Are you concerned about the destruction of the natural world and climate change?

Very few, if any, are prepared to do that. Who's going to give up their cheap flights, cheap clothes, latest tech gadgets, their 2 family cars etc?

You can get people to buy into "green" initiatives to some extent like renewable energy, recycling and the likes because it doesn't hugely affect their lives. Ask them to fundamentally change and give up or curtail things they've taken for granted all their lives and they'll react very differently.

I suppose the hope from my point of view is if the green party were to increase in size and have members\Councillors\TD's from locations throughout the country it would force a shift in power and have a lot more perspective. The bus connect project wouldn't be their only big ticket item!

For me though extra taxation isn't a problem, the problem is a lack of trust and a lack of transparency that additional taxes are legally ring fenced to be spent on the purpose they are intended for. Property tax is a good example. I'm not really sure what the intended purpose of it was and whether or not it is actually being spent on that purpose. It would seem that it was meant to provide additional funding to local councils to be spent on local services but not 100% sure on this?

I don't doubt that more people equals more space for agriculture and more environmental harm. I just think it's cruel to focus the blame on poorer people trying to survive rather than richer people (and the corporations in the developed world) buying a new car every year and throwing away a massive amount of imported food.

On the carbon dioxide side the CO2 per person per year in the US is around 16 tonnes, Germany is 9 tonnes, China 8, India 1.9 and Kenya is less than 1.

A poorly educated larger population whilst not consuming as much useless crap as we do will still probably do as much damage though. Considering where they are in the world (i.e hotter climates) they're often the ones to feel the effects of it much quicker than us. Take Madagascar for example. When you think of Madagascar you'd probably think of lush rainforests and the like but the south of the country is completely destroyed. If you look at it on google earth you can see where the people have actively and probably unknowingly turned their country into a desert. Same with Borneo. I was there a few years back and they country has been bulldozed to turn it into giant monocultures of palm oil plantations. They don't realise it but that country is a few years away from becoming completely desertified. And it was once one of the most biodiverse places on earth, now with just a few islands of original rainforest left.

I lived in a central European country for a period of time. It was law there that 30% of lands was required to be forested. Also in the same country during WWII the farmers were directed to grow vegetables rather than to rear livestock. The logic was that citizens would be able to survive longer on vegetables than using the land for rearing and slaughtering livestock. I would be a fan of the the aule meat but two points there worth noting.

I'm not from a farming background but it would appear from listening to friends the only thing that any of the grant schemes that essentially come across from the EU only encourage farmers to do is to maintain the hedges around the boundary walls of each of their fields. Pretty important for wildlife but doesn't seem radical enough when you take into account all the talk about climate crisis. It would appear that the EU would prefer Ireland to be it's bread brisket basket!

What annoys me is when our overlords talk about long term big picture projects that we never actually plan, never mind deliver. Meantime, there are small steps that can be taken that will make a difference, particularly in terms of getting consumer buy in. For example:

Why do we still allow the importation of plastic packaging that 'cannot yet be recycled' into the country in the first place?

Why is the re-cycle effort handed over to local authority management instead of it being treated as a national crisis and centrally managed? The result is different councils are providing different services in different ways. Some are therefore far less effective than others. Some take re-cycle materials that others don't and some have have subcontracted recycle center management out to commercial operations - therefore some people have to pay to recycle... others don't.

Why do we export most (all?) of our recycle material and pay the 'exporter' grants based on tonnage shipped off the island, without much care about where it goes, or what actually happens to it?

Why was waste collection taken out of council operation and handed to private enterprise? - more trucks than ever on the road, collecting less waste. The consumer is never going to win in a commercially driven scenario. In order for the waste companies to survive, they will have to charge more to collect less waste.

Why are new houses not built with water recovery systems as standard?

Why are retro fits of any energy saving devises so expensive and any grant schemes so complicated? Prepare to be disappointed with your smart meter options... I am sure we will still end up paying more for less, except we will have to put more effort into saving anything - like running our washers and driers through the night, even though the manufacturers and fire brigade would not advise it.

Why do we not grow more food for ourselves? Why are we nationally focused on beef production if it is so bad for our emission targets and so unviable financially for farmers anyway? Drive the length and breadth of the country and all you will see are green fields of grass - where is the arable farming?

The cynic in me comes to the conclusion that we don't want to reduce waste or save energy... as long as we can tax and charge for it, we can try to beat down the consumer, without actually helping them to reduce waste by eliminating it at source in the first place.

I am convinced that despite my best efforts at recycling and energy saving, I will be paying more for less forever.... more charges for less waste disposed and more cost for less electricity used. The commercially driven models will not introduce price competition and are not consumer focused. Does anyone believe that waste and energy companies are interested in the consumer using less of their services?

In short... the government needs to take more direct responsibility for the situation and be more directly involved in management of the solutions - they can't sub contract their way out of the challenges ahead by trusting our future to commercial enterprises.... the current approach is to drive change from the bottom rung of the ladder by hammering the consumer financially in the hope that they will drive change upward. That is not going to work.

What a judgemental attitude. Ireland had a sky high fertility rate just a few decades ago and we wouldn't have taken kindly to being sneered at by others then I'd imagine. I am in favour of aiming for greater development and education which will over time lead to falling birthrates. Bear in mind that having more children makes sense in countries with high child mortality and largely agricultural societies where young people can help with chores.

I don't disagree but its a bit more nuanced than that. Its easy to blame the western world for it and our consumption habits but I'd reckon there is a sizable portion of the population who hasn't a clue what palm oil is nor the damage that's caused in its cultivation. Perhaps were they to see it first hand it might change their habits, perhaps not. Part of the reason for its increased demand actually is cause its seen as a "green" biofuel which something like 5-10% has to be added to fuel here to make it more "environmentally friendly". The irony. The true villain's I suppose are the corporations who pursue the profit at all costs model which is causing it, then throw back a token reforestation project for good PR.

Whilst some of the locals are upset over the havoc wreaked there (I was talking to a good few who were quite upset over it), they ultimately have a higher standard of living (some of the jeeps I saw there, I'd only seen in the states, F150s and the like) and more cash in their pocket. All in the name of progress. Ultimately they'll have to deal with the consequences and at the moment they don't see many of the negatives.