nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Green party - Imposing their morals on us?

RobAMerc

I for one did not vote the Greens in, so my view may be a little tainted, but given the new tax regime for motoring, the banning of ordinary light bulbs in favour of cfl's ( at about 10 times the price) and now Gormley's restricting of the Hunt license, does anyone else feel the Green party (or more specifically Gormley) are imposing their morals on us under the guise of governance ?

I think these boys are trying to replace the Catholic church as our moral guardians or something.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

gerky

Here's a link that covers most things regarding CFLs and the myths surrounding them in plain speakingLink

Mweelrea

The greens are making it compulsary to stick big solar pannels on new houses soon.
1:they're fugly
2:they don't actually save much energy

CFL's don't work with dimmer switches

The new carbon tax is just plain annoying.

The Green Party won't get my vote next election.

gerky

Mweelrea wrote: »

The greens are making it compulsary to stick big solar pannels on new houses soon.
1:they're fugly
2:they don't actually save much energy

CFL's don't work with dimmer switches

The new carbon tax is just plain annoying.

The Green Party won't get my vote next election.

You can get CFL's that work with dimmers.

And did you vote for them the last time.

And got any links to back up the compulory solar panel thing.

Mweelrea

You can get CFL's that work with dimmers.-really? thats good!

And did you vote for them the last time.i gave them my number 2 or 3(can't remember)

And got any links to back up the compulory solar panel thing.-give me a few mins

Mweelrea

EDIT: I stand corrected they were trying to get some issue with solar panels in the planning permission guidelines sorted out.
I jumped to conclusions far too early.

gerky thanks for putting me straight on that matter.

gerky

No problem.

[Deleted User]

gerky wrote: »

You can get CFL's that work with dimmers.

Where, I need some... Link Please.

Gekko

interesting post by venomous on the IT industry and Intel in Leixlip.

I think there should be a flat tax on diesel and petrol instead of the vrt and car tax increases - that way the more you drive, the more you pay, so it's much fairer.

The ESRI said the other day that it'll basically be impossible to reduce the country's emissions by 3% per year. That target came to be policy as a result of lobbying by green groups as far as I know. Not sure where they came up with the figure but it's supposedly so we can meet a certain target by 2020 or something.

I'm skeptical about the whole CFL bulbs move and I can't see it working practically - there has to be a better way to reduce our energy usage more easily and more efficiently.

This year I'm funding the conservation of either half an acre or an acre of South American rainforest. The organisation, Cool Earth claims one acre will offset 260 tonnes CO2...although to me the figure looks like 100 tonnes, judging by the information on their website. To put that in perspective, the average Irish person supposedly is responsible for about 17 tonnes per year according to UNFCCC figures.

goldenbrown

for members of the public, some of them form a government and then they apply policies....its called government

Conar

The complaints about these changes do seem very similar to the smoking ban nay sayers.
I suspect that once the changes have been made people will wonder why it wasn't always this way.
Not many people complain about the smoking ban or plastic bag taxes any more.

Will the changes cause a negative impact on your life? I would assume no, unless of course you think that you have a god given right to do whatever you want whenever you want in which case you will always find reason to feel hard done by.

Do they have the potential to improve our carbon emmissions or at least start us on the way to a change in how we live? Yes I think so.

The CFL's save money over time so I don't see what peoples problems are. They are more efficient and better for the environment.
They do contain mercury but not enough to ever have to worry about.

The motor tax and VRT is only imposed on new cars purchased after July 1st or cars imported (new or 2nd hand) after the same date.
This means that if you can't afford to change your car it doesn't affect you at all.
If you can afford to change your car then you just need to take into account that it makes more sense to buy a more environmentally friendly car as otherwise it will cost you more.

I do agree with other peoples comments about taxing directly on fuel so the people that drive the most should pay the most but I think thats a while away yet.

Maybe we'll be driving electric cars sooner than we thought though, the new Tesla car will be released next year (assuming they iron out their transmission issues) and its capable of doing 0-60 in less than 4 seconds.
According to their stats they combine the power and performance of a sports car while easily beating the efficiency of the Prius and the likes.
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/electric_power.php
They retail at less the $100k and I can only assume that given time we would be able to see more reductions in price and increases in efficiency.

With regards to the Datacenters. I currently work in one and they are becoming obsessed with ways of cutting down in power consumption so I think the pressure is there and they are responding. Too slowly perhaps but there is movement there.

Anyway to summarise I welcome the changes and hope they introduce more.
All environmental changes that I can think of to date have been very easy to adjust to and have had a positive affect.

L1011

"transmission issues"? We were told in the 90s that 'leccy cars would be even greener due to 'not needing a gearbox, saving weight and complexity' I think the line in the hopelessly optomist schoolbook was....

gerky

Deleted User wrote: »

Where, I need some... Link Please.

I'm not sure where's the best place to buy them as I don't use cfl's with dimmers.
But most of the company's that make cfl's make ones that can be dimmed as in Philips,GE As far as I know the general consensus is it says on the box whether they can be used with dimmers if it doesn't then they cant.

