Will the Greens cease to exist after the next General Election?

PeterIanStaker

Ok, they bit the poisoned apple by going into govt with FF. A lot of people who voted Green as a protest vote were suprised by this, and that's putting it mildly. Also some of their own supporters opposed going into coalition.

So come the next GE, will they go the way of the PD's, or will they still be around?

InchicoreDude

The greens will always exist because they will always appeal to people whose main concern is the environment. The people who vote about environmental issues above everything else.

But they probably wont have any TD's after the next election

aDeener

hopefully. what a useless excuse of a party.

Liam Byrne

Speaking as someone who gave them a shot last time out, I have 4 major issues with them:

1) Supporting corruption by going in with FF and voting confidence in all sorts of dodgy characters
2) Reneging on promises re Shannon, etc
3) Crazy, unsustainable and unfair taxes where their "polluter pays" principle is abandoned
4) Voting for NAMA, the bank bailout etc

So the short answer from here is : hopefully.

They'll probably go back to their core / niche D4-with-public-transport-and-the-means-to-buy-expensive-electric-cars crowd, but I'd reckon that any none-core supporters who were 50/50 and gave them a chance will abandon them.

Macha

InchicoreDude wrote: »

The greens will always exist because they will always appeal to people whose main concern is the environment. The people who vote about environmental issues above everything else.

But they probably wont have any TD's after the next election

Ahem, I would just say it's people who realise how dependent we, and everything else we care about including the economy, are on the little things provided for us by irreplaceable natural systems like water, oxygen from plant respiration, biodiversity, medicines, food, energy, etc.

Sleepy

TBH, I voted for them last time as well. Won't be doing it again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

So come the next GE, will they go the way of the PD's, or will they still be around?

According to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI, the Greens currently command the support of 3 +/- 3% of the electorate, which shows no statistically significant difference from the 4.7% of first-preference votes they received in the 2007 general election. I would be surprised if they obtained less than 4 or 5 seats at the next general election.

johngalway

Hopefully, but I doubt it. We'd need a Monsanto party to get rid of that lot

(Kidding! - regarding the latter part).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dvpower

Clearly, the results of the next election are going to be very different from the results of the last one, but its worth having a look back.

Paul Gogarty came in 2 of 4 in Dublin Mid West, beating Mary Harney.
Trevor Sargent came in 2 of 4 in Dublin North (with 2 FF candidates elected).
John Gormley came 4 of 4 in Dublin South East, but if you look at the other canditates in that constituency there isn't a major challange for the seat (he beat Michael McDowell and a FFer).
Eamon Ryan came 4 of 5 in Dublin South but in a FF dominated constituency.
Ciarán Cuffe came in 5 of 5 on the 10th count in Dún Laoghaire beating off Richard Boyd Barrett. It would be hard to see him surviving.
But Dan Boyle might have a half a shout in Cork South Central.

Edit: Mary White came in 5 of 5 in Carlow–Kilkenny on the ninth count.

dvpower

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here's the percentages of quota that each candidate got on first preference votes last time around. They're pretty respectable figures for John Gormley, Trevor Sargent and Eamon Ryan.

John Gormley 0.69%
Trevor Sargent 0.68%
Eamon Ryan 0.66%
Paul Gogarty 0.54%
Dan Boyle 0.50%
Mary White 0.48%
Ciaran Cuffe 0.46%

LostinBlanch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well as someone who was impressed by their anti corruption stance I would happily have regarded myself as one of their core support. Now all I can say is never, never again.

Their sheer hypocrisy in dropping thier "principles" :rolleyes: and lust for staying on in power appalls me. They are more than willing to take all the perks cf Ciaran Cuffe proudly saying on Vincent Browne that he would only take on one ministerial driver. They know full well that the public wants an election and they will do everything they can to frustrate that happening. Well until they manufacture some split with about 6 months to an election over "principle".

So I look forward to all their TDs getting thrown out on their arses next General Election. Donegal fella is right, they'll lose all the transfers that elected them the last time, and proper order too.

bijapos

I think Sargent and Ryan will get in, maybe Gogarty, no idea about Mary White what people on the ground in CW-KK think of her. Gormley and Cuffe will go, I dont see them gaining seats anywhere.

They will be badly hit by transfers, the likes of Liam Byrne who iirc gave the Greens a 3 or 4 last time out and will not give them anything this time will hurt them.

But they will bounce back, probably once people realise FG are as corrupt as FF at heart. Hard to see them ever breaking the 20 seat barrier to make them a proper force in Irish politics even in 20 years. They have damaged themselves a lot the past 3 years but they do have sensible long term policies and not just stuff for short term gain.

djpbarry

bijapos wrote: »

They have damaged themselves a lot the past 3 years but they do have sensible long term policies...

They have some pretty daft long-term policies too, reflected in their dogmatic opposition to GM and the complete absence of the word 'nuclear' from their energy policy documents.

Het-Field

Yes.

But they will operate as a small rump of a party which stinks of delusion of success and an ability to change society for the better. Their manifesto, it is unsustainable, and as our resident Greens would suggest, is more interested in pandering to the low carbon mentality, then achieving a sustainable economy, whether carbon neutral or not (naturally the carbon neutrality of nuclear power will not persuade the Greens to change tac Effectively they will be the equivalent of Venstre Party in Norway, whose members are deluded as to what they can achieve, and the future which they posess.

Gogarty, Sergent, and Ryan are the only members with a real shot at success. Sergent will struggle if the swing to the left is strong enough. Gogarty will be taken out by Francis Fitzgerald, as and Labour will battle it out for a second seat. Dublin South is a flaky constituency and could well return a Green. It is almost certain the constituency will return 1 FF, 1FG and 1 Lab. The question is where the other two seats will go.

All their other TDs, and Senators are gonners.

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

Yes.

But they will operate as a small rump of a party which stinks of delusion of success and an ability to change society for the better. Their manifesto, it is unsustainable, and as our resident Greens would suggest, is more interested in pandering to the low carbon mentality, then achieving a sustainable economy, whether carbon neutral or not (naturally the carbon neutrality of nuclear power will not persuade the Greens to change tac Effectively they will be the equivalent of Venstre Party in Norway, whose members are deluded as to what they can achieve, and the future which they posess.

There are issues with nuclear in Ireland beyond the question of what you do with the waste when you're done with it. I personally have no big problem with nuclear but the fact remains that at the moment nuclear is far too expensive and far too large for our grid.

As for the definition of a "sustainable economy", well that has to include a sustainable environment because where exactly do you get your oxygen, natural resources, wood, food etc from? You dismiss the concerns over our carbon-intensive economy but the fact remains that carbon emissions are a serious issue and has been recognised as such in scientific and now thankfully political circles. There also seems to be a dismissal of the idea of a low-carbon economy, which of course is not just an option but the only option. I'd recommend reading up on Amory Lovins and his work on Natural Capitalism.

bytey

they are going to be wiped off the political map ,
funny though they do not seem to know it

none of the top guys will get back in either .

everyone of them will be gone

and by god will that be enjoyable .

djpbarry

bytey wrote: »

they are going to be wiped off the political map...

Based on the poll results posted above by donegalfella, that does not seem terribly likely.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

There are issues with nuclear in Ireland beyond the question of what you do with the waste when you're done with it. I personally have no big problem with nuclear but the fact remains that at the moment nuclear is far too expensive and far too large for our grid.

As for the definition of a "sustainable economy", well that has to include a sustainable environment because where exactly do you get your oxygen, natural resources, wood, food etc from? You dismiss the concerns over our carbon-intensive economy but the fact remains that carbon emissions are a serious issue and has been recognised as such in scientific and now thankfully political circles. There also seems to be a dismissal of the idea of a low-carbon economy, which of course is not just an option but the only option. I'd recommend reading up on Amory Lovins and his work on Natural Capitalism.

1.In Donegal we have an untapped resource of uranium deposits which may prove highly useful in any attempts to

2.Oxygen and food wont simply run out one day. Your friends in the Green Party have gone to great lengths to extoll the lack of virtue of Genetically Modified Foods. As long as we can continue to produce/import or export such foodstuffs, then we shall be in a position to properly function.

3.I have read enough to know that many steps which seek to engage in a carbon neutral economy are way beyond the means of the average ordinary person. An example of this include the concept of the electric car. It will be priced way beyond the means of the average person, it will have to be far smaller then an average car, and the longevity of power is something which must be questioned. Unless the relevant infrastructure is in place in an international context the car will struggle to run outside of Ireland. Equally, solar panels are not cost effective, and are not a cheap and easy way to source electricity. The real cost of these ventures to the public are at best unconfirmed, and at worst astronomical. As such it cannot be the "only" way forward, which implies strict adherence to such a policy.

4.Why are the Greens not declaring war on methane ? It is a far more damaging gas then carbon, yet it has little or no interest for the Green Party.

Finally, I would note that the Green agenda has been amalgamated by many of the major parties, and was a central plank of the policy of the Progressive Democrats when they entered Government in 1989. As a result the Greens cannot claim credit as the only party which fights, and has fought for a cleaner and safer environment.

stepbar

I doubt it. Whatever one says about the PD's and their demise the Greens are actually a proper niche party which will always have some relivance.

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

1.In Donegal we have an untapped resource of uranium deposits which may prove highly useful in any attempts to

The problem isn't the lack of uranium, it's the huge cost of construction and the fact that currently commerically available reactors are too big for our grid.

Het-Field wrote: »

2.Oxygen and food wont simply run out one day. Your friends in the Green Party have gone to great lengths to extoll the lack of virtue of Genetically Modified Foods. As long as we can continue to produce/import or export such foodstuffs, then we shall be in a position to properly function.

