demonstrate that it's because of the Greens that we don't have nuclear in Ireland. And please do explain to us the other technologies (hoping that you know more about them than you do nuclear) that the Greens have "failed to address or embrace".

im specifically talking about banning genetic research by the Greens, its extremely shortsighted, we need more options in the toolbox not less

once again technologies are not "evil" or "good" by their nature, its what humans do with them and how they "behave" (ha!) using these technologies

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Then, when you know you can't achieve your policies, why waste our time and your time lecturing us and lying to us before elections repeating them.

Ill make the point again for the third time. It is only proper and democratic that a minor party in a coalition should not be able to implement all of its ideas to the detriment of the ideas of the major party. Do you think that the six Green TDs should decide all the Government's policies?

I don't know where you get the lecturing and lying from - the rest of your post just descended into the usual anti-Green rant.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

they sure do love slowing these projects down, especially the more extreme variety of "greens" like Greenpeace

Well done for lumping every environmentalist in together. It's easy to score points attacking the lunatic fringe of any movement but it's also very lazy.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and i also mentioned the Nordic countries which are a beacon of socialist democracy...

Where did you mention the Nordic countries? Sorry I missed that.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im not ignoring the potential, but being realistic we wont be able to generate anywhere close to 100% of the needs from renewables alone for many many decades,

Based on what? Show us your calculations.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im specifically talking about banning genetic research by the Greens, its extremely shortsighted, we need more options in the toolbox not less

The Greens didn't ban GM research, they banned GM cultivation! If you understand the basic principles of agriculture, it will be clear that open GM cultivation is effectively a Pandora's box with GM seeds spreading very easily either through air-pollination or insects and animals. Once you start cultivating GM in the open, that's it - it is out of your hands.

I have absolutely no problem with GM research as long as it is properly contained. I would, however, make the point that GM has not lead to greater yields in edible crops and for me the rush into GM is yet another example of a desire for a technological silver bullet rather than stepping back and looking at our agricultural system in a holistic way.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again technologies are not "evil" or "good" by their nature, its what humans do with them and how they "behave" (ha!) using these technologies

No one is talking about evil or good. I'm talking about advantages and disadvantages. We must weigh up the pros and cons before of all our options instead of just putting blind faith in the latest technology - that book Superfreakonomics is a perfect example of pie-in-the-sky geo-engineering wishful thinking.

thebman

taconnol wrote: »

.
Hang on - I have yet to see a proper opinion poll of people who voted for the Greens in the past and what they think. A few threads on Boards by people who probably didn't vote for the Greens does not constitute a reliable opinion poll.

There is also pretty much every newspaper poll during this time too.

Green party is denying the problem and hoping it goes away it seems.

The people that have previously voted for greens are but a small part of the electorate. Your looking at the wrong yardstick of performance TBH.

Just trying to satisfy the few that previously voted would only at best maintain the greens current size in government. Have the greens no plans to move forward from where they are and get more of the elecotorate voting for them? Or are they just glad and amazed they managed to get as much of the vote that they did and hope to cling onto it for dear life?

taconnol wrote: »

According to the Dublin Transportation Authority, Wicklow, Kildare and Meath are the commuter counties for Dublin city centre.

This is the reality of the policies of low-density residential planning implemented during the 1990s and 2000s. It is largely due to the separation of transport and land-use planning.

And what have the greens done since taking power to reform low density planning? Where are the large apartment blocks that would allow people to move to where they work in the city centre and where is the plan to encourage businesses to move outside of the city to the commuter towns where their workers actually live?

I have lived in a number of continental cities in apartments and would have no problem bringing up a family in an apartment provided the appropriate facilities were available and the apartment was of a decent size. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the vast majority of apartments in Ireland. I am fortunate to live in an apartment that is 100m3. Most people are shocked when they visit my apartment by the size of it - and the fact it has a utility room..!

TBH this doesn't even address the real problem most apartment blocks in this country has which is crap management companies. I've yet to know anybody who bought a newly built apartment who didn't spend about 5 years trying to get a useless management company out that wouldn't carry out required repairs and weren't locked into ridiculous systems like single broadband supplier for block and no satellite options allowed as there is a sole cable provider that everyone has to sign up to and other ridiculous and probably illegal contractual terms. If they aren't illegal they should be.

