Green Party wish list.

Clarence Boddiker

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Increase in population doesnt have to increase pollution and the other things you mention!!

Of course it does, completely delusional to think otherwise.

Shefwedfan

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Of course it does, completely delusional to think otherwise.

I will point to the link I already provided in regards to the CO2 per capita...

One thing that will do far more damage to the beef farmers and indeed farmers of other animals used for their meat is the rise in the next few years of lab grown or artificial meat. This has the potential of not only lowering the price of various meats, but also making them far more environmentally friendly.
And I can easily see consumers switching when told about the environmental benefits of artificial meat.

So, farmers, it’s not the Green party. That you need to fear the most. In the coming future

Yellow_Fern

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Of course it does, completely delusional to think otherwise.

No not at all. People adjust according to availability of a sources Look at high energy homes. They emerged as a response in the 1970s oil crisis. Conservation of a resource is always a harder than using it wastefully resource. Higher populations can be use less resources than smaller populations if needs require it.

major interest

Think they need to get something tangibly “green” done in government this time given the last stint was remembered for the diesel mishap. Whether that is reductions in emissions or getting some big ticket item like metro/bus connects off the ground. Doing that with the public finances decimated isn’t going to be easy!

Shefwedfan

major interest wrote: »

Think they need to get something tangibly “green” done in government this time given the last stint was remembered for the diesel mishap. Whether that is reductions in emissions or getting some big ticket item like metro/bus connects off the ground. Doing that with the public finances decimated isn’t going to be easy!

The bike to work scheme was the green and still in place....r

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One thing that will do far more damage to the beef farmers and indeed farmers of other animals used for their meat is the rise in the next few years of lab grown or artificial meat. This has the potential of not only lowering the price of various meats, but also making them far more environmentally friendly.
And I can easily see consumers switching when told about the environmental benefits of artificial meat.

So, farmers, it’s not the Green party. That you need to fear the most. In the coming future

Lab grown meat will replace the already slop in cheap nuggets... lidl frozen burgers etc.. but real meat will still prevail for the customer who values taste and provinence over price.

Shefwedfan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Lab grown meat will replace the already slop in cheap nuggets... lidl frozen burgers etc.. but real meat will still prevail for the customer who values taste and provinence over price.

You have seen the amount of **** burgers etc are bought every week by people

Eric Cartman

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You have seen the amount of **** burgers etc are bought every week by people

True, which will do harm to the US and the english beef industry. Scottish angus beef and Irish beef have a provenance and will continue to be saught and consumed at similar rates to now.

political analyst

Here are the Greens' demands.

https://gript.ie/here-are-all-the-mad-green-demands-ff-and-fg-say-are-doable/

The following info is very alarming.

More abortion, hate speech laws, and less power for parents if their child is transgender

(Here’s the relevant section: “Stronger measures are also

needed for the advancement of gender equality, expanding access to women’s healthcare and

valuing caring work in our society which will see real financial, employment and social supports for

carers. Added protection is essential for the LGBTQ+ community through improved access to

appropriate healthcare and more autonomy for transpeople in terms of healthcare decision-making.

A commitment to enact robust hate–crime legislation is similarly essential.”)

“Women’s Healthcare” is, and always has been, Green code for abortion. What they mean there is “relaxing the laws people were told would be put in place just two years ago”. And of course we have hate speech thrown in there, right beside a commitment to “more autonomy for transpeople”, which is code for making it harder for parents to object if their child decides they want medical interventions to change their gender. Criticising such measures, of course, would be hate speech.

Not a problem, say the two “centre right” parties.

Shefwedfan

political analyst wrote: »

Here are the Greens' demands.

https://gript.ie/here-are-all-the-mad-green-demands-ff-and-fg-say-are-doable/

The following info is very alarming.

Well that link is a load of bulls**t.....

political analyst

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Well that link is a load of bulls**t.....

I don't want it to be true but I can't rule out the possibility. If a child thinks that he or she is born with the wrong biological sex and wants to undergo gender re-assignment and the parents oppose it then will the parents' objection be overruled? I've heard of it happening in Canada.

