Approval at cabinet was given yesterday for a strategy that will see council funding tied to implementing clean air and or congestion charging by 2030 as part of the sustainability push.
Even if it is some way off, I find it hard to see how a largely regressive taxation measure is going to go down well. Or maybe 2030 is too far away for people to care?
In the developing world, everyone has less income, less resourses….in fact, depriving those people of access to affordable fuel is going to do way more damage to them. I'm also of the view, that people in those countries do not need the smug "liberal" idiots sticking their views into their already challenging lives!!
Maybe you'd like to see some actual statistics proving how wrong you are;
Yes, on average, everyone in the developing world has less income, less resources in the developed world.
Now the bit you're trying desperately to avoid, is that in that world of less income, less resources, women and gay people have the least income and the least resources there. Are you actually going to try to pretend that this is untrue, just because you fell for a Gript misinformation piece a couple of years back?
Can you for once, leave your Gript obsession in the dedicated Gript thread…are you capable of that? And no I do not accept the premise that gay people and women are adversely affected by a so called Climate Crisis. I'm sure however there are plenty of NGOs who will tell me different…I'm certainly not going to take the word of a bike rental salesman on any issue you care to mention.
bike rental salesman that is lecturing on employment opportunities?
Gript is clearly where you got this little bugbear from, as they're they only outlet to have reported invented a story on it.
Are you saying that you don't accept that women and gay people have the least income and the least resources in the developing world?
What about single income households, pensioners, people with disabilities, farmers, coastal communities? You are on thread trying to defend a ridiculous point made by a bike rental salesman that hetrosexual people are not as affected by a Climate crisis as gay people or women…you probably can't even define what a woman is…and you've convinced yourself that everyone who disagrees with you has gone down a "Gript rabbit hole" despite the fact that the UN has been pushing a Global Climate Crisis for over 40 years now….long before the existence of a small online media outlet in this little insignificant island of ours!!!
Not your finest hour now is it Andrew!!
So you won't give a straight answer to a straight question then?
I have already spelled it out for you, I can't do anymore. Go away and get a straight answer out of Ryan about what a woman is and come back to me…
You've repeatedly avoided giving a straight answer to a straight question, using whataboutery tactics from the Gript playbook, surprisingly enough. Here's the straight question, that you're presumably going to avoid again.
"Gript playbook", honestly, this is a joke. You are trying to get me banned. Pathetic.
It's not the green party motto to have people drive what they have into the ground, the exact opposite is true in fact. When they were in government in the late 2000s they spearheaded the introduction of a new car taxation system whereby older cars were taxed based on engine capacity and new cars were taxed based on CO2 emissions. A policy which lead to cars with the same engine and CO2 output being taxed differently, with the newer of the two paying less road tax. It lead to a huge shift to diesel car usage in cities which was then proven to be poisoning city dwellers with particulate emissions. And those who couldn't afford to upgrade to a newer car were caught with an increased road tax payment. Furthermore, it lead to road worthy cars being scrapped by people who wanted to save a few hundred per year on car tax. It was one of the best examples of ideologically driven policy being a complete mess. And they're at it again now with EVs, 3rd world countries being poisoned by lithium mining so that Roderic et al. can feel superior driving around the suburbs in 2 tonne SUVs. Only difference is this time it's the dirt poor Congolese who are being poisoned instead of Londoners and Parisians.
Blind ideology makes for bad government policy. The electorate in Ireland hopefully won't be fooled by the greens again.
I'm going to get a warning if I continue to engage with you. I don't buy into the divisive gender politics that you do…
The facts that women have less economic resources aren't an article of faith for you to choose to 'buy into'. They're facts.
https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures#87145
https://www.oxfam.org/en/why-majority-worlds-poor-are-women
https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_008066
The funny thing is that McGurk and Scallan aren't dumb enough to fall for this nonsense. They know exactly what the facts are. They also know that most of their readers will fall for it.
The fact is, you believe we are in a Climate Crisis. Weather doesn't discriminate…the rising sea levels doesn't care who you sleep with or what is between your legs…the people who work in dangerous jobs are most at risk in a Climate Crisis, what your leader has done is insert gender politics into the argument, he would hold the same view on who is affected more by a volcano erupting…and like a good little boy you have gone with it….
You are obsessed with Gript mate, you should see someone about that!! It can't be good for your mental health!!
The new tax system was for new cars, the goal wasn't to dump old cars
Your old car stayed at the exact same tax as it had before.
What was not foreseen was people would dump perfectly good cars at the cost of thousands to reduce tax by a few hundred quid a year, taking years to get back the "savings" they would make because of the initial outlay.
That was nothing to do with the tax change, that was people decisions
In terms of current, Eamonn Ryan done an interview at the start of their term and he said not to buy a new car, but if you are then it should be electric.
So you don't really seem to understand their policies
You're absolutely right to say that rising sea levels doesn't care who you sleep with or what is between your leg.
Ability to protect yourself from effects of climate change absolutely depends on your income and resources, which in turn depends on your gender and whether you're living in danger of being arrested for your sexual preference.
Which bit of that do you disagree with or not understand? It's not rocket science.
OK, how would you propose to reduce congestion in our cities and also ensure that we halve our transport emissions by 2030 as per EU law?
If rising sea levels don't care about your sexuality then what has your sexuality to do with the rising sea levels or climate change….if your town is wiped out by rising sea levels everyone in that town will be economically destroyed…gay or straight, man or woman. In fact, a wipe out of that proportion would level the economic circumstances of everyone in that town.
Only a twisted Government would discriminate who to support in a Climate Crisis. But this is what happens when a bike rental salesman gets into a job beyond his level of competence. Cult leaders are often the same you'll find, that underneath the hysterical rhetoric lies a pathetic incompetent.
Perhaps filling up our cities and towns and villages with more people isn't a good move then?
Women have less income on average because Men work on average longer hrs and take the higher risk jobs and the Jobs Women don't want to do.
Men usually work longer hrs and take the high risk jobs that Women don't want to do. It's the same in the developed and developing world.
This guy is a feminist. You are wasting your time with logical arguments.
Is this your solution to traffic congestion and reducing transport emissions by 2030 because I get the impression that it hasn't really been fully thought through?
I don't have a solution. Just an observation is all…one based on logic, wanna reduce traffic congestion, limit the amount of people who can move here. Even if they don't drive they do have to eat. Hardly a controversial suggestion one would have though!!
limit the amount of people who can move here
Oh FFS 🙄
Did you not understand this bit?
"Ability to protect yourself from effects of climate change absolutely depends on your income and resources, which in turn depends on your gender and whether you're living in danger of being arrested for your sexual preference."
It's almost like the Green's want to get everyone out of cars and into public transport, the public transport infrastructure that is non existent unless you live in a leafy Dublin Green voting suburb that has a Luas running through it.
Rubbish, they incentivised the purchase of diesel cars, following the car manufacturer's bogus claims. Like sheep they followed the reduces CO2 malarkey, which was true, but that was followed blindly. Then we ended up with dieselgate and it has been proven since that the switch to diesel cars for urban driving directly lead to respiratory issues and related deaths for urban dwellers.
Ha ha haaa…you can't let it go can you!
You said yourself, rising sea levels don't discriminate.
Can you hold one opinion that is logically consistent with another, can you demonstrate that for us Andrew?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bc72f221de9dfb5cc318c7fbf7264382.svg)