The Child Policy officer in Dublin City Council is on record as having said that every child should have a back garden. I mean, does he think that every child on the continent is emotionally scarred from living in an apartment? It's madness!

A garden maybe not but a green area is a necessity. Something sorely lacking in planning requirements so far looking at large parts of Dublin and other towns planning.

Gormely said as recently as last November that he was happy for there to be a debate on nuclear. Are Fianna Fail pro-nuclear? Lord knows, they seem to change their policies to suit the political landscape of the day. Why is it suddenly the Green's fault?

I don't blame the greens for this, I think its entirely the perception of nuclear power in this country that is the problem. Even if the greens did publicly support nuclear power, they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting anywhere with it.

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Then, when you know you can't achieve your policies, why waste our time and your time lecturing us and lying to us before elections repeating them. Why not tell us a nice Fairy Story instead as it seems as much chance of that coming true as you achieving your policies. Time for the Greens to come down from their high horse and live in the real world, and not treat people so dismissively, by saying ah but if we could we would do these things, but sure we can't, anyway, vote for us

I've stated several times that this is not a thread for unconstructive whinging and trash-talking about the current Green Party. I've been lenient because I'm involved in the discussion, but if you continue to do it, you'll be sanctioned. If you have a suggestion other than "the Greens should all kill themselves because I hate them" let's hear it - if not, don't post.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Macha

thebman wrote: »

Just trying to satisfy the few that previously voted would only at best maintain the greens current size in government. Have the greens no plans to move forward from where they are and get more of the elecotorate voting for them? Or are they just glad and amazed they managed to get as much of the vote that they did and hope to cling onto it for dear life?

I certainly hope the party doesn't have the aim of following the Fianna Fail model of simply presenting itself as the Party of Power and flitting between policies as the political landscape changes.

thebman wrote: »

And what have the greens done since taking power to reform low density planning? Where are the large apartment blocks that would allow people to move to where they work in the city centre and where is the plan to encourage businesses to move outside of the city to the commuter towns where their workers actually live?

It is difficult because, as in the words of one Dublin Transportation Office worker when I worked there "we're trying to close the door after the horse has bolted".

John Gormely has stopped unsustainable planning decisions going forward in Waterford, Mayo and Monaghan. AND he made it so that councillors cannot ignore national planning policy or the advice of professional planners. Again, unfortunately, much of the damage has been done and we have to look at retrofitting what we have.

thebman wrote: »

TBH this doesn't even address the real problem most apartment blocks in this country has which is crap management companies.

Well management companies are one problem but I dont think the problems I outlined are not real issues.

And on the very topic, Gormely has issued new guidelines on the management of residential estates. And there is a proposed law, published last May, that would greatly improve the rights of apartment owners in complexes. The legislation was welcomed by the Apartment Owners lobby group

thebman wrote: »

A garden maybe not but a green area is a necessity. Something sorely lacking in planning requirements so far looking at large parts of Dublin and other towns planning.

Absolutely. And research carried out by a colleague of mine found significantly less green space and facilities on the south side of Dublin City Council's jurisdiction than north of the river so there is a definite class slant to the issue of public facilities - a real shame.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've stated several times that this is not a thread for unconstructive whinging and trash-talking about the current Green Party. I've been lenient because I'm involved in the discussion, but if you continue to do it, you'll be sanctioned. If you have a suggestion other than "the Greens should all kill themselves because I hate them" let's hear it - if not, don't post.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Like I said originally, my suggestion was that they live up to their principles and policies, rather than going in with FF and voting against their own policies. Yourself and others started defending the Green Party and I responded to your comments, however as you do not wish to hear them I will stop. Nice to see free speech allowed, as long as it agrees with the mod. Plus I don't see why you put something in inverted commas as if I said it, I did not. It is a not a quote

Red_Marauder

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've stated several times that this is not a thread for unconstructive whinging and trash-talking about the current Green Party. I've been lenient because I'm involved in the discussion, but if you continue to do it, you'll be sanctioned. If you have a suggestion other than "the Greens should all kill themselves because I hate them" let's hear it - if not, don't post.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well in order to talk about an alternative green party, surely one needs to address the current one.