Furthermore, the prospect of being accused of hate speech for daring to oppose the granting of permission to someone who is biologically male but identifies as female to be allowed to use girls' changing rooms or toilets is frightening.

Shefwedfan

political analyst wrote: »

I don't want it to be true but I can't rule out the possibility. If a child thinks that he or she is born with the wrong biological sex and wants to undergo gender re-assignment and the parents oppose it then will the parents' objection be overruled? I've heard of it happening in Canada.

Furthermore, the prospect of being accused of hate speech for daring to oppose the granting of permission to someone who is biologically male but identifies as female to be allowed to use girls' changing rooms or toilets is frightening.

In other words, as I said it’s a load of bulls**t , scaremongering s**t

political analyst

Shefwedfan wrote: »

In other words, as I said it’s a load of bulls**t , scaremongering s**t

I hope you're right.

Thelonious Monk

Blueshoe wrote: »

Will rural people still be allowed to have their own cars or will it be government forced mandatory car pooling

Ideally we wont have idiots at the helm like we've had until now and we can design our societies in a way that cars aren't always necessary

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing that will do far more damage to the beef farmers and indeed farmers of other animals used for their meat is the rise in the next few years of lab grown or artificial meat. This has the potential of not only lowering the price of various meats, but also making them far more environmentally friendly.
And I can easily see consumers switching when told about the environmental benefits of artificial meat.

So, farmers, it’s not the Green party. That you need to fear the most. In the coming future

I think there might be some truth in this. You should try the Denny's meat free sausages, they're really good, and you'd never have to harm a poor piggy again.

Eric Cartman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Ideally we wont have idiots at the helm like we've had until now and we can design our societies in a way that cars aren't always necessary

Why do you hate cars so much.

Shefwedfan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why do you hate cars so much.

Nobody hates cars, it would be good moving forward to build houses/industry based on travel which doesn't require cars.



Exaample, new company wants to open office in Ireland, put the location into Navan, reopen the link between Dublin and Navan for trains etc. So if people want to live in Dublin but work in Navan they can get a train to work......

Tell me how

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why do you hate cars so much.

Say you use your car 1 hour each way to work 5 days a week and 2 hours each day at the weekend. That's pretty intensive in terms of driving per week for most people I'd say but amounts to just 14 hours or 8% of the week.

On average, say they cost 100/week with repayments, fuel, insurance, tax, maintenance etc factored in. That's 100 of net income. So, again using the industrial average wage of about 37K/annum, on average people are spending 16% of their income on a tool which they use just 8% of the time. (imagine the cost of a tv or bed which we use for much greater amounts of time if we paid for them on a similar pro-rata basis)

The biggest trick the car industry every played, was convincing people it was worth spending so much of their money on them.

I know many people need cars, but we need to create a society where there is less of a need for them.

Huntergonzo

Tell me how wrote: »

Say you use your car 1 hour each way to work 5 days a week and 2 hours each day at the weekend. That's pretty intensive in terms of driving per week for most people I'd say but amounts to just 14 hours or 8% of the week.

On average, say they cost 100/week with repayments, fuel, insurance, tax, maintenance etc factored in. That's 100 of net income. So, again using the industrial average wage of about 37K/annum, on average people are spending 16% of their income on a tool which they use just 8% of the time. (imagine the cost of a tv or bed which we use for much greater amounts of time if we paid for them on a similar pro-rata basis)

The biggest trick the car industry every played, was convincing people it was worth spending so much of their money on them.

I know many people need cars, but we need to create a society where there is less of a need for them.

I agree the cost of running a car can be hefty, but for many people they are essential.

I've briefly read over some local authority climate change action plans and while I can't recall reading anything which specifically states 'we don't want people living in rural areas, we want them living in towns', you can see from the plans that larger towns and less rural houses are very much what they're pushing for.

In a way it's quite controlling. Now I completely understand you can't have houses scattered everywhere at random but with a bit of good long term planning and common sense it doesn't have to be that way.

Many people (myself included) cherish living out in the country and having a car is necessary to maintaining that lifestyle. Also I haven't got the option of taking public transport to work, I depend on my car for my livelihood as do many others.