Oh dear. Where to start? GM could indeed be part of the solution but it isn't going to be the magical silver bullet everyone who doesn't know that much about it seems to think it will be. For a start, the vast majority of GM resesarch is not focused on food at all. Moreover, pests have clearly shown their resilience in the face of our pesticides arms race. Also, you can't deny the laws of physics surrounding fertility and a lot of our fertility is currently imported in the form of fertilisers. There are also issues surrounding the ownership of gm seeds and what financial implications they have for farmers. GM might be part of the solution but it isn't the solution and there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before it becomes part of the solution.

Het-Field wrote: »

3.I have read enough to know that many steps which seek to engage in a carbon neutral economy are way beyond the means of the average ordinary person. An example of this include the concept of the electric car. It will be priced way beyond the means of the average person, it will have to be far smaller then an average car, and the longevity of power is something which must be questioned. Unless the relevant infrastructure is in place in an international context the car will struggle to run outside of Ireland. Equally, solar panels are not cost effective, and are not a cheap and easy way to source electricity. The real cost of these ventures to the public are at best unconfirmed, and at worst astronomical. As such it cannot be the "only" way forward, which implies strict adherence to such a policy.

If you accept the scientific consensus of AGW, then you must also accept that a low-carbon economy is the only way forward. Afterall, what is not sustainable by its very definition cannot continue on indefinitely.

The IEA has acknowledged that the electrification of transportation is one of the three main areas of action that will have to be taken in the future. The cost of electric vehicles will come down as economies of scale kick in and they have much lower running costs. Add in the current externalities in price on current cars and electric vehicles will be the mainstream within the next few years. Regarding infrastructure, ESB and EirGrid are currently working on the grid and infrastructure implications of EVs. The draft NREAP that will be submitted to DG ENER at the end of this month will also contain further details.

Re "range anxiety": a recent study has just concluded that drivers have no problems in this area, as has been long feared:

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2264879/trials-reveal-difference

PVs are never going to contribute massively to Ireland's electricity generation - wind and wave will factor much more highly. Can you show some figures for how much PV installation is costing to back up your fearmongering that the cost is "astronomical"?

Het-Field wrote: »

4.Why are the Greens not declaring war on methane ? It is a far more damaging gas then carbon, yet it has little or no interest for the Green Party.

Ok first of all, carbon dioxide is used as a synonym for greenhouse gases. When being measured, scientists and policy makers will use the unit of co2e, which stands for carbon dioxide equivalent. Or are you trying to refer to agriculture?

Het-Field wrote: »

Finally, I would note that the Green agenda has been amalgamated by many of the major parties, and was a central plank of the policy of the Progressive Democrats when they entered Government in 1989. As a result the Greens cannot claim credit as the only party which fights, and has fought for a cleaner and safer environment.

Absolute and complete rubbish. Anyone who knows anything about the environment and Irish politics knows that the Green Party is the only party in Ireland that has half-decent environmental and sustainable policies. And even at that, we are far behind the rest of the EU.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

The problem isn't the lack of uranium, it's the huge cost of construction and the fact that currently commerically available reactors are too big for our grid.


Oh dear. Where to start? GM could indeed be part of the solution but it isn't going to be the magical silver bullet everyone who doesn't know that much about it seems to think it will be. For a start, the vast majority of GM resesarch is not focused on food at all. Moreover, pests have clearly shown their resilience in the face of our pesticides arms race. Also, you can't deny the laws of physics surrounding fertility and a lot of our fertility is currently imported in the form of fertilisers. There are also issues surrounding the ownership of gm seeds and what financial implications they have for farmers. GM might be part of the solution but it isn't the solution and there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before it becomes part of the solution.


If you accept the scientific consensus of AGW, then you must also accept that a low-carbon economy is the only way forward. Afterall, what is not sustainable by its very definition cannot continue on indefinitely.

The IEA has acknowledged that the electrification of transportation is one of the three main areas of action that will have to be taken in the future. The cost of electric vehicles will come down as economies of scale kick in and they have much lower running costs. Add in the current externalities in price on current cars and electric vehicles will be the mainstream within the next few years. Regarding infrastructure, ESB and EirGrid are currently working on the grid and infrastructure implications of EVs. The draft NREAP that will be submitted to DG ENER at the end of this month will also contain further details.

Re "range anxiety": a recent study has just concluded that drivers have no problems in this area, as has been long feared:

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2264879/trials-reveal-difference

PVs are never going to contribute massively to Ireland's electricity generation - wind and wave will factor much more highly. Can you show some figures for how much PV installation is costing to back up your fearmongering that the cost is "astronomical"?


Ok first of all, carbon dioxide is used as a synonym for greenhouse gases. When being measured, scientists and policy makers will use the unit of co2e, which stands for carbon dioxide equivalent. Or are you trying to refer to agriculture?


Absolute and complete rubbish. Anyone who knows anything about the environment and Irish politics knows that the Green Party is the only party in Ireland that has half-decent environmental and sustainable policies. And even at that, we are far behind the rest of the EU.

What if I were to suggest that the AGW and the IEA had a vested interested in this "low carbon" thing. It is also noteworthy that the IEA has substantial critics, and is not subscribed to by all members of the OECD. Thier findings have regularaly been criticised, and as a result I am reticent to accept them as an authority.

The economies of scale thing is not overly relevant as there will always be substantial competition with conventional motor vehicles. Furthermore, what of the use of add ons such as lights, CD Players etc, these will have a substantial drain on the car's energy supply, and will ensure that they will not be as reliable or effective.. You have also ignored the point that these vehicles will be small and not fit for everybody's purpose.

Although I dont have emperical evidence on hand, I am doing nothing of "fearmongering" about costs. I am simply asking questions, which I would equally ask about your reference to wind and wave energy. On the basis of various things I have read, I am sceptical that they are the sole answer to any energy crisis that we may face.

Your attempts at condescending to me wont work. The evidence is there for all to see. While the Green Party were still picking the lice out of each other's overgrown beards, the Progressive Democrats had removed smog from Dublin City, and had establised the Environmental Protection Agency. While it may not be a high priority, other parties have sucked in much of the Green Party platform which is acceptable. Either way, they have been a complete disgrace in Government. They fought a dirty campaign in 2007 based on spin and misrepresentations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqkoz7hmc1s&feature=related. They subsequently propped up those which they rebuked. They have rolled over for NAMA which many credible economists reject as folly, and will cost the taxpayer millions. They have not been involved in cost cutting measures, and have simply sought to penalise those who they feel are "anti Green" One Green Party member declared in public that she would endorse NAMA if she got a ban on Fox-Hunting. In her eys the salvation of foxes is more important then the economic future and well-being of a nation. They voted for O Dea, the voted confidence in O'onoghue and there has not been a whimper from them which may indicate a move towards their departure from Government. Their annhilation is well deserved.

IrishTonyO

Nuclear is an option for Ireland, it takes c 15 years to build the plant and infrastructure and the predications for our energy consumption at that stage, show a 1Kw plant would not be over capacity, also we are connected to the UK currently and can export any excess power we have if that is the case. An interesting article here about it, reckons it would cost €3 billion, add up the carbon tax for 15 years and see what figure you get, it will pay for it.

"Barré said that projections of Ireland’s electricity demand in 15 years justified the construction of a single one-gigawatt nuclear power plant.

The building of a plant this size would cost about €3 billion, and ‘‘would certainly be reasonable, especially if you have an improved or greater interconnector with Britain’’, Barré said."

And the whole point of the carbon tax is to try and reduce greenhouse emission so they tell us, well no greenhouse emissions from nuclear, so why not put the carbon tax money into a nuclear plant???

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

What if I were to suggest that the AGW and the IEA had a vested interested in this "low carbon" thing. It is also noteworthy that the IEA has substantial critics, and is not subscribed to by all members of the OECD. Thier findings have regularaly been criticised, and as a result I am reticent to accept them as an authority.

You'd have to provide a little bit more evidence than just vague accusations of their findings being criticized.

If anything, the only criticism I have heard was last year when they were accused of underestimating peak oil. So I really don't know where you're getting this from.

Het-Field wrote: »

The economies of scale thing is not overly relevant as there will always be substantial competition with conventional motor vehicles. Furthermore, what of the use of add ons such as lights, CD Players etc, these will have a substantial drain on the car's energy supply, and will ensure that they will not be as reliable or effective.

No, we are at the end of cheap oil and when that happens ICEs will not be competitive in terms of running costs by any stretch of the imagination. The issue of other uses of power in EVs has been addressed and was covered in the story I've already linked to above. And in fact, EVs are far more reliable and don't break down as much as ICEs.

Het-Field wrote: »

You have also ignored the point that these vehicles will be small and not fit for everybody's purpose.

I didn't ignore it, I was covering a lot of points in my post and may have skipped over it. No need for the accusatory tone. I don't see EVs as being of much worth with large vehicles, but the UK is looking at the electrification of the rail system, as has been completed in other countries. For private use car transportation, EVs are most definitely the future.

Het-Field wrote: »

Although I dont have emperical evidence on hand, I am doing nothing of "fearmongering" about costs. I am simply asking questions, which I would equally ask about your reference to wind and wave energy. On the basis of various things I have read, I am sceptical that they are the sole answer to any energy crisis that we may face.

Well what things have you read? As for wind and wave, wind already makes up most of Ireland's renewable energy and will be crucial in meeting our 40% RES-E target for 2020. Research by EirGrid shows that we can fully integrate up to 50% wind into our grid when the necessary infrastructure investments are complete. Wave is further off, maybe 10 years or so but we have the world's largest wind and wave resources on our doorstep and our crappy might as well do us some good!