It hasn't really bees established how the alternative one would differ, given that it would equally only ever be a junior coalition partner at best, incapable of fully implementing its green policies.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Ill make the point again for the third time. It is only proper and democratic that a minor party in a coalition should not be able to implement all of its ideas to the detriment of the ideas of the major party. Do you think that the six Green TDs should decide all the Government's policies?
.

so now that they are in power, the Greens excuse for not doing anything useful is that they dont have enough power?

hence why Green agenda should be a main policy of all parties, removing the need for the Greens altogether

taconnol wrote: »

I don't know where you get the lecturing and lying from - the rest of your post just descended into the usual anti-Green rant.

yes sorry for having an opinion, yet again my problem is not the Green aims but implementation, stop trying to pretend as if im anti-Green just because i dont agree with your approach,

im getting rather tired of you calling me all sorts of names in this thread

taconnol wrote: »

Well done for lumping every environmentalist in together. It's easy to score points attacking the lunatic fringe of any movement but it's also very lazy.

that lunatic fringe is giving the Green movement a bad name, distance yourselves from them

taconnol wrote: »

Where did you mention the Nordic countries? Sorry I missed that.

both Sweden and Finland have nuclear reactors

taconnol wrote: »

Based on what? Show us your calculations.

our target is 20% renewable power by 2020

i posted links to eirgrid data/graphs earlier in thread, it doesnt look pretty, even if we achieve 20% target by 2020 that still means 80% comes from dirty fuels

thats 10 years from now, id rather that 80% in 10 years come from a nuclear source that doesnt pollute the atmosphere

im also getting tired of repeating myself about my stance on nuclear, i see it as a bridging measure not an end in itself, which you keep ignoring

taconnol wrote: »

The Greens didn't ban GM research, they banned GM cultivation! If you understand the basic principles of agriculture, it will be clear that open GM cultivation is effectively a Pandora's box with GM seeds spreading very easily either through air-pollination or insects and animals. Once you start cultivating GM in the open, that's it - it is out of your hands.

I have absolutely no problem with GM research as long as it is properly contained. I would, however, make the point that GM has not lead to greater yields in edible crops and for me the rush into GM is yet another example of a desire for a technological silver bullet rather than stepping back and looking at our agricultural system in a holistic way.

replace the word GM with any technology which has a potential to do bad, good thing the Greens weren't around when the wheel was invented (vehicles kill people) or industrial revolution occurred (steel and chemicals kill people)

taconnol wrote: »

No one is talking about evil or good. I'm talking about advantages and disadvantages. We must weigh up the pros and cons before of all our options instead of just putting blind faith in the latest technology

nuclear power is not new technology, and it has a clear advantage of allowing us to shed most of the Irelands carbon emissions while a renewable energy grid is created

taconnol wrote: »

Superfreakonomics is a perfect example of pie-in-the-sky geo-engineering wishful thinking.

you should read that book its quite interesting

and that "pie in the sky" has occurred in 1991 and is called Krakatoa volcano which was widely measured and analysed and did reduce worldwide temperature by 1-2 degrees C for few years

the same can be replicated (minus the volcanic destruction) by hanging a garden hose of helium balloons and pumping small amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, reducing temperatures worldwide and buying us time to implement Green policies, whole project would cost less than 100million a year to run, small change by Irish standards of money wasting

you continue to wave off engineering and science with your hand, which is very ironic since if it wasnt for science and engineering/technology you would not be sitting there now typing your posts

that anti-science part of the Green movement really really irks me off and just highlights that some people care more about ideals than implementing them, Scofflaw referred earlier to this lot as Luddites
any future Green movement which focuses on "behavioral modification" while ignoring science and technology is doomed to failure, many other political movements have tried "behavioral modification" I heard "behavioral modification" is working our great for North Koreans

Scofflaw

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Well in order to talk about an alternative green party, surely one needs to address the current one.

It hasn't really bees established how the alternative one would differ, given that it would equally only ever be a junior coalition partner at best, incapable of fully implementing its green policies.

