John Gormley not so green for Earth Hour this year

IrishTonyO

An interesting article in the Sunday Times today, says Earth Hour this year (an hour where people around the world are encouraged to turn off lights) is at the same time as John Gormley's televised speech at the Green Party conference.
Last year he encouraged people to not only turn off lights but also their televisions and radios for the hour, not so this year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7035141.ece

paddyland

If they could harness all that hot air, they could turn off the heating too...

MikeC101

Lack of integrity on his behalf, or fiendishly clever strategy to ensure people to turn off their televisions, or at least switch away from any channels that are broadcasting his speech?

Gormley, you machiavellian genius!

mike65

Won't bother me, I ignore the Earth Hour and the Green Party equally.

Liam Byrne

Last year = PR stunt
This year = old news; Ireland has put up with their two-faced crap and have no choice until the next election, so he doesn't need to pretend.

astrofool

Does Earth hour make a difference at all? i.e. do power stations cycle lower knowing there will be less demand for that hour?

IrishTonyO

ESB reported a 2% drop in demand during the hour last year, as the article says equivalent to 700,000 light bulbs being switched off

Liam Byrne

IrishTonyO wrote: »

ESB reported a 2% drop in demand during the hour last year, as the article says equivalent to 700,000 light bulbs being switched off

I'd have thought it was 166 lightbulbs that haven't been active for about 10 years.....

Velvet shank

In fairness to Gormley on this one - you can hardly expect people (even Green Party ministers) to organise their lives around Earth Hour; well and good if you're in a position to take part at said hour, and if you're not, well you can do it every other day of the year... cut the guy some slack, he's had a rough week;)

DeVore

Irish Green Party... lol.


The truely sorry thing is that the Green movement will be thrown out with the bathwater of these muppets.

DeV.

Mr. Incognito

Per this:

http://www.earthhour.org/About.aspx

It say's local time- If that's Sydney time it makes it Sunday March 28th around 17.00.

If it's Irish time then it'll clash- anyone able to verify if it's sydney or Irish time, If it's syncronised to Sydney Time that's piss poor journalism.

EDIT- it's local, i.e Irish time, ah well that's just plain stupid They're going to get hit over the head with this one. Duh!

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

An interesting article in the Sunday Times today, says Earth Hour this year (an hour where people around the world are encouraged to turn off lights) is at the same time as John Gormley's televised speech at the Green Party conference.
Last year he encouraged people to not only turn off lights but also their televisions and radios for the hour, not so this year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7035141.ece

Your desperation to mock the Greens is driving you (and the Times) to new lows.

Striking similarity to the facile arguments against Al Gore's travel to educate on climate change.

imme

taconnol wrote: »

Your desperation to mock the Greens is driving you (and the Times) to new lows.

Striking similarity to the facile arguments against Al Gore's travel to educate on climate change.

:eek:Could the Times be brought to new lows, I think not. It's just the usual we've come to expect. They're about as reductive as the Indo group.

I think the concept of Earth Hour is symbolic as much as anything else. It's long term changes in usage and attitude that are more important.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

Your desperation to mock the Greens is driving you (and the Times) to new lows.

Striking similarity to the facile arguments against Al Gore's travel to educate on climate change.

It is, at best, an own goal from the scheduler at the Green Party. It's like riding the bike to the Dáil for appearances, when your TD car is following you slowly, polluting more, while you cycle.

Gurgle

DeVore wrote: »

The truely sorry thing is that the Green movement will be thrown out with the bathwater of these muppets.

The cause of all the confusion is that the Irish party represents the colour green, aka money.

They have no particular interest in the environment, save taxing it.

It seems a few thousand people got them mixed up with foreign green parties in the last general election. Not likely to happen again.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

It is, at worst, an own goal from the scheduler at the Green Party. It's like riding the bike to the Dáil for appearances, when your TD car is following you slowly, polluting more, while you cycle.

FYP. It isn't at all like your analogy that but you're clearly determined to view it that way.

Gurgle wrote: »

They have no particular interest in the environment, save taxing it.

Can you explain this claim and how exactly we should internalise externalised costs?

View

astrofool wrote: »

It is, at best, an own goal from the scheduler at the Green Party. It's like riding the bike to the Dáil for appearances, when your TD car is following you slowly, polluting more, while you cycle.