Het-Field wrote: »

Your attempts at condescending to me wont work. The evidence is there for all to see. While the Green Party were still picking the lice out of each other's overgrown beards, the Progressive Democrats had removed smog from Dublin City, and had establised the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mmm I'll ignore the childish and churlish commentes and note that the both smog regulations and the establishment of the EPA were due to EU directives that had to be implemented here. Oh and um, I think the PDs were in power with FF at the time..

Het-Field wrote: »

While it may not be a high priority, other parties have sucked in much of the Green Party platform which is acceptable.

No they haven't. I'd like to see some evidence of why you continue to believe this is the truth.

Het-Field wrote: »

Either way, they have been a complete disgrace in Government. They fought a dirty campaign in 2007 based on spin and misrepresentations

.
*sigh* do we really have to go over the basics of how elections and coalition governments work? I'm pretty sure this is taught in secondary schools in other countries and I really wish the same were so here.

Het-Field wrote: »

They subsequently propped up those which they rebuked. They have rolled over for NAMA which many credible economists reject as folly, and will cost the taxpayer millions.

And many credible economists have lauded as the way forward. I would recommend you read this post by Ronan Lyons on why our fixation with NAMA is missing the real problem with the Irish economy:

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/04/13/irish-people-no-better-off-now-than-during-black-death-and-other-stories/

Het-Field wrote: »

They have not been involved in cost cutting measures, and have simply sought to penalise those who they feel are "anti Green" One Green Party member declared in public that she would endorse NAMA if she got a ban on Fox-Hunting. In her eys the salvation of foxes is more important then the economic future and well-being of a nation. .

That's great but unless you have absolutely zero experience with any political party, you will be fully aware that political parties have a tendency to attract the loonier elements of society - and that's every political party, not just the Greens.

Het-Field wrote: »

They voted for O Dea, the voted confidence in O'onoghue and there has not been a whimper from them which may indicate a move towards their departure from Government. Their annhilation is well deserved.

Actually, they were bounced into voting for O'Dea and behind the scenes forced him to go - something that O'Dea himself acknowledges. And here again we descend into the inability to understand the very basics of how coalition governments work. When, oh when will basic politics become part of the national curriculum?

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Nuclear is an option for Ireland,[/QUOTE
No it isn't and you don't need to take my word for it, look at the latest EirGrid report on generation mixes carried out by Poyry.

it takes c 15 years to build the plant and infrastructure and the predications for our energy consumption at that stage, show a 1Kw plant would not be over capacity, also we are connected to the UK currently and can export any excess power we have if that is the case. An interesting article here about it, reckons it would cost €3 billion, add up the carbon tax for 15 years and see what figure you get, it will pay for it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, nuclear is low carbon and I think it will definitely be part of the global solution but, um, 1kw (or 1GW if that's what you mean?) plants are not commercially available yet. Also, nuclear and renewables do not mix well, particularly in as small a grid as ours. Yes, interconnection will help but the only interconnection currently in the works is the 500MW Dublin-Wales line due for completion for 2012. Europe, on the other hand, is made up of a series of larger, linked synchronous systems that would take nuclear much better. And projected demand for 2020 is 8,000MW or a bit lower if energy efficiency measures come into play.

And if you want to talk about invested interests, Dr. Barre works for the French energy company AREVA that is heavily involved with nuclear...

IrishTonyO wrote: »

And the whole point of the carbon tax is to try and reduce greenhouse emission so they tell us, well no greenhouse emissions from nuclear, so why not put the carbon tax money into a nuclear plant???

Well there isn't no carbon emissions from nuclear but yes you're right it is a low-carbon technology. As I said, nuclear will be part of the solution but just not in Ireland for the reasons I have outlined above.

bryanw

If I were to offer my opinion here, which I will do, I would say that the Green party have completely sold out to FF in a unbelievable fashion. The electorate will not thank them for their spineless, jellyfish-like behaviour in government.

There are so many examples, it's hard to pick one to start on. Take for instance the banking investigation, which Dan Boyle (Senator for Cork South Central!) was adamant that would be a thorough, public inquiry, was left completely egg-faced over, because of how this will actually be undertaken.

Then there is that fact that Gormely was completely shafted over his remaining bills before the summer holidays. The Greens then go and vote confidence in Cowen, after some of their prized policies were pushed aside.

Let's not forget about the incinerator! :eek:

The by-elections... for a party that supposedly is pro-active in trying to achieve democracy for the people!

The Willie O' Dea wobble...

The one's who presided over a reduction in public transport services...

I for one won't forget any of these shenanigans. No Green seat is safe. Dun Laoghaire is a gonner. Reduced to 4, with Boyd Barret in the running and possibly 2 strong candiates from each of the three largest parties. Paul Gogarty's re-election would obviously not reflect well on the electorate of Dublin MW. Sargent must be aware of a surge in support for Claire Daly, given that the Greens presided over the Hanger 6 debacle. Ryan has to contend with a possible Labour win in Dublin SW. Boyle has been rejected enough times by now... does he not get it...? Gormley... well!

taconnol wrote: »

The problem isn't the lack of uranium, it's the huge cost of construction and the fact that currently commerically available reactors are too big for our grid.

I would have to disagree with that assertion. One of Eamon Ryan's first acts on getting into office was to ban the search for Uranium in Ireland. This means that we now have no way of knowing whether out future energy needs can be satisfied domestically or not, because of some misdirected thinking that the Green movement engages in, namely that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe. All one has to do is look at the nuclear energy webpage of Greenpeace. And on a side note, uranium comes from more politically stable regions than oil, which can only be an advantage in terms of price and security of supply.

It is also wrong to say reactors would be too big for our grid. It is possible to have smaller scale (than nuclear would otherwise be) power stations based on the "pebble bed technology" (think 300 - 500 MW). Using this technology is intrinsically safer than traditional nuclear reactor designs. Now it must be noted that this technology has not been a total success due to political and economic reasons, but the future is bright for this technology, with the Chinese expected to pursue this technology on a large scale in the future. The pebble fuel technology also makes in-roads into making disposal of fuel safer.

But of course remember all those interconnectors the Greens want to build to link our grid to Britain... we could use those to export excess nuclear power too, given that we could have a 1 GW plant, as well as wind...? Now don't get me wrong, renewables will inevitably have to be part of the energy mix in the future, in a big way (awaiting breakthrough in solar technology), but ruling out viable options on idealogical grounds and massive subsidies to other options on similar grounds is unsustainable in itself.

Het-Field wrote:

I have read enough to know that many steps which seek to engage in a carbon neutral economy are way beyond the means of the average ordinary person. An example of this include the concept of the electric car. It will be priced way beyond the means of the average person, it will have to be far smaller then an average car, and the longevity of power is something which must be questioned. Unless the relevant infrastructure is in place in an international context the car will struggle to run outside of Ireland.

I must agree that the electric car is doomed to failure in it's current incarnation. Firstly the range in terms of distance is farcical. Even in Ireland, which is a small country by any comparison, it will be tedious to make any long-distance journey in one of Eamon Ryan's dream machines. The infrastructure and vehicles will be subsidised by you and I. Battery swapping is rubbish and will not work. The car's will be powered by greenhouse gas emitting power stations and the batteries are not manufactured in the most environmentally friendly way. Why can't the Green Party get real and do something meaningful in terms of transport, such as publicising public transport, fighting for electrification of the railways, not reducing public transport services, fighting for integrated ticketing, demanding better efficiency in public transport? None of these seem to be forthcoming...

But of course the Green's are more preoccupied with shutting down the entire global economy for around 40 years in order to mitigate one degree of warming, and saving the four polar bears that are endangered.

taconnol wrote:

If anything, the only criticism I have heard was last year when they were accused of underestimating peak oil. So I really don't know where you're getting this from.

You'd really want to be more concerned about peak coal... because coal is CHEAP, and it is likely that there is a supply of several hundred years remaining... so why aren't the Greens targeting Moneypoint more?

Macha

bryanw wrote: »

I would have to disagree with that assertion. One of Eamon Ryan's first acts on getting into office was to ban the search for Uranium in Ireland. This means that we now have no way of knowing whether out future energy needs can be satisfied domestically or not, because of some misdirected thinking that the Green movement engages in, namely that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe. All one has to do is look at the nuclear energy webpage of Greenpeace. And on a side note, uranium comes from more politically stable regions than oil, which can only be an advantage in terms of price and security of supply.

Again, you're missing the point about the size of reactors vs the size of our grid. I'm sure there are a number of reasons why people within the Green Party are opposed to nuclear but safety is not the only one. Actually, I'd wager that within the Green Party, one of the main issues is what you do with the waste.

bryanw wrote: »

It is also wrong to say reactors would be too big for our grid. It is possible to have smaller scale (than nuclear would otherwise be) power stations based on the "pebble bed technology" (think 300 - 500 MW). Using this technology is intrinsically safer than traditional nuclear reactor designs. Now it must be noted that this technology has not been a total success due to political and economic reasons, but the future is bright for this technology, with the Chinese expected to pursue this technology on a large scale in the future. The pebble fuel technology also makes in-roads into making disposal of fuel safer.

*sigh* you don't have to take my word for it, read the Poyry report for EirGrid. These technologies are not commerically available and will not be for some time. You can't base your grid plans today around this technology any more than you can around any other technology at a similar stage, such as CCS.