I've already stated I don't have a problem with constructive criticism - and indeed I have my own criticisms of the Green Party, both in government and opposition (more the latter, oddly) - but if I wanted to listen to endless badmouthing with nothing constructive, I'd go to politics.ie.

I am specifically addressing IrishTonyO's posts.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebman

taconnol wrote: »

I certainly hope the party doesn't have the aim of following the Fianna Fail model of simply presenting itself as the Party of Power and flitting between policies as the political landscape changes.

Nobody really wants or needs another FF/FG option on the ballot but there is room for moving on some green issues I think or else the greens are just doing a very poor job of actually getting their message out there.

The green party has obviously lost the votes of those who listened to Trevor Sargant and believed that the greens would not go into power with FF.

Those votes have to be found somewhere. I don't think the greens need to even change ideals to suit the public but make sure that the topics that they know the public will support them on are on the table for discussion especially where it will harm the other parties who might not have policies in those areas or whose policies are lacking in those areas.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've already stated I don't have a problem with constructive criticism - and indeed I have my own criticisms of the Green Party, both in government and opposition (more the latter, oddly) - but if I wanted to listen to endless badmouthing with nothing constructive, I'd go to politics.ie.

I am specifically addressing IrishTonyO's posts.

moderately,
Scofflaw

So it is ok for you to defend the Green Party without criticising them, but not ok for me to criticise them without defending them??? Ah well at least I Know now. I won't that mistake again and sorry for having an opinion that does not concur with yours. I would have thought that discuss an alternative to the Green Party, you would have to discuss both the negative and the positive of the current one. You were discussing positive I was discussing negative and gave points to back up what I was saying and sources.

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so now that they are in power, the Greens excuse for not doing anything useful is that they dont have enough power?

You are being incredibly unfair by saying that the Greens have not done anything useful. I don't know whether it is simply because you are unaware of what has been achieved.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hence why Green agenda should be a main policy of all parties, removing the need for the Greens altogether

Personally, I see that as the main function of a Green party. As already stated, I would love what you say to happen, as it seems to have in some Scandinavian countries.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yes sorry for having an opinion, yet again my problem is not the Green aims but implementation, stop trying to pretend as if im anti-Green just because i dont agree with your approach

No need to apologize, just don't take the debate so personally. I doubt there are many people who wouldn't want clean air, water etc etc. Implementation is what it's all about.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im getting rather tired of you calling me all sorts of names in this thread

And I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I haven't called you names, I've attacked your posts. And if you have a problem, you know where the report button is. I would remind you that you are the one that pulled out the "fascist" tag.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that lunatic fringe is giving the Green movement a bad name, distance yourselves from them

Wow, thanks for the advice - I'd never thought of doing that.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

both Sweden and Finland have nuclear reactors

Do you know Sweden has had a successful referendum calling on the removal of nuclear power?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

our target is 20% renewable power by 2020

The proposed target is 16% but it breaks down differently depending on the sector. You also have to look at energy efficiency measures and their impact on carbon emissions (and other pollution indicators).

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i posted links to eirgrid data/graphs earlier in thread, it doesnt look pretty, even if we achieve 20% target by 2020 that still means 80% comes from dirty fuels

ei.sdraob, you are confusing renewable energy targets with renewable energy in electricity. Our RES-E target is 40%.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

im also getting tired of repeating myself about my stance on nuclear, i see it as a bridging measure not an end in itself, which you keep ignoring

Yes sorry. I actually quite like the idea but the 10 year lead in time kind of scuppers the idea for me.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

replace the word GM with any technology which has a potential to do bad, good thing the Greens weren't around when the wheel was invented (vehicles kill people) or industrial revolution occurred (steel and chemicals kill people)

This is hilarious.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you should read that book its quite interesting

I have

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the same can be replicated (minus the volcanic destruction) by hanging a garden hose of helium balloons and pumping small amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, reducing temperatures worldwide and buying us time to implement Green policies, whole project would cost less than 100million a year to run, small change by Irish standards of money wasting

Yes, and this has been dismissed by engineers as well. God, do you really think everyone is so stupid that if a project like this were possible of solving the problem we would all just be ignoring it??!