There is no need for a Minister's car to follow a Minister on his bike. There is nothing to stop someone buying a bike trailer and attaching it to either the Minister's bike or his Ministerial "driver's" bike (should a driver be necessary). That way any Ministerial documentation could be transported to/from the Minister's home.

If it is a case that the driver refuses to cycle a bike then presumably a new one could be hired. There is hardly a shortage of labour at the moment...

View

IrishTonyO wrote: »

An interesting article in the Sunday Times today, says Earth Hour this year (an hour where people around the world are encouraged to turn off lights) is at the same time as John Gormley's televised speech at the Green Party conference.
Last year he encouraged people to not only turn off lights but also their televisions and radios for the hour, not so this year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7035141.ece

Well, there is nothing to stop us from scheduling Earth Hour either earlier or later in Ireland. I'd hate to think you might miss John Gormley's speech.

Gurgle

taconnol wrote: »

Originally Posted by Gurgle
They have no particular interest in the environment, save taxing it.

Can you explain this claim and how exactly we should internalise externalised costs?

Four pillars of the Green Party
Ecological wisdom
Social justice
Grassroots democracy
Nonviolence

They've been 'in government' since 2007.
What have they achieved?
- Incentivized dumping of older cars, regardless of emissions / efficiency
- 'Carbon tax' on transport / home heating / electricity - but with no provision for 'clean' alternatives
- Tax on recycling

(And what exactly does "internalise externalised costs" mean / refer to?)

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

FYP. It isn't at all like your analogy that but you're clearly determined to view it that way.

I'm not determined at all, and actually quite surprised by the viciousness of your response. It's a stupid political blunder, and if they had any sense at all, they would have rescheduled it. The Green Party is just going from f*ck up to f*ck up on a daily basis these days, they're making FF look like the class genius.

Ministers who cycle ususually have to have their ministerial car follow them, both for security and to carry their documents et al. They cycle for the cameras, they might as well carry a baby to kiss. It's all for show, and the Green Party do this in spades (http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/oct/11/green-gormley-wheres-my-limo/).

Riskymove

astrofool wrote: »

It's like riding the bike to the Dáil for appearances, when your TD car is following you slowly, polluting more, while you cycle.

actually their Ministerial cars are Prius so therefore are not polluting at all when driving that slowly behind them!!:pac:

IrishTonyO

View wrote: »

Well, there is nothing to stop us from scheduling Earth Hour either earlier or later in Ireland. I'd hate to think you might miss John Gormley's speech.

Think I will follow his advice from last year and switch off the TV and the lights, and sit in the dark without knowing what's happening. Oh wait that sounds like the Greens in government

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

I'm not determined at all, and actually quite surprised by the viciousness of your response. It's a stupid political blunder, and if they had any sense at all, they would have rescheduled it. The Green Party is just going from f*ck up to f*ck up on a daily basis these days, they're making FF look like the class genius.

There was nothing vicious about my response and I certainly didn't mean for it to come across that way. Describing it as a "stupid political blunder" and "f*ck up" is quite an exaggeration. But then again, a desire to view these things in such a negative light is common these days.

astrofool wrote: »

Ministers who cycle ususually have to have their ministerial car follow them, both for security and to carry their documents et al. They cycle for the cameras, they might as well carry a baby to kiss. It's all for show, and the Green Party do this in spades (http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2009/oct/11/green-gormley-wheres-my-limo/).

Which Green minister cycles with a ministerial car following them? I think you're referring to David Cameron but he isn't an Irish politician and he certainly isn't a member of the Green Party.

As for the limo episode, that was the decision of the Irish embassy in London to hire a car in London and drive to Wales, rather than hire a car where he got off the ferry. Oh and it wasn't a limo - it was a people carrier.But why let facts get in the way of a decent headline. eh?

Scofflaw

Gurgle wrote: »

(And what exactly does "internalise externalised costs" mean / refer to?)

It means taking the uncosted "externalities" of an activity and costing them. Many activities have such externalities where the "environment" in general is treated as a free good - for example, they take in clean air and output polluted air.