Then there's also the issue of where the nuclear plant is built. At the moment EirGrid can't get the North-South interconnector built because of public objections - they're currently mired in oral hearings. Imagine what would happen if it was a nuclear plant in the works?

bryanw wrote: »

But of course remember all those interconnectors the Greens want to build to link our grid to Britain... we could use those to export excess nuclear power too, given that we could have a 1 GW plant, as well as wind...? Now don't get me wrong, renewables will inevitably have to be part of the energy mix in the future, in a big way (awaiting breakthrough in solar technology), but ruling out viable options on idealogical grounds and massive subsidies to other options on similar grounds is unsustainable in itself.

You're basing your entire argument on the false assumption that the nuclear plants of the size you want are commercially available. Please let's discuss this in terms of realities.

bryanw wrote: »

I must agree that the electric car is doomed to failure in it's current incarnation. Firstly the range in terms of distance is farcical. Even in Ireland, which is a small country by any comparison, it will be tedious to make any long-distance journey in one of Eamon Ryan's dream machines. The infrastructure and vehicles will be subsidised by you and I. Battery swapping is rubbish and will not work.

Did you completely miss the study I linked to that showed drivers have no problem with EVs?

bryanw wrote: »

The car's will be powered by greenhouse gas emitting power stations and the batteries are not manufactured in the most environmentally friendly way.

BY 2020 our electricity will be 40% from renewables. And a lot of the rest will come from gas, which has 50% of the carbon intensity of coal.

bryanw wrote: »

Why can't the Green Party get real and do something meaningful in terms of transport, such as publicising public transport, fighting for electrification of the railways, not reducing public transport services, fighting for integrated ticketing, demanding better efficiency in public transport? None of these seem to be forthcoming...

-integrated and smart card ticket is currently in the trialing stages.
-the transport unions are the majory problem with any advancements in
this area - dublin bus, for example, know they can shut the entire city down if they want to. People who work in transport plannning know what a difficult issue this is.
-erm, I'm not sure what publicising public transport means
-GP have supported the Metro North and Dart interconnector/underground projects.
-Metro West planning is also underway.
-brought in the cycle to work scheme to encourage cycling over other modes of transport
-reform of Dublin Transportation Office and planned Mayor with power over transport in Dublin
-Carrigaline, most car-dependent town in Ireland was given specific funds to improve cycling & PT facilities
-significant investment in cycling facilities all around Ireland
-this is not a simple area to deal with because we are dealing with the celtic tiger legacy of low density single use developments that make public transport inherently difficult and unattractive compared to the car.

bryanw wrote: »

But of course the Green's are more preoccupied with shutting down the entire global economy for around 40 years in order to mitigate one degree of warming, and saving the four polar bears that are endangered.

Where to start with a comment like that? First of all, the Greens don't have power over the global economy. Secondly there are global agreements in place that accept the importance of fighting climate change. I would suggest you read up on climate change impacts. Comments about polar bears like the above are just embarrassing and quite frankly an insult to the people around the world whos lives are seriously impacted by climate change. You might also stop to consider the environmental impact of climate change and other environmental damage rather than holding onto the inane industrial-age concept that the environment will just keep on giving, regardless of how badly we treat it.

bryanw wrote: »

You'd really want to be more concerned about peak coal... because coal is CHEAP, and it is likely that there is a supply of several hundred years remaining... so why aren't the Greens targeting Moneypoint more?

Firstly, we don't use as much coal in Ireland as in other countries - it accounts for less than 10% of our overall national energy usage. And in fact, in the period from 1990-2008, our coal usage has dropped 31%. And in 2008 alone, coal dropped 4.1%. I'm not really sure why you think in Ireland we should be concerned more abou coal than we are about oil.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

BY 2020 our electricity will be 40% from renewables. And a lot of the rest will come from gas, which has 50% of the carbon intensity of coal.

what's better in 10-15 years

40% renewable 60% fossil
or
40% renewable 50% nuclear 10% fossil

Greens and their ideologically blinkered approach to solving the problems the country faces

taconnol wrote: »

These technologies are not commerically available and will not be for some time. You can't base your grid plans today around this technology any more than you can around any other technology at a similar stage, such as CCS..

Pebble bed reactors are not new technology, the first was build in 70s and operated for over a decade, what the Chinese are doing is nothing new, theres no reason why we should be researching all sorts of technologies now (nuclear or not) after all you Greens love the term Smart Economy (oh I forgot yee lot use science only when it suits you)

if climate change is such a major concern then we should be researching and pursuing any approach that doesn't rely on burning carbon laced stuff

once again, the Greens are so handicapped by their narrow ideological straightjacket that they are not capable of approaching the climate change problem

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what's better in 10-15 years

40% renewable 60% fossil
or
40% renewable 50% nuclear 10% fossil

Greens and their ideologically blinkered approach to solving the problems the country faces

You've just totally ignored the points I made above. The other issue I'd like to address is that 50% nuclear and 40% renewable would not work because nuclear is not dispatchable like gas. So that scenario wouldn't work. Better storage and interconnection are key for renewables.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Pebble bed reactors are not new technology, the first was build in 70s and operated for over a decade, what the Chinese are doing is nothing new, theres no reason why we should be researching all sorts of technologies now (nuclear or not) after all you Greens love the term Smart Economy (oh I forgot yee lot use science only when it suits you)

We have no history of nuclear research in this country and wind and wave are where our comparative advantages are. Trying to catch up with other country's nuclear research campaigns would be a total waste of money.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what's
once again, the Greens are so handicapped by their narrow ideological straightjacket that they are not capable of approaching the climate change problem

You haven't proven that at all. You just keep repeating it because you want to believe it.

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

You've just totally ignored the points I made above. The other issue I'd like to address is that 50% nuclear and 40% renewable would not work because nuclear is not dispatchable like gas. So that scenario wouldn't work. Better storage and interconnection are key for renewables.
.

Inter-connectors would also be beneficial for nuclear, anyways there wont be any more interconectors this side of 2020

having 1-2GW of steady, reliable base load nuclear capacity to replace Moneypoint (retiring in 10-15 years @ ~1GW) and few peat and oil burning plants

is a good idea, financially and environmentally

wind etc can provide the rest

taconnol wrote: »

We have no history of nuclear research in this country and wind and wave are where our comparative advantages are. Trying to catch up with other country's nuclear research campaigns would be a total waste of money.

we have no history of car production especially electric cars

doesnt stop the Greens wasting money!

all research is needed, im sick of the Greens cherrypicking on science and engineering when it suits them and ignoring the rest

taconnol wrote: »

You haven't proven that at all. You just keep repeating it because you want to believe it.

The green policies over the last few years speak for themselves

if yee really cared about the environment then you would be willing to embrace and examine all options and take your blinkers off

bryanw

taconnol wrote: »

Again, you're missing the point about the size of reactors vs the size of our grid. I'm sure there are a number of reasons why people within the Green Party are opposed to nuclear but safety is not the only one. Actually, I'd wager that within the Green Party, one of the main issues is what you do with the waste.

You obviously didn't read my post properly, nor are you aware of the actual situation in terms of nuclear waste. Instead of giving vague statements like "what ever shall we do with the waste... it's terribly dangerous dear..." why don't you look into it. For instance the pebble bed technology which I am talking about has a special design in terms of fuel. The fuel spheres, about the size of a tennis ball, which contain thousands of tiny fuel particles of Uranium or Thorium compounds, all encased in graphite. These spheres are safer in operation, more efficient in terms of removal and re-fueling, and safer in terms of storage. The fuel is quite a good candidate for geological storage as the design of the fuel makes its more geologically stable. Then of course there is reprocessing for more "traditional" spent fuel, which leaves only a small percentage of the original fuel as waste.

taconnol wrote: »

*sigh* you don't have to take my word for it, read the Poyry report for EirGrid. These technologies are not commerically available and will not be for some time. You can't base your grid plans today around this technology any more than you can around any other technology at a similar stage, such as CCS.

On the contrary, taking one example, the THTR reactor (pebble bed) operated on a commercial basis in Germany in the 80's, at 300 MW. The technology is now in the possession of China who wish to establish it on a large scale (amongst others that were looking into it previously - like South Africa). The Chinese hope to have 30 such plants by 2020, and their first 250 MW plant is due to open in 2013. So this technology is far from dead.

And it is my understanding that the grid requires far reaching upgrades anyway. And then of course there is the problem of some renewables operators not being able to get access to the grid, so if the grid is the problem... we'll need to address that, instead of sidelining a viable, proven technology, which is nuclear power, just because of some ideological and ignorant misgivings surrounding its safety.

Now that the Greens have lost the argument in terms of the safety nuclear, they have moved on to: Well... nuclear is fine and we see it as part of the global energy mix in the future... but it's not for us!

taconnol wrote: »

Then there's also the issue of where the nuclear plant is built. At the moment EirGrid can't get the North-South interconnector built because of public objections - they're currently mired in oral hearings. Imagine what would happen if it was a nuclear plant in the works?

I hope this isn't because of people being told that the power cables will give them cancer? And again this goes back to misinformation about nuclear. I will gladly live beside a nuclear station. This is the reality in France and the people have no problems living beside them.

taconnol wrote: »

Did you completely miss the study I linked to that showed drivers have no problem with EVs?

I'm a driver and I have a problem. Until such a time as an EV can compare in terms of longevity, speed and features as a petrol or diesel car, I will not be switching to the subsidised EV, and this is a view that I'm sure many motorists would take. Otherwise it is a regressive technology. And where's the policy on electrification of the railways...?

taconnol wrote: »

BY 2020 our electricity will be 40% from renewables. And a lot of the rest will come from gas, which has 50% of the carbon intensity of coal.