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you continue to wave off engineering and science with your hand, which is very ironic since if it wasnt for science and engineering/technology you would not be sitting there now typing your posts

This is getting quite amusing. I'm not waving off technology, I'm recognizing it's limits.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

that anti-science part of the Green movement really really irks me off and just highlights that some people care more about ideals than implementing them, Scofflaw referred earlier to this lot as Luddites

Nonsense, you just like dismissing us all as Luddites because it suits your position. You like to put these throw away comments at the end of your posts but really, you don't make the argument to support it in the body of your post.

Scofflaw

IrishTonyO wrote: »

So it is ok for you to defend the Green Party without criticising them, but not ok for me to criticise them without defending them??? Ah well at least I Know now. I won't that mistake again and sorry for having an opinion that does not concur with yours. I would have thought that discuss an alternative to the Green Party, you would have to discuss both the negative and the positive of the current one. You were discussing positive I was discussing negative and gave points to back up what I was saying and sources.

And I haven't objected to any such post. This is specifically the sort of thing I'm referring to:

Then, when you know you can't achieve your policies, why waste our time and your time lecturing us and lying to us before elections repeating them. Why not tell us a nice Fairy Story instead as it seems as much chance of that coming true as you achieving your policies. Time for the Greens to come down from their high horse and live in the real world, and not treat people so dismissively, by saying ah but if we could we would do these things, but sure we can't, anyway, vote for us

There's nothing factual or constructive in that, and if you (or any other poster) post that kind of rubbish you will be infracted, as you will also be if I have to continue this particular conversation. If, on the other hand, you have constructive points to make, that's great. Are we clear?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

taconnol wrote:

ei.sdraob wrote:

that anti-science part of the Green movement really really irks me off and just highlights that some people care more about ideals than implementing them, Scofflaw referred earlier to this lot as Luddites

Nonsense, you just like dismissing us all as Luddites because it suits your position.

Alas, both these points are true - there are Luddites in the Green movements, but ei.sdraob, you are simply dismissing all Greens on that basis, which is not exactly open-minded. I'd like to see a more scientifically based Green movement myself, but it's not as if such an option is anathema within Green movements. There are some very prominent pro-nuclear Greens (Lovelock, for example), and many who are open to the discussion. There are also those, like myself, who are quite happy to look at engineering solutions to climate change, and GM solutions to hunger - but neither of these can simply be claimed as problem-free, so not everyone who opposes them is opposing them from a dogmatic ideological stance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

rcecil

If you care about the legitimate issues Greens should be raising -- Shell to Sea, incinerators etc. Sinn Fein is the alternative in progressive politics.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Alas, both these points are true - there are Luddites in the Green movements, but ei.sdraob, you are simply dismissing all Greens on that basis, which is not exactly open-minded. I'd like to see a more scientifically based Green movement myself, but it's not as if such an option is anathema within Green movements. There are some very prominent pro-nuclear Greens (Lovelock, for example), and many who are open to the discussion. There are also those, like myself, who are quite happy to look at engineering solutions to climate change, and GM solutions to hunger - but neither of these can simply be claimed as problem-free, so not everyone who opposes them is opposing them from a dogmatic ideological stance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

of course nothing is problem free but its better than doing nothing and picking holes in any proposal whole ignoring how damaging the current system is not productive in accomplishing anything

the way i see it, it is a matter of choosing the least worst option, the very fact that there are people on this planet means that we will interfere with nature, we can either do something about that by making best use of technology or we can may as well just kill everyone now...

no amount of "behavioral modification" will prevent the millions billions of poor people aspiring and eventually getting a better standard of living, and who are we to prevent them?

just because some solutions like nuclear power are not perfect, that doesn't means those solutions shouldn't be tried, on the balance it seems like a better option than burning fossil fuel
anyways not like wind and solar is not without its own issues (reliability,great expense and use of funky chemicals) does that mean we should give up on them now ?

Scofflaw

no amount of "behavioral modification" will prevent the millions billions of poor people aspiring and eventually getting a better standard of living, and who are we to prevent them?