Short of giving ownership rights over the air, the only way to make the business internalise that cost is by taxation - which, from one point of view, simply recognises that the air belongs to us all, and that someone who wants to pollute it should pay for the privilege. The "polluter pays" principle, either through fines, taxation, or licensing, is intended to encourage a business to eliminate the pollution.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Think I will follow his advice from last year and switch off the TV and the lights, and sit in the dark without knowing what's happening. Oh wait that sounds like the Greens in government

Well, since reducing your Carbon footprint is one of the things John Gormley wants you to do, he won't be too upset at you missing his speech. He might even see it as vindication of his decision to go into Government.

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Short of giving ownership rights over the air,

Someone is sure to pop up and explain how this would be a great free market solution...

Gurgle

Scofflaw wrote: »

It means taking the uncosted "externalities" of an activity and costing them. Many activities have such externalities where the "environment" in general is treated as a free good - for example, they take in clean air and output polluted air.

ok, thanks.

Scofflaw wrote:

someone who wants to pollute it should pay for the privilege. The "polluter pays" principle, either through fines, taxation, or licensing, is intended to encourage a business to eliminate the pollution.

The implication being that the polluter has an alternative, a less polluting option. In *most* countries, this involves some effort on the part of the government (green party or otherwise) to provide the option.

Scofflaw

Gurgle wrote: »

ok, thanks.

The implication being that the polluter has an alternative, a less polluting option. In *most* countries, this involves some effort on the part of the government (green party or otherwise) to provide the option.

That's the ideal situation, but there's no requirement for the government to provide a solution. The government's job is to say "we* prefer you not to do this", whether that's polluting or using child labour - it's then the private sector's problem to come up with a solution. The government often does suggest solutions, but government-mandated solutions are often a bad fit for businesses.

Obviously, there isn't always an alternative, and the business will have no choice but to pass the costs on to their customers, who in turn can decide whether they want to continue buying when all the externalities have been factored in or not. In many cases, however, even if there isn't an alternative process available for that product, there is an alternative product available to the public. Indeed, the view that the private sector is amazingly creative in respect of such solutions is often advanced as something that will solve climate change without any need for regulation.

One is free to regard that as government crushing businesses, but you have to bear in mind that there's nothing wrong with the principle, and that the generic arguments against government doing something like this have been advanced to defend everything from the slave trade to asbestos.

*the principle being that the government is speaking on behalf of society at large

cordially,
Scofflaw

Poly

Riskymove wrote: »

actually their Ministerial cars are Prius so therefore are not polluting at all when driving that slowly behind them!!:pac:

Not true, the Prius uses it's engine to recharge the batteries, it has to replenish it's batteries at some stage, which means burning fuel.

The Prius also consumes alot more energy and nasty chemicals to manufacture than a regular small car, so just like the greens, when you look at it closely it’s not that green at all.

Macha

Poly wrote: »

Not true, the Prius uses it's engine to recharge the batteries, it has to replenish it's batteries at some stage, which means burning fuel.

Actually, the Prius can use regenerative braking to refill its batteries. Fuel doesn't kick in until it's above a certain speed.

Poly wrote: »

The Prius also consumes alot more energy and nasty chemicals to manufacture than a regular small car, so just like the greens, when you look at it closely it’s not that green at all.

Such as? Even the paint used on the cars is lower emission than standard car paint. NiMH batteries are fully recycled as they are made up of very valuable minerals.

And the embodied energy in manufacturing..I think due to higher efficiencies in manufacturing, the embodied energy in the car is also lower than the average ICE car.

IrishTonyO

taconnol wrote: »

Actually, the Prius can use regenerative braking to refill its batteries. Fuel doesn't kick in until it's above a certain speed.


Such as? Even the paint used on the cars is lower emission than standard car paint. NiMH batteries are fully recycled as they are made up of very valuable minerals.

And the embodied energy in manufacturing..I think due to higher efficiencies in manufacturing, the embodied energy in the car is also lower than the average ICE car.

The production, recycling and disposal of Nimh batteries has a very high environmental impact. Even Toyota has not released the environmental impact of production etc, to prove that lifetime ownership of a Prius has less of an environmental impact than a regular car. They have been requested to do so by the UK government among others and still after 13 years of production have refused to release these figures.

Scofflaw

Poly wrote: »

Not true, the Prius uses it's engine to recharge the batteries, it has to replenish it's batteries at some stage, which means burning fuel.

The Prius also consumes alot more energy and nasty chemicals to manufacture than a regular small car, so just like the greens, when you look at it closely it’s not that green at all.