I thought this was about not using fossil fuels - why gas and not nuclear? I'd also wager that the 40% figure will be variable because that is the nature of wind.

taconnol wrote: »

- Integrated and smart card ticket is currently in the trialing stages.
I thought this was the case for around 15 years...? Maybe your minister for sustainable transport should start kicking some up the arse.
- The transport unions are the majory problem with any advancements in this area - dublin bus, for example, know they can shut the entire city down if they want to. People who work in transport plannning know what a difficult issue this is.
Can't disagree
- erm, I'm not sure what publicising public transport means.
Encourage it's use more. Make Irish Rail publicise its services. One reason why many rail lines are going to fail is because of the lack of willingness of IE to even let people know they exist. And why the GP sitting idle while rail freight is about to disappear?
- GP have supported the Metro North and Dart interconnector/underground projects.
-Metro West planning is also underway.
I'm not giving the GP credit for those projects. I support them too, I'm not claiming credit for the instigation.
- Brought in the cycle to work scheme to encourage cycling over other modes of transport
A dangled carrot by FF if ever there was one. In exchange for social welfare cuts!
- reform of Dublin Transportation Office and planned Mayor with power over transport in Dublin
That Mayor ain't coming anytime soon. The bill wasn't on the list to be brought through the Dail before the holidays (it was supposed to be according to Gormley). I also fear the the Dublin Transport Authority will be a toothless quango.
- Carrigaline, most car-dependent town in Ireland was given specific funds to improve cycling & PT facilities
-significant investment in cycling facilities all around Ireland.
I'm a cyclist and I see no significant investment. And its not enough to show me the cheque to pay for a track. Cycle tracks are built by morons who've never been on a bike. Old ones are in bits and most are utterly useless.
- this is not a simple area to deal with because we are dealing with the celtic tiger legacy of low density single use developments that make public transport inherently difficult and unattractive compared to the car.
But the Greens are opposed to any kind of high-rise development, which is inherently efficient and high density.

taconnol wrote: »

Where to start with a comment like that? First of all, the Greens don't have power over the global economy. Secondly there are global agreements in place that accept the importance of fighting climate change. I would suggest you read up on climate change impacts. Comments about polar bears like the above are just embarrassing and quite frankly an insult to the people around the world whos lives are seriously impacted by climate change. You might also stop to consider the environmental impact of climate change and other environmental damage rather than holding onto the inane industrial-age concept that the environment will just keep on giving, regardless of how badly we treat it.

Ah yes, but the "Green movement" is starting to gain ground. All you have to do is look at cap-and-tax and emissions trading schemes to see how the economic control will be executed. Remember how France had to scrap it's carbon tax because basically it ended up than the only ones that would end up having to make a sacrifice were the little guys.

And there is no escaping the fact that to become a "low carbon" economy will require the shutdown of the entire world economy for many years, until such a time as these renewables take off.

There is no serious evidence to suggest that peoples lives are being significantly impacted by climate change currently. But you just keep telling yourself that...

taconnol wrote: »

Firstly, we don't use as much coal in Ireland as in other countries - it accounts for less than 10% of our overall national energy usage. And in fact, in the period from 1990-2008, our coal usage has dropped 31%. And in 2008 alone, coal dropped 4.1%. I'm not really sure why you think in Ireland we should be concerned more abou coal than we are about oil.

Well, you're missing the point then. I thought climate change was a global problem? If that is the case, the it doesn't matter a rats ass what we do, because if China, India, USA and other large economies wish to use cheap coal, they will go ahead and do it and our contribution to low emmissions will all be in vain.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

You'd have to provide a little bit more evidence than just vague accusations of their findings being criticized.

If anything, the only criticism I have heard was last year when they were accused of underestimating peak oil. So I really don't know where you're getting this from.


No, we are at the end of cheap oil and when that happens ICEs will not be competitive in terms of running costs by any stretch of the imagination. The issue of other uses of power in EVs has been addressed and was covered in the story I've already linked to above. And in fact, EVs are far more reliable and don't break down as much as ICEs.


I didn't ignore it, I was covering a lot of points in my post and may have skipped over it. No need for the accusatory tone. I don't see EVs as being of much worth with large vehicles, but the UK is looking at the electrification of the rail system, as has been completed in other countries. For private use car transportation, EVs are most definitely the future.


Well what things have you read? As for wind and wave, wind already makes up most of Ireland's renewable energy and will be crucial in meeting our 40% RES-E target for 2020. Research by EirGrid shows that we can fully integrate up to 50% wind into our grid when the necessary infrastructure investments are complete. Wave is further off, maybe 10 years or so but we have the world's largest wind and wave resources on our doorstep and our crappy might as well do us some good!


Mmm I'll ignore the childish and churlish commentes and note that the both smog regulations and the establishment of the EPA were due to EU directives that had to be implemented here. Oh and um, I think the PDs were in power with FF at the time..


No they haven't. I'd like to see some evidence of why you continue to believe this is the truth.

.
*sigh* do we really have to go over the basics of how elections and coalition governments work? I'm pretty sure this is taught in secondary schools in other countries and I really wish the same were so here.


And many credible economists have lauded as the way forward. I would recommend you read this post by Ronan Lyons on why our fixation with NAMA is missing the real problem with the Irish economy:

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/04/13/irish-people-no-better-off-now-than-during-black-death-and-other-stories/


That's great but unless you have absolutely zero experience with any political party, you will be fully aware that political parties have a tendency to attract the loonier elements of society - and that's every political party, not just the Greens.


Actually, they were bounced into voting for O'Dea and behind the scenes forced him to go - something that O'Dea himself acknowledges. And here again we descend into the inability to understand the very basics of how coalition governments work. When, oh when will basic politics become part of the national curriculum?

it takes c 15 years to build the plant and infrastructure and the predications for our energy consumption at that stage, show a 1Kw plant would not be over capacity, also we are connected to the UK currently and can export any excess power we have if that is the case. An interesting article here about it, reckons it would cost €3 billion, add up the carbon tax for 15 years and see what figure you get, it will pay for it.

Yes, nuclear is low carbon and I think it will definitely be part of the global solution but, um, 1kw (or 1GW if that's what you mean?) plants are not commercially available yet. Also, nuclear and renewables do not mix well, particularly in as small a grid as ours. Yes, interconnection will help but the only interconnection currently in the works is the 500MW Dublin-Wales line due for completion for 2012. Europe, on the other hand, is made up of a series of larger, linked synchronous systems that would take nuclear much better. And projected demand for 2020 is 8,000MW or a bit lower if energy efficiency measures come into play.

And if you want to talk about invested interests, Dr. Barre works for the French energy company AREVA that is heavily involved with nuclear...


Well there isn't no carbon emissions from nuclear but yes you're right it is a low-carbon technology. As I said, nuclear will be part of the solution but just not in Ireland for the reasons I have outlined above.[/QUOTE]

1.First, I would question whether wind power is sustainable on the basis that it requires a constant supply of wind to power the grid. Last January, Ireland saw it's coldest snap in many years. In spite of this, it was not accompanied by high winds, or much wind at all. So what happens during periods of low/absent winds ? Are we dependent on an unreliable resource, which can only be mitigated for by the use of fossil fuels. I have also been made aware of the face that wave power is not properly tested and it has not been adequatly proven that wave power is the answer to our prayers. I am also led to believe that it will require existing power sources, which will mean a continued use of fossil fuels

2.Bryanw has dealt at length with the short-medium term difficulties facing the electric car. I believe they reflect many of the statements I have made. As I have said, the report you have linked me to doesnt seem to consider a wide variety of extras which the car may hold, such as in bulit Sat-Nav, Compact Disc Players, Ipod Link Ups etc. I would like to know how much they will drain the power of these cars, beacuse it is sure as **** that they are not running on John Gormley's hot air.

3.I respect Lyons as an economist. However, the thing speaks for itself. NAMA was deemed to be the way forward on the basis of the Swedish model which was implemented in the 1990s. I would point out that the scale of the crisis was smaller, and thei banks were already government owned when the crisis hit. It has already been noted that NAMA is going to cost the taxpayer billions of Euros. The purported raison d'etre of NAMA has not come to fruition i.e. the opening up of credit to the "real economy". This comes as no suprise as the banks place state subsidised funds into Government and European bonds which are conservative, and are purchased to keep the bank afloat. It is well noted that Anglo will cost the taxpayer large amounts of money, and the Greens were presumably involved in the decision to nationalise a zombie banks, before pulcking a figure of some 40 Billion from the air, and using it as a stick to beat those who advocate the closure of Anglo with. Economists like Barrett, Grudgiev and Lucey have all rejected NAMA as the way forward. Many of these are the most credible of economists, and predicted Ireland's economic demise, and were on the money as to what was contributing to it.

4.Any directives never explicity told Ireland to establish the EPA in any form, nor did it dictate the measures which was required to be taken to combat smog. While the Greens were proffering anti-EU attitudes, the PDs were proactively eaking out ways in which enivornmental protection could be increased. If you look at any manifesto of the Progressive Democrats since 1987, it becomes clear that they were the first Environmentalists.

5.The Greens have a higher proportion of lunatics then most established parties. They are currently hidden away by careerists, and party hacks who will depart after the Greens are obliterated in 2012. However, that fact remains that measures like NAMA were given the thumbs up in exchange for Carbon Taxes, and a ban on fox hunting. It is clear that ideological penchants take precedent over issues which have a wider impact on society.

6.The Greens didnt force O Dea's hand. And if they did, they didnt have confidence in their convictions by forcing him out publicly. They lay down to the likes of Callely, O Donoghue, and Butler. They also aped the PDs in 2008 when asking Bertie to explain his situation. The Greens have NO record on standards in public office. Attempts to stop political donations are misguided and short-sighted. It is based on the premise that all political donations have a negative reason behind them. This is not the case, and is often a carrot for political parties from charities, who seek to have their interests represteted in party policy and party manifestos. These cannot be construed as an attempt to "clean up politics".