Essentially, the answer to that is "other people who have to share the same planet". Short of some really amazing technological leaps over the next 50 years, it's not possible for the third world to achieve the living standards of the rich world without causing ecological collapse. It's entirely irrelevant whether we want that to be the case - it is the case. It doesn't matter how unjust it is - and to be fair, most Greens don't want to have to prevent such an aspiration, but are only pointing out that in order for the poor world to improve their material standards of living, the rich world will have to stop using so much of the planet's resources.

There are limits to growth*, and not everyone can have the same standard of living in the same wasteful way as is currently enjoyed by the rich countries. If you care about the world's poor, you need to bear that in mind, because unbalanced growth will lead to environmental collapses, of which the first victims will be (indeed, already are) the poor countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*I have used this phrase quite deliberately, since there is a recent (2008) study on whether the much-traduced "Limits to Growth" published by the Club of Rome was correct - and the finding is that the changes in industrial production, food production and pollution since are all in line with the book's predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century. Naturally enough, the book was subjected at the time to much the same intense contrarian PR barrage that now attacks climate change - but PR doesn't change reality, only perception. As they say, you can ignore the consequences, but you can't avoid the consequences of ignoring the consequences.

Scofflaw

hence why Green agenda should be a main policy of all parties, removing the need for the Greens altogether

I would also like to see this. It certainly isn't happening in Ireland, and, judging by the amount of time I'm having to spend on this thread defending the very notion of an environmental agenda, it's not going to any time soon.

For those who think the current Greens don't pursue a sensible environmental agenda, but who do want an environmental agenda pursued (as opposed to red herrings like Shell to Sea), what would be the best alternative? Personally, I'd like to see a scientifically based environmental agenda, shorn of the red herrings and the tinfoil hat material - nor do I particularly care about the traditional pacifism and "white man's burden" stuff. I'd like to get rich, and go to the stars, but it's not going to happen if we continue treating our environment like a combination goody-bag and public toilet, and anyone who tells you it can happen that way is trying to sell you a disposable good.

We can't do this by being stupid and wasteful, and maybe the existing Green movement is too full of loopers and Luddites to present a credible alternative - but we need one. Is the best alternative a scientifically based lobby group that aims to make environmental planning a prerequisite of all economic and social policy? Or is the electoral route the better idea? What would people who do care prefer to put their effort and/or money behind?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red_Marauder

Scofflaw wrote: »

hence why Green agenda should be a main policy of all parties

I would also like to see this. It certainly isn't happening in Ireland

I think this is arguable - what about the Fine Gael New Era package?
PDF New Era

I'm genuinely not trying to be political in suggesting that, but I do think an €18 billion investment package is significant to be seen as a 'main policy'. It involves total overhaul of the semi state energy companies. Policy doesn't get much more significant than that. The current Green movement do not have anything as detailed as this, and are taking a back seat on it.

We can't do this by being stupid and wasteful, and maybe the existing Green movement is too full of loopers and Luddites to present a credible alternative - but we need one.

To say that we need one begs the question, how have we got this far without one?
The Green movement have only ever won small victories in Government. I don't see how this point can be developed without breaching the issue of criticising the current movement.

For those who think the current Greens don't pursue a sensible environmental agenda, but who do want an environmental agenda pursued (as opposed to red herrings like Shell to Sea), what would be the best alternative?

Take the Green Party in Germany.
They are called the Green Party but are really about as green as The Irish Labour Party is Red.

I see that as a good thing - but others may not. They retain a green core and a realistic affinity with the environment, but they have toned down the loony element. Last year during Bundestag elections, their election literature focused on issues like civil rights, , electoral reform, Afghanistan and military deployment to Africa. Posters should look up their literature just to compare how similiar to any centrist political movement they actually are.

Having said that, and to make another parallell with our Labour Party, they still only have about the same Bundestag representation as Labour has here.

In many ways, they are just like a Labour party. Why, then, bother calling themselves Green? We don't need a Green movement. We need sensible, progressive economic and civil politics which also has a keen regard for green issues.

If you want to call that an alternative Green party, fine. But youre going to be accused of being just another Fine Gael, Labour, or Fianna Fáil, and so on.

View

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Take the Green Party in Germany.
They are called the Green Party but are really about as green as The Irish Labour Party is Red.