Ps, I live in a county which borders Dublin and our LA has absolutely no issue allowing multinationals build monsterous, intimidating factories which are at odds with the surrounding landscape and are not brilliantly connected by bus or train either.

But try to buid a one off house and things can get a lot more tricky.

Thelonious Monk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why do you hate cars so much.

I don't really, what I hate is the pack of planning in Ireland which has meant cars are necessary for so many. It affects me personally because there's constant gridlock in Dublin and little room for pedestrians and cyclists in many parts.

PommieBast

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I agree the cost of running a car can be hefty, but for many people they are essential.

Issue with car usage is that the costs are mostly fixed, whereas the marginal cost of a trip is basically nothing. So having got over the sunk cost of just having a car, it makes economic sense to use it as much as possible to amortize it.

Shefwedfan

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I agree the cost of running a car can be hefty, but for many people they are essential.

I've briefly read over some local authority climate change action plans and while I can't recall reading anything which specifically states 'we don't want people living in rural areas, we want them living in towns', you can see from the plans that larger towns and less rural houses are very much what they're pushing for.

In a way it's quite controlling. Now I completely understand you can't have houses scattered everywhere at random but with a bit of good long term planning and common sense it doesn't have to be that way.

Many people (myself included) cherish living out in the country and having a car is necessary to maintaining that lifestyle. Also I haven't got the option of taking public transport to work, I depend on my car for my livelihood as do many others.

Ps, I live in a county which borders Dublin and our LA has absolutely no issue allowing multinationals build monsterous, intimidating factories which are at odds with the surrounding landscape and are not brilliantly connected by bus or train either.

But try to buid a one off house and things can get a lot more tricky.

One off housing should and hopefully will be totally banned going forward,

Huntergonzo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

One off housing should and hopefully will be totally banned going forward,

I disagree, seems very dictatorial to me, not everybody wants to live in an apartment block or housing estate etc

Geuze

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I've briefly read over some local authority climate change action plans and while I can't recall reading anything which specifically states 'we don't want people living in rural areas, we want them living in towns', you can see from the plans that larger towns and less rural houses are very much what they're pushing for.

In a way it's quite controlling. Now I completely understand you can't have houses scattered everywhere at random but with a bit of good long term planning and common sense it doesn't have to be that way.

Personally, I would go further:

Only active farmers can build one-off rural houses.

Geuze

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I disagree, seems very dictatorial to me, not everybody wants to live in an apartment block or housing estate etc

One-off houses are fine, in villages and towns.

lawred2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The problem is we have no more space, the coties are already on a road diet and seriously lacking parking spaces, the greens back a ‘cycling infrastructure’ agenda that does modest amounts to improve cycling access while majorly slowing motorists and busses down. Causing more conjestion and further punishing rural dwellers. Since you cant bring a bike on the bus its really only a plan to further enhance the cycling fetish inner city middle class residents delight in. Theyd be better off spending the money on improving public transport from the places people are forced to buy houses in , kildare wicklow meath and louth, pile all the money into that, not wider / more bike lanes for people who already have a handy tome getting to work.

Also the greens are anti nuclear, the cleanest and best form of on demand electricity, their renewable policy is half baked

There should be no on Street parking inside the canals. None. Morning loading bays but that's it. On Street parking is easily the biggest waste of productive space that there is.

Huntergonzo

Geuze wrote: »

Personally, I would go further:

Only active farmers can build one-off rural houses.

Well I think the ultimate plan is to ban them outright and herd people towards stupidly overpriced urban hovels with loads of noisy neighbours.

Ps, you'll be delighted to know I already have a lovely one off house on a farm :-)

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

Personally, I would go further:

Only active farmers can build one-off rural houses.

In France and some other European countries they can’t always do even that. Unless the farm actually requires a 24/7 presence, they are not allowed build on it.

the_pen_turner

blanch152 wrote: »

In France and some other European countries they can’t always do even that. Unless the farm actually requires a 24/7 presence, they are not allowed build on it.

I don't understand why they don't limit it to abandoned houses . there are loads of abandoned sites and houses ll over the place. if people want to build a one off then they should be building on one of these sites. it would only help to clean up these eyesores