Possibly the worst thing about your post is the condescending attitude you take, which reminds me of activists in groups like The European Movement and Ireland4Europe during the last Lisbon Referendum. Of course I understand coalition government. However, in the first two FF/PD Governments, FF activists were only too anxious to get shot of the PDs. Remember Cowen's "if in doubt speech" ? That came from the 1992 Ard Fheis, which was focused on admonishing the PDs. In contrast, Dermot Ahern has referred to the Greens as the "best coalition partner ever". In my book that is an insult, as it accords with Ahern's original view (expressed in 1989) that coalition partners are there to make up the numbers, and toe the line espoused by FF. Coalition partners traditionally make things difficult for the leading party, while reconciling differences over concessions. The Greens have laid down in front of the FF train in exchange for a ban on fox hunting, carbon taxes, and a deferral of the discussion on tuition fees. FF have been given an easy ride, and have no fear that the coalition will collapse.

astrofool

At the last election I gave numbered votes to everyone but SF & the Greens, nothing they have done in Government indicates I was wrong in voting this way.

I'd consider myself an environmentalist, but the Greens are just completely incompetent at absolutely everything. I don't think one of their influences on the government could be hailed as a success.

They should have gone after public transport, and stuck with it till they got it resolved. It's the one thing that would seriously improve the countrys green credentials and economy. All their bans(lightbulb), taxes(car), and schemes(bike to work) have been a disaster.

They're in it for the pensions between now and their destruction (next election).

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

1.First, I would question whether wind power is sustainable on the basis that it requires a constant supply of wind to power the grid. Last January, Ireland saw it's coldest snap in many years. In spite of this, it was not accompanied by high winds, or much wind at all. So what happens during periods of low/absent winds ? Are we dependent on an unreliable resource, which can only be mitigated for by the use of fossil fuels.

EirGrid keeps track of these issues in an annual report called Generation Adequacy Report. I suggest you look it up - it will answer a lot of your questions.

Het-Field wrote: »

I have also been made aware of the face that wave power is not properly tested and it has not been adequatly proven that wave power is the answer to our prayers. I am also led to believe that it will require existing power sources, which will mean a continued use of fossil fuels

Well firstly, wave power is in the testing phase - that's the stage that the technology is at. But back up in the form of fossil fuels is not the only answer. In a large enough grid, nuclear can help but also improved storage and grid connection.

Het-Field wrote: »

2.Bryanw has dealt at length with the short-medium term difficulties facing the electric car. I believe they reflect many of the statements I have made. As I have said, the report you have linked me to doesnt seem to consider a wide variety of extras which the car may hold, such as in bulit Sat-Nav, Compact Disc Players, Ipod Link Ups etc. I would like to know how much they will drain the power of these cars, beacuse it is sure as **** that they are not running on John Gormley's hot air.

And I have addressed BryanW's points. Please make your own arguments. I think you misunderstand the physics of cars if you think that Sat-navs and the like are going to by the straw that might break the camel's back. If you look up the EVs coming onto the market, they all contain these gadgets. For example, the iMiev in the article comes with sat-nav, cd player etc. Can you provide some evidence that these will cause problems?

Het-Field wrote: »

3.I respect Lyons as an economist. However, the thing speaks for itself. NAMA was deemed to be the way forward on the basis of the Swedish model which was implemented in the 1990s. I would point out that the scale of the crisis was smaller, and thei banks were already government owned when the crisis hit. It has already been noted that NAMA is going to cost the taxpayer billions of Euros. The purported raison d'etre of NAMA has not come to fruition i.e. the opening up of credit to the "real economy". This comes as no suprise as the banks place state subsidised funds into Government and European bonds which are conservative, and are purchased to keep the bank afloat. It is well noted that Anglo will cost the taxpayer large amounts of money, and the Greens were presumably involved in the decision to nationalise a zombie banks, before pulcking a figure of some 40 Billion from the air, and using it as a stick to beat those who advocate the closure of Anglo with. Economists like Barrett, Grudgiev and Lucey have all rejected NAMA as the way forward. Many of these are the most credible of economists, and predicted Ireland's economic demise, and were on the money as to what was contributing to it.

That's great but lots of credible economists have lauded NAMA. And by the way FG supported the bank guarantee, and that decision was backed up by the Honohan report. The €40 billion came from an initial guestimate of what the assets would be worth but these have been studied on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the exact value.

4.Any directives never explicity told Ireland to establish the EPA in any form, nor did it dictate the measures which was required to be taken to combat smog. While the Greens were proffering anti-EU attitudes, the PDs were proactively eaking out ways in which enivornmental protection could be increased. If you look at any manifesto of the Progressive Democrats since 1987, it becomes clear that they were the first Environmentalists.

Ever since the Air Pollution Act of 1987, all air quality legislation has come from EU Directives. And most of the powers allocated to the EPA have come from EU legislation. Plus there were a large amount of EU directives dating back to the 1970s that required actions by national environmental agencies. The fact that Ireland didn't even have one was a political embarrassment that forced the hand of the politicians of the day. Having said that, I would agree with you that the PDs were definitely the first environmentalists in power in Ireland but unfortunately, I can't vote for them any more.

5.The Greens have a higher proportion of lunatics then most established parties.

evidence?

6.The Greens didnt force O Dea's hand.

evidence?

The Greens have NO record on standards in public office. Attempts to stop political donations are misguided and short-sighted. It is based on the premise that all political donations have a negative reason behind them. This is not the case, and is often a carrot for political parties from charities, who seek to have their interests represteted in party policy and party manifestos. These cannot be construed as an attempt to "clean up politics".

Well we have different opinions on this issue. Greens have also helped push through the need for receipts for expenses, although I do think the recent changes don't go far enough.

Possibly the worst thing about your post is the condescending attitude you take, which reminds me of activists in groups like The European Movement and Ireland4Europe during the last Lisbon Referendum. Of course I understand coalition government.

Well I do apologise for coming off as condescending. I am so tired of people expecting the Greens to achieve everything in their general election manifesto. Having said that, I don't agree with the rest of your post. Your list of Green achievements is intentionally short and ignores the vast majority of what the Greens have achieved. Cherry-picking the facts does not make for a robust debate.

Macha

bryanw wrote: »

And there is no escaping the fact that to become a "low carbon" economy will require the shutdown of the entire world economy for many years, until such a time as these renewables take off.

There is no serious evidence to suggest that peoples lives are being significantly impacted by climate change currently. But you just keep telling yourself that...

You know what? I'm not going to waste my time debating with someone who doesn't even recognise the current scientific consensus on anthropogentic climate change.

Poster like Het-Field I may disagree with on how best to achieve a certain goal, what emphasis should or shouldn't be put on each technology, how well the Greens have done (and I'd agree with him/her that the Greens have done been perfect) but there's a certain basic starting point for these debates and acceptance of scientific facts is one of them.

bryanw

taconnol wrote: »

You know what? I'm not going to waste my time debating with someone who doesn't even recognise the current scientific consensus on anthropogentic climate change.

Poster like Het-Field I may disagree with on how best to achieve a certain goal, what emphasis should or shouldn't be put on each technology, how well the Greens have done (and I'd agree with him/her that the Greens have done been perfect) but there's a certain basic starting point for these debates and acceptance of scientific facts is one of them.

So you're not condescending? Would patronising be a better word? I think I am pretty read up on my scientific facts, thank you very much. Afterall, that's my discipline. But you go ahead and do what the eco-fascists do - silencing dissent. If you wish not to debate, fine. I'll take it that you're not willing to question your AGW gospel, and I can just categorise you as another one of those closed-minded people. If you wish to be more tolerant, perhaps I can outline where I stand...

1. There is no such thing as a "scientific" consensus. Science is not done by consensus as you wish it to be. One of the very first things I was thought when I started experimental physics in university was the scientific method. To me, that is science, the pursuit of scientific fact and knowledge, which includes the necessity of scrutiny. This is not reflected in AGW circles.

2. I accept the scientific facts, but perhaps you need to acknowledge the difference between facts and assumptions. The fact about global warming is that a doubling of concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a rise of 1 degree Celsius in the global mean temperature - this is also stated by the IPCC. Any further warming is not proven.

3. There is little basis to suggest catastophe as a result of warming. But the view proffered by the green lobby, aided and abetted by powerful bureaucrats and politicians and the mainstream media, is one of scaremongering, with a view to severely restricting individual and economic freedoms.


If you wish to direct me to where I have not recognised a scientific fact, as you have accused me of doing, please do so. If you are so sure yourself of what you believe, put your money where you mouth is. I believe I have made some valid points in my previous posts in this thread and you will not demean me by telling me they count for jack s*** because they don't fit with your world view.

taconnol wrote:

I think you misunderstand the physics of cars if you think that Sat-navs and the like are going to by the straw that might break the camel's back. If you look up the EVs coming onto the market, they all contain these gadgets. For example, the iMiev in the article comes with sat-nav, cd player etc. Can you provide some evidence that these will cause problems?

The nature of batteries is that they become less efficient, and drain quicker once there are more things using power from them. EVs are no different.

I for one will not mourn the passing of the Green Party, given that the overwhelming majority of their contribution in government has been negative. So to paraphrase John Gormely, bye bye Greens!

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

EirGrid keeps track of these issues in an annual report called Generation Adequacy Report. I suggest you look it up - it will answer a lot of your questions.


Well firstly, wave power is in the testing phase - that's the stage that the technology is at. But back up in the form of fossil fuels is not the only answer. In a large enough grid, nuclear can help but also improved storage and grid connection.