It's reasonably green, if not all that green - see, for example, here (Prius 35/100 where 100 is most polluting) and here. The original "Dust to Dust" survey of lifetime environmental impact assumed a much shorter operational lifespan (109,000 miles) than has been the case in either law (battery warranty is 150,000 miles) or practice (some Prius cars have run over 200,000 miles on the one battery).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Poly

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's reasonably green, if not all that green - see, for example, here (Prius 35/100 where 100 is most polluting) and here.

Just had a look the site, the good auld diesel fiesta scores a 29, I doubt you’ll see Gormley in one of those even though it’s greener, it doesn’t have the “look at me” factor.
There’s hardly any point in ordering one now John, wait and see if the Deirdre de Burca problem goes away.

View

Poly wrote: »

The Prius also consumes alot more energy and nasty chemicals to manufacture than a regular small car, so just like the greens, when you look at it closely it’s not that green at all.

No one is declaring the Prius to be the be-all and end-all of "green cars". In the future, it'll probably be regarded much like the (Ford) Model-T is today - i.e. it showed there was a big market there but no one today would regard it as the "car of choice".

Scofflaw

Poly wrote: »

Just had a look the site, the good auld diesel fiesta scores a 29, I doubt you’ll see Gormley in one of those even though it’s greener, it doesn’t have the “look at me” factor.
There’s hardly any point in ordering one now John, wait and see if the Deirdre de Burca problem goes away.

The reason why it makes sense for a prominent Green politician and Minister to drive a car that is not the most green on the market by everyone's measure but the car most associated with being green is fairly obvious, I think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gurgle

Scofflaw wrote: »

The reason why it makes sense for a prominent Green politician and Minister to drive a car that is not the most green on the market by everyone's measure but the car most associated with being green is fairly obvious, I think.

Yep, its all about PR.
No need to actually do anything, so long as you appear to be trying.

View

For all the credit he is getting for choosing a Prius rather than the usual obligatory top-of-the-range Ministerial Merc, John Gormley might has well have gone for a Hummer instead.

astrofool

Gurgle wrote: »

Yep, its all about PR.
No need to actually do anything, so long as you appear to be trying.

And no need to try if you set up a committee to investigate the possibility of trying.

Macha

Gurgle wrote: »

Yep, its all about PR.
No need to actually do anything, so long as you appear to be trying.

You're equating choosing a Prius over a much more polluting car as "doing nothing". Quite unfair.

bijapos

I was happy enough to see Gormley and Ryan pick a Prius, cost about €20-30,000 less than other ministerial cars at the time. For that reason alone they can drive them.

Gurgle

taconnol wrote: »

You're equating choosing a Prius over a much more polluting car as "doing nothing". Quite unfair.

Apologies, its not "doing nothing". Its doing as much as could be expected of a private citizen.

Its not a lot for a 'Green party' TD and minister for the environment.

Macha

Gurgle wrote: »

Apologies, its not "doing nothing". Its doing as much as could be expected of a private citizen.

Its not a lot for a 'Green party' TD and minister for the environment.

Why are you acting like that's the only think they do?

You know, I don't think the Green Party is perfect. And there are a lot of valid criticism that can and probably should be made. But whinging about non-issues like the type of vehicle they drive is not only petty but takes attention off the far more important issues that any government deals with.

IrishTonyO

taconnol wrote: »

Why are you acting like that's the only think they do?

You know, I don't think the Green Party is perfect. And there are a lot of valid criticism that can and probably should be made. But whinging about non-issues like the type of vehicle they drive is not only petty but takes attention off the far more important issues that any government deals with.

True like motorways through Tara, Incinerators and the like..........

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

True like motorways through Tara, Incinerators and the like..........

And its the Greens that are told they worry far too much about this stuff at the expense of things like employment and the economy. huh.

IrishTonyO

taconnol wrote: »

And its the Greens that are told they worry far too much about this stuff at the expense of things like employment and the economy. huh.

You mean like helping employment etc. with a carbon tax, suppose someone has to collect it

Macha

IrishTonyO wrote: »

You mean like helping employment etc. with a carbon tax, suppose someone has to collect it

I'd refer you to my previous question about how exactly to internalise externalities, if not through a carbon tax? No one ever seems to have a decent answer, you see.