I see that as a good thing - but others may not. They retain a green core and a realistic affinity with the environment, but they have toned down the loony element. Last year during Bundestag elections, their election literature focused

In the early 90s, the Greens in Germany went through a major schism betwen the "Reali"s and the "Fundi"s (the Realists and the Fundamentalists). At the time, many of the Fundis resigned and accused the (Reali) Greens of betraying their principles, selling out etc.

If this sounds familiar, it is (in my opinion) because that is what the Greens in Ireland are undergoing. The are losing their Fundis and are moving toward being a more "Reali" Green party.

The positive for doing this is it opens the Green party up to a larger potential voting base - i.e. people who might agree with them on, let's say, better planning, but not necessarily, say, GM food bans. The negatives for them is they lose some of their old stalwarts (presuming that is a negative!) and, of course, they are doing this at the worst possible time economically speaking.

Scofflaw

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I think this is arguable - what about the Fine Gael New Era package?
PDF New Era

I'm genuinely not trying to be political in suggesting that, but I do think an €18 billion investment package is significant to be seen as a 'main policy'. It involves total overhaul of the semi state energy companies. Policy doesn't get much more significant than that. The current Green movement do not have anything as detailed as this, and are taking a back seat on it.

A large part of the answer would be "I'd have to see what they'd actually do in government". I do like a lot of what's being proposed there, but how much of it would actually happen, and how much of it would happen if Fine Gael have to be another austerity government? After all, what the Greens promised in opposition would have been nice too - but they couldn't deliver it all, which is the current issue.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

To say that we need one begs the question, how have we got this far without one?

In brief, Europe - which does indeed suggest that perhaps we can get by without one.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

The Green movement have only ever won small victories in Government. I don't see how this point can be developed without breaching the issue of criticising the current movement.

While I've been accused of not wanting to hear criticism, I did think I'd made it clear that I'm perfectly happy to hear any criticism that rises above trash-talk of the kind I highlighted. Criticise away - I'm not a member of the Green Party, nor do I have any relationship with them except as a voter.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Take the Green Party in Germany.
They are called the Green Party but are really about as green as The Irish Labour Party is Red.

I see that as a good thing - but others may not. They retain a green core and a realistic affinity with the environment, but they have toned down the loony element. Last year during Bundestag elections, their election literature focused on issues like civil rights, , electoral reform, Afghanistan and military deployment to Africa. Posters should look up their literature just to compare how similiar to any centrist political movement they actually are.

Having said that, and to make another parallell with our Labour Party, they still only have about the same Bundestag representation as Labour has here.

In many ways, they are just like a Labour party. Why, then, bother calling themselves Green? We don't need a Green movement. We need sensible, progressive economic and civil politics which also has a keen regard for green issues.

If you want to call that an alternative Green party, fine. But youre going to be accused of being just another Fine Gael, Labour, or Fianna Fáil, and so on.

Exactly - so perhaps the McKennites are right, and what's actually needed is just a lobby group?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Macha

Scofflaw wrote: »

Exactly - so perhaps the McKennites are right, and what's actually needed is just a lobby group?

Surely these already exist. The membership of the Irish Environmental Network stands at 32, although admittedly most of these are small, single-issue organisations.

The problem I see with having a Green lobby group is that the very nature of sustainability is complex and goes to the root of how issues are considered and approached. For example, levels of public transport are influenced by land use, quality/size of apartments, local amenities, planning, types of developments (ie mixed use, etc).

So while a Green lobby group may be successful in pushing through one issue or one piece of legislation (say improved cycling paths), I don't think an overhaul of the general mentality of our politicians that effectively pushes sustainable thinking into the mainstream could possibly be achieved.

Also, I believe a lobby group would cause the green movement in Ireland to step away from reality and back towards idealism. While the split in the Greens has been painful, it was definitely necessary to make the Greens and their policies more realistic and therefore more appealing to a wider section of society - which is one aim of any political party.

Guell72

I think there should be a new Green group.
But it should not involve anyone in the current Green party. Even those who "Split" from the Green party after doing the damage. Nobody who remained in the party when they went into government should be involved in any new Green movement. They cant just bail out now that the writing is on the wall and get away without any responsibility.