And I have addressed BryanW's points. Please make your own arguments. I think you misunderstand the physics of cars if you think that Sat-navs and the like are going to by the straw that might break the camel's back. If you look up the EVs coming onto the market, they all contain these gadgets. For example, the iMiev in the article comes with sat-nav, cd player etc. Can you provide some evidence that these will cause problems?



That's great but lots of credible economists have lauded NAMA. And by the way FG supported the bank guarantee, and that decision was backed up by the Honohan report. The €40 billion came from an initial guestimate of what the assets would be worth but these have been studied on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the exact value.


Ever since the Air Pollution Act of 1987, all air quality legislation has come from EU Directives. And most of the powers allocated to the EPA have come from EU legislation. Plus there were a large amount of EU directives dating back to the 1970s that required actions by national environmental agencies. The fact that Ireland didn't even have one was a political embarrassment that forced the hand of the politicians of the day. Having said that, I would agree with you that the PDs were definitely the first environmentalists in power in Ireland but unfortunately, I can't vote for them any more.


evidence?


evidence?


Well we have different opinions on this issue. Greens have also helped push through the need for receipts for expenses, although I do think the recent changes don't go far enough.


Well I do apologise for coming off as condescending. I am so tired of people expecting the Greens to achieve everything in their general election manifesto. Having said that, I don't agree with the rest of your post. Your list of Green achievements is intentionally short and ignores the vast majority of what the Greens have achieved. Cherry-picking the facts does not make for a robust debate.

First of all, if I believe another poster has reflected much of what I have already said, then I am under no obligation to "make my own points/arguments". It may make me un-original in some capacity, however, it doesnt diminish the validity of the argument.

2.You seem to accept that other power sources will be required to make sustainable energy sources sustainable. It is clear that "improved storage and grid connection" will be a trial and error procedure, and as such may not be enough to allow wind and wave energy fly solo. I honestly believe that the natural elements will never be robust enough toensure viable self sufficiency. I would also reiterate the point that solar energy is notoriously expensive, and is not viable for the private person. It will also require bolstering from existing energy sources.

3.The Greens have always carried a lunatic fringe. I will try to post some old election litrature I have from the Green Party and The Green Alliance. Some manifestos read like the litrature handed out by conspiracy theroists outside Wall Street in NYC. It concludes that the EU is a boogiman, with no environmental interest (bear in mind, the Green Party are Johnny Come Lately to support ofthe European Project). It was a nabhand at scaremongering about Nuclear Power, and misrepresenting international experience, particularly Chernobyl which was not caused by nuclear power itself. It was also anxious to extoll the lack of virture of NATO. Naturally the Green Party moderated its views post 1997 as it sought to garner more support. It sought to shake of the Patricia McKenna wing, which has hung round like a bad smell. But you cannot get away from the fact that many of these remain, and seek to steer the Green Party back to it's original track. The Peoples Movement is riddled with ex-GP members.

4.Lets just say that the Willie O Dea saga was calibrated to ensure both government parties saved face. However, the Greens didnt show conviction when the voted for O Dea.

5.I see on another post you have attempted to lay out Green "achievements". Firstly many things you claim credit for such as "integrated ticketing" have been in the works for years. I recall the concept being worked on when the Luas was still under construction. If you believe that the Unions are dragging their heels, then I suggest you speak to you're party's big-wigs. Pandering to unions is not leadership, it is collaboration which can equate to failure. The idea was not the Greens in the first place, and if they are pandering to leftist sentiments, then they are failing as leaders. If they threaten strikes why not threaten to split Dublin Bus into two companies ? Why notthreaten sackings ? Why not threaten to subsidise another company . Monopolies cannot be given supreme deference.

-The Cycle to work scheme is not an achievement. It is a drain on employers, and I have spoken to many who curse the scheme. It may appease Green the Green Agenda, but it uncompetitive, regressive, and doesnt accird with the real world

-The Mayoral position is another layer of beureaucracy, which will be be staffed by a Senator/MEP style FFer/FGer/LABer. There is no way in hell a Green Party member will ever enter that office, and if what you say is true about the other parties and their lack of deference to environmental matters, then the increased interest in transport policy will be ignored. It will be a glorified retirement home/resting home between elections, and will be a waste of taxpayers money.

-The original metro systems were laid out in Transport 21 in 2005, when Gormely was still posturing about his eventual bed-fellows. "Support" for an extension of that policy is not an achievement until I see results.

There, I have not glossed over any of the Greens pyrrhic victories. They have a legacy of uncompetitiveness, a leftist government-centric agenda at running the lives of Citizens and employers, and (by you're own admission) dont have the guts to stand up to Unions.

ei.sdraob

Het-Field wrote: »

Yes, nuclear is low carbon and I think it will definitely be part of the global solution but, um, 1kw (or 1GW if that's what you mean?) plants are not commercially available yet. .

Oh for gods sake stop talking rubbish
1GW plants are available compromising of several reactors (maintenance etc)

Moneypoint (that yoke on the Shannon that burns mountains of coal) is 1GW made of 3x ~300MW trubines, and will be closing in 10-15 years

start the process now, and in 10-15 years we cut out a huge chunk of Irish CO2 emissions by replacing moneypoint with a nukepoint circa 1 to 1.5GW (or larger why not, having cheap and reliable electricity could attract industry and create jobs in the Shannon area), no need to upgrade grid either since the main trunk goes from there

not that would be too bloody sensible

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

First of all, if I believe another poster has reflected much of what I have already said, then I am under no obligation to "make my own points/arguments". It may make me un-original in some capacity, however, it doesnt diminish the validity of the argument.

Well then you might be so good as to also acknowledge my rebuttals to those arguments.

Het-Field wrote: »

2.You seem to accept that other power sources will be required to make sustainable energy sources sustainable. It is clear that "improved storage and grid connection" will be a trial and error procedure, and as such may not be enough to allow wind and wave energy fly solo. I honestly believe that the natural elements will never be robust enough toensure viable self sufficiency. I would also reiterate the point that solar energy is notoriously expensive, and is not viable for the private person. It will also require bolstering from existing energy sources.

Once we integrate fully into the European grid, I forsee much greater percentages of renewables. There have been quite a number of studies done on this - I can dig them up for you if you like.

Het-Field wrote: »

3.The Greens have always carried a lunatic fringe. I will try to post some old election litrature I have from the Green Party and The Green Alliance. Some manifestos read like the litrature handed out by conspiracy theroists outside Wall Street in NYC. It concludes that the EU is a boogiman, with no environmental interest (bear in mind, the Green Party are Johnny Come Lately to support ofthe European Project). It was a nabhand at scaremongering about Nuclear Power, and misrepresenting international experience, particularly Chernobyl which was not caused by nuclear power itself. It was also anxious to extoll the lack of virture of NATO. Naturally the Green Party moderated its views post 1997 as it sought to garner more support. It sought to shake of the Patricia McKenna wing, which has hung round like a bad smell. But you cannot get away from the fact that many of these remain, and seek to steer the Green Party back to it's original track. The Peoples Movement is riddled with ex-GP members.

Yes and they are welcome to them! Being rid of them is one of the best things that has happened to the Green Party. But to claim that the Greens have some sort of monopoly on lunatics is just false. I know quite a few ex-PDs and believe me, they have their share of wacky ideas. But god, at least they have some ideas - the blind following of FF/FG is possible worse - not that all FF/FG supporters are blind, of course.

Het-Field wrote: »

4.Lets just say that the Willie O Dea saga was calibrated to ensure both government parties saved face. However, the Greens didnt show conviction when the voted for O Dea.

I'm afraid unless you have other evidence, I'll go by what I know internally in the party and what O'Dea himself said.

Het-Field wrote: »

5.I see on another post you have attempted to lay out Green "achievements". Firstly many things you claim credit for such as "integrated ticketing" have been in the works for years. I recall the concept being worked on when the Luas was still under construction.

Yes many of them have been in the work for years but they have never come to fruition - it has taken a step-up in political will to see these things actually happen. You know how plans and bills can languish in Leinster House for years without anything actually happening.

Het-Field wrote: »

If you believe that the Unions are dragging their heels, then I suggest you speak to you're party's big-wigs. Pandering to unions is not leadership, it is collaboration which can equate to failure.

I don't need to talk to them, I worked in the DTO myself and have first-hand experience of what the unions do.

Het-Field wrote: »

The idea was not the Greens in the first place, and if they are pandering to leftist sentiments, then they are failing as leaders. If they threaten strikes why not threaten to split Dublin Bus into two companies ? Why notthreaten sackings ? Why not threaten to subsidise another company . Monopolies cannot be given supreme deference.

I agree totally. But a measure of that magnititude would require the consensus of FF and they're not interested. Not that FG are interested in it either.

Het-Field wrote: »

-The Cycle to work scheme is not an achievement. It is a drain on employers, and I have spoken to many who curse the scheme. It may appease Green the Green Agenda, but it uncompetitive, regressive, and doesnt accird with the real world

I don't know where you're getting this from. It doesn't cost employees anything and if they can't handle the admin involved, there are companies out there that assist them. It has been a fantastic achievement and brought many more people out onto the streets with their bikes. As for the real world - in Amsterdam 2/3s of commuters travel by bike. We probably won't ever get to that level but I don't know why you think that encouraging cycling isn't realisic.

Het-Field wrote: »

-The Mayoral position is another layer of beureaucracy, which will be be staffed by a Senator/MEP style FFer/FGer/LABer. There is no way in hell a Green Party member will ever enter that office, and if what you say is true about the other parties and their lack of deference to environmental matters, then the increased interest in transport policy will be ignored. It will be a glorified retirement home/resting home between elections, and will be a waste of taxpayers money.