Gurgle

taconnol wrote: »

But whinging about non-issues like the type of vehicle they drive is not only petty but takes attention off the far more important issues that any government deals with.

That was my point - what kind of car they drive is a total non-issue.

The issue is what they have done to facilitate the reduction of CO2 emissions, pollution etc?

The answer is effectively nothing.

The 'measures' they've instigated:

Carbon tax - Where are our alternatives to CO2 emitting fuels? Why isn't the coastline littered with wind, wave and tidal generators? Why don't we get a carbon tax rebate for growing trees (every 1kg of wood in a tree is formed by absorbing approx 1kg atmospheric CO2)?

Without an alternative, the carbon tax is just a revenue gathering instrument.

New car / efficient car incentives are all based around the scrapping of older cars regardless of their efficiency / emissions. Older cars are being scrapped prematurely, its been proved that the manufacturing pollution out-weighs the remaining-life saving.

Various renewable energy grants were made available on the basis of a registered installer carrying out the work, resulting in the grants going directly onto the installers' profit margins.

Its all being done under the 'green' umbrella, but the terms and conditions negate any possibility of the supposed objectives being addressed.

Macha

Gurgle wrote: »

Carbon tax - Where are our alternatives to CO2 emitting fuels? Why isn't the coastline littered with wind, wave and tidal generators? Why don't we get a carbon tax rebate for growing trees (every 1kg of wood in a tree is formed by absorbing approx 1kg atmospheric CO2)?

This may come across as harsh but its clear you're not altogether familiar with the topic. The carbon tax is on fuels, such as petrol and briquettes. Power-generating stations, such as Moneypoint are covered under the EU ETS scheme and therefore are excluded from the carbon tax.

Gurgle wrote: »

Without an alternative, the carbon tax is just a revenue gathering instrument.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are alternatives to the products that the carbon tax is applied to, the aims of the carbon tax is manifold, including generating a market signal for the pollution occurring (thus resulting in more alternatives provided by the market or private sector), generating revenue to cover the costs of that pollution and funding measures by government to reduce such emissions (eg through a national retrofit programme - see the Greenprint report by Joe Curtin, IIEA for further details)

Gurgle wrote: »

New car / efficient car incentives are all based around the scrapping of older cars regardless of their efficiency / emissions. Older cars are being scrapped prematurely, its been proved that the manufacturing pollution out-weighs the remaining-life saving.

I agree with what you say and I don't agree with the car scrappage scheme. But the scrappage scheme is primarily about boosting the motor industry and the environmental angle is a nonsensical side-point made by the industry that no genuine environmentalist would ever fall for.

However, the Green Party have introduced other measures to promote lower efficiency cars, including changes in motor tax rates that SEI report has resulted in the more efficient cars (categories A, B and C) making up 73% of car purchases after the new rates were introduced versus 43% in the first half of 2008.

Gurgle wrote: »

Various renewable energy grants were made available on the basis of a registered installer carrying out the work, resulting in the grants going directly onto the installers' profit margins.

Of course the renewable energy grants have to be installed by certified, registered installers. The proper fitting of not only small-scale renewable generators but also energy efficiency measures, such as insulation and new windows has a major impact on the efficiency and the success of those measures. Allowing untrained, uncertified installation would be like putting all the grant money in a bin and burning it. The registration procedure by SEI is straight forward and transparent.

Of course an increase in activity in the industry will increase the profits of installers . If you have any evidence of the sort of collusion that you seem to be suggesting, I'd like to see it.

Gurgle wrote: »

Its all being done under the 'green' umbrella, but the terms and conditions negate any possibility of the supposed objectives being addressed.

I don't think you've succeeded in backing up that claim in your post.

billy the squid

Joan Burton was speaking at the labour party conference during Earth Hour and they dimmed the lights momentarily

Deise Tom

IrishTonyO wrote: »

An interesting article in the Sunday Times today, says Earth Hour this year (an hour where people around the world are encouraged to turn off lights) is at the same time as John Gormley's televised speech at the Green Party conference.
Last year he encouraged people to not only turn off lights but also their televisions and radios for the hour, not so this year

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7035141.ece

Great planning by the Green Party there.

Deise Tom

billy the squid wrote: »

Joan Burton was speaking at the labour party conference during Earth Hour and they dimmed the lights momentarily

Should have put them out permanently, and turned off the mics, and stopped the cameras.