I disagree completely. Look at what Mayors have done in France and the UK. There is a serious lack of integrated planning in Dublin and having a directly elected Mayor is an excellent way of bringing the many threads involved into the one office so that these decisions can be made properly and not in the haphazard manner of days gone by.

Het-Field wrote: »

-The original metro systems were laid out in Transport 21 in 2005, when Gormely was still posturing about his eventual bed-fellows. "Support" for an extension of that policy is not an achievement until I see results.

Actually, the Greens could have pulled the plug on the whole project but they didn't. There also had to be serious efforts to get the necessary EIB funding for the project.

Het-Field wrote: »

There, I have not glossed over any of the Greens pyrrhic victories. They have a legacy of uncompetitiveness, a leftist government-centric agenda at running the lives of Citizens and employers, and (by you're own admission) dont have the guts to stand up to Unions.

Ugh, seriously please stop with the extremism - it really damages your position. I'm not here to claim that the Green Party have done everything perfectly. There are plenty of things they have done that I don't agree with and others that I think they could have done better. Being in government for the first time was a steep learning curve and they probably didn't make life hard enough for FF. But you go so over the top as to make it difficult to take your posts seriously.There are plenty of other achievements that haven't even been mentioned here.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

Well then you might be so good as to also acknowledge my rebuttals to those arguments.


Once we integrate fully into the European grid, I forsee much greater percentages of renewables. There have been quite a number of studies done on this - I can dig them up for you if you like.


Yes and they are welcome to them! Being rid of them is one of the best things that has happened to the Green Party. But to claim that the Greens have some sort of monopoly on lunatics is just false. I know quite a few ex-PDs and believe me, they have their share of wacky ideas. But god, at least they have some ideas - the blind following of FF/FG is possible worse - not that all FF/FG supporters are blind, of course.


I'm afraid unless you have other evidence, I'll go by what I know internally in the party and what O'Dea himself said.


Yes many of them have been in the work for years but they have never come to fruition - it has taken a step-up in political will to see these things actually happen. You know how plans and bills can languish in Leinster House for years without anything actually happening.


I don't need to talk to them, I worked in the DTO myself and have first-hand experience of what the unions do.


I agree totally. But a measure of that magnititude would require the consensus of FF and they're not interested. Not that FG are interested in it either.


I don't know where you're getting this from. It doesn't cost employees anything and if they can't handle the admin involved, there are companies out there that assist them. It has been a fantastic achievement and brought many more people out onto the streets with their bikes. As for the real world - in Amsterdam 2/3s of commuters travel by bike. We probably won't ever get to that level but I don't know why you think that encouraging cycling isn't realisic.


I disagree completely. Look at what Mayors have done in France and the UK. There is a serious lack of integrated planning in Dublin and having a directly elected Mayor is an excellent way of bringing the many threads involved into the one office so that these decisions can be made properly and not in the haphazard manner of days gone by.


Actually, the Greens could have pulled the plug on the whole project but they didn't.


Ugh, seriously please stop with the extremism - it really damages your position. I'm not here to claim that the Green Party have done everything perfectly but you go so over the top as to make it difficult to take your posts seriously.There are plenty of other achievements that haven't even been mentioned here.

1.Again, will many of these reports come from agencies and bodies which are benefitting greatly from proffering the views they do ?

2.Being rid of the nutters is one thing. However, they have manitained enough nutters which will only see an economy through an environmental prism. It is rare that a reputable economist will predicate their theory on environmental proctection The Green Party have become so ingrained in FF that there is NO difference between the two. Can you give me examples of wacky PD suggestions ? The nutters will return to the GP once the electoral meltdown occurs in 2012. It is coming, and the Greens will be consigned to the electoral dustbin. No matter how FF perform, the Greens will have their waterloo as Gogarty,Gormley,Cuffe, and White will all go. It is far from certain that Sergent will retain his seat, and the difficulites experienced over the hanger at Dublin Airport may well come back to haunt hi.

3.As you say youself as long as the Government pander to the Unions, they will never succeed into achieving an integrated ticketing system. Until it is achieved it is not an achievement for the Greens, and they will have to contend with taking joint credit with other parties.

4.Cycling is not sustainable for families, and those who are dependent on cars to commute etc. It may see an increase, but not a significant one. Furthermore, Employers are expected to comply with the scheme if employees seek to take part in the scheme, and perhaps supply bicycles in benefit in kind. Employers are also restricted as to who they can accept and refuse on the scheme. It is another incumbrence on employers.

5.Ireland is a hotbed of parochial politics and self-interest satisfaction. Thus the mayoral position will be taken by somebody from the establishment, who has little or no interest in progress. Many Councellors who invested thousands of euros into getting elected last June, have made no contact with their electorate since polling day. Many TDs are not see from election to election. Why would this position be any different ? Seeking to compare Ireland with international models of political activity is seriously misguided. It is similar to John Gormley's attempts to compare Ireland to Sweden in an attempt to justify a high tax economy

6.So because the Greens didnt "pull the plug" on what is a decent investement in infrastructure we should thank them ?

7 And I will accept what I have heard internally on the O Dea saga

8Ok fine, i may have been a little emotive in the final part of my post. However, I stand over my belief that the Greens have been exposed as holding an a-la-carte approach to public standards, they have allowed their ideological penchants to take precendent over economic best practice (i.e. Carbon Tax in exchange for NAMA), and have attempted to impose a Green Society on employers and the public at large. The Greens have not pressed FF at all, and could learn a thing or two from the PDs first attempts at coalition government. The Greens know an election is not in their interest, and as a result they will not cut it.

bryanw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Het-Field wrote:

Yes, nuclear is low carbon and I think it will definitely be part of the global solution but, um, 1kw (or 1GW if that's what you mean?) plants are not commercially available yet.

Oh for gods sake stop talking rubbish
1GW plants are available compromising of several reactors (maintenance etc)

Moneypoint (that yoke on the Shannon that burns mountains of coal) is 1GW made of 3x ~300MW trubines, and will be closing in 10-15 years

start the process now, and in 10-15 years we cut out a huge chunk of Irish CO2 emissions by replacing moneypoint with a nukepoint circa 1 to 1.5GW (or larger why not, having cheap and reliable electricity could attract industry and create jobs in the Shannon area), no need to upgrade grid either since the main trunk goes from there

not that would be too bloody sensible

Sorry to be pedantic, but I believe that the quote was wrongly attributed to Het-Field, due to a mistake in the quote tags, where the statement was actually made by taconnol.

ei.sdraob

bryanw wrote: »

Sorry to be pedantic, but I believe that the quote was wrongly attributed to Het-Field, due to a mistake in the quote tags, where the statement was actually made by taconnol.

sorry yes you right damn quotes

anyways carry on this is interesting

Darsad

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Ok,
So come the next GE, will they go the way of the PD's, or will they still be around?

OP God I hope 2010 is their last year in existance !

Macha

Het-Field wrote: »

1.Again, will many of these reports come from agencies and bodies which are benefitting greatly from proffering the views they do ?

Wow, well that's what I call an open mind. Bertrand Russell eat your heart out. What really is the point in continuing this debate? I am happy to concede points but you clearly have your mind made up and are not willing to listen to any arguments to the contrary. This is a totally pointless exercise.

bryanw

taconnol wrote: »

Wow, well that's what I call an open mind. Bertrand Russell eat your heart out. What really is the point in continuing this debate? I am happy to concede points but you clearly have your mind made up and are not willing to listen to any arguments to the contrary. This is a totally pointless exercise.

Pot calling the kettle black!

The case for being done and dusted with the Greens is getting stronger by the day. Are they oblivious to the fact that there are almost half a million people unemployed?

RT&#201 wrote:

John Gormley announces new regulations

Quad-biking, scrambling and jet-skiing can be restricted, or even prohibited, under new regulations announced this evening by Minister for the Environment John Gormley.

More...

Macha

bryanw wrote: »

Pot calling the kettle black!

The case for being done and dusted with the Greens is getting stronger by the day. Are they oblivious to the fact that there are almost half a million people unemployed?

Thank you for perfectly proving my point with one of the most fantastically hysterical posts I've seen in a long time. Marvelous.

Het-Field

taconnol wrote: »

Wow, well that's what I call an open mind. Bertrand Russell eat your heart out. What really is the point in continuing this debate? I am happy to concede points but you clearly have your mind made up and are not willing to listen to any arguments to the contrary. This is a totally pointless exercise.

There is the condescending attitude. I continue to forget that the GP had a large hand in I4E.

I have a very open mind on these matters. I just find myself regularaly confronted with reports compiled by people who benefit greatly by proffering the virtues of Wind/Wave power, and seem to ignore it's drawbacks, and the difficulties which it brings.

Het-Field

bryanw wrote: »

Pot calling the kettle black!

The case for being done and dusted with the Greens is getting stronger by the day. Are they oblivious to the fact that there are almost half a million people unemployed?

Sure doesnt Ciaran Cuffe want to ban Happy Meals to combat a non existent obesity epidemic. Mass hysteria on the matter of obesity has affected Ireland in a negligible way.

bryanw

taconnol wrote: »

Thank you for perfectly proving my point with one of the most fantastically hysterical posts I've seen in a long time. Marvelous.

Well it is hysterical alright. John Gormley is preoccupied with wasting time and resources banning things that he doesn't like, while the country is on a s*** heap. The road to serfdom. That's the Green Party politics for you! Certainly hysterical alright!

Incidentally, I'd love to know what point of yours I proved...? You must excuse my ignorance!

You're not one of those smug people that adore the smell of their own farts are you? Perhaps you should consider San Francisco... they'd love you there.