You can get lists on the net of cfl's that can be dimmed here's one shop that sells themlink But your local diy place should be able to get them.

brianthebard

The more I hear about the green party the more I hate them. Bending over backwards so FF could anally rape them they then proceeded to drop any sort of policies like they were old news, gained three ministries (so 75% of their elected TD's are ministers, proportionally worse than the pd's ever were) and give free reign to John Gormley to screw around with all sorts of pet projects. (this isn't the politics forum so I don't think I need to be civil.)

barclay2

brianthebard wrote: »

The more I hear about the green party the more I hate them. Bending over backwards so FF could anally rape them they then proceeded to drop any sort of policies like they were old news, gained three ministries (so 75% of their elected TD's are ministers, proportionally worse than the pd's ever were) and give free reign to John Gormley to screw around with all sorts of pet projects. (this isn't the politics forum so I don't think I need to be civil.)

Is that not a bit of a contradiction? You say they've been anally raped and dropped their policies, yet somehow have free reign at the same time?

barclay2

RobAMerc wrote: »

does anyone else feel the Green party (or more specifically Gormley) are imposing their morals on us under the guise of governance ?

I dont think "imposing" is a fair way of putting it - they, and a party who were prepared to work with them, were elected. Now that they're elected, they're doing a lot of what they promised to do, not imposing their values on us. Why should a political party act any differently? Would you prefer if a party was elected to government and then abandoned their values?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Conar

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What if it rises a lot?
What if it happens suddenly?
Would you really see other people or countries suffer, even if you didn't, just so you don't have to make a few easy life changes?

I reckon they should:
Ban non rechargeable batteries.
Ensure all towns have recycling facilities.
Reduce unneccessary packaging on goods.
Tax/ban unrequested mail....including allowing people to opt out of receiving paper copies of phone bills, bank statements etc.

Little changes like this can all help make a difference without much effort.

I was never a greenie until the last few years but once I started recycling etc I felt embarassed at how wasteful I'd always been.
Maybe having kids also reinforced the point but I think we could be a lot more responsible and if we're wrong about global warming then hey at least we may have learned to be more economic with our resources.

Setun

neuromancer wrote: »

This is probably what every government has done since the beginning of time.

Are there not better ways to urge people to be more environmentally friendly?
Some governments have managed to elevate themselves above the role of taxation believe it or not - the greens are just bringing in these penalties and don't seem to be helping anyone along.

Btw are there substantial grants available for adapting homes to be more eco-friendly? And if there are how much ****e is involved until you can actually get one? Juts curious.

And what happened with the Green's Shannon airport policy? And what is their official policy to Tara Hill etc?

Setun

Conar wrote: »

I reckon they should:

Ensure all towns have recycling facilities.
Reduce unneccessary packaging on goods.
ban unrequested mail....including allowing people to opt out of receiving paper copies of phone bills, bank statements etc.

Seconded. No recycling facilties in my town for a few years now, yet they see no problem with the fact that the population must have at least tripled in the last 5 years and all the green areas have been built on. More waste, less recycling places to dispose of it.

Conar

Daddio wrote: »

Are there not better ways to urge people to be more environmentally friendly?
Some governments have managed to elevate themselves above the role of taxation believe it or not - the greens are just bringing in these penalties and don't seem to be helping anyone along.

Btw are there substantial grants available for adapting homes to be more eco-friendly? And if there are how much ****e is involved until you can actually get one? Juts curious.

And what happened with the Green's Shannon airport policy? And what is their official policy to Tara Hill etc?

Info on the eco-grants here, no idea how many hoops you need to jump through though.

[Deleted User]

Conar wrote: »

Reduce unneccessary packaging on goods.
Tax/ban unrequested mail....including allowing people to opt out of receiving paper copies of phone bills, bank statements etc.

I'm of the understanding that it can be more economical to turn the waste paper into brickettes and burn them in your home multifuel boiler than it is to send it for recycling.

For many that trip to the recycling depot will consume far more energy than can ever be reclaimed from the material returned, unless the depot is en-route to another destination.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

cooperguy

Conar wrote: »

What if it happens suddenly?

Haha these things never happen suddenly. We're talking about slow changes over many many years

gerky

cooperguy wrote: »

Haha these things never happen suddenly. We're talking about slow changes over many many years

Thats completely untrue these things can happen extremely quickly whats happening now wasn't predicted to happen for decades.

Conar

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I don't know about that. 14m could be devastating for a lot of low lieing countries and I would assume parts of Ireland.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Ah cmon, I hardly meant in that time scale.
Over a few years would seem quite sudden to me for changes of that magnitude and quite plausible if Greenlands ice shelf were to go on a big slide into the sea.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm also a fan of Nuclear power but I see no reason not to make the small changes too. I think we need to start cutting back on a lot of things.
Using CFL's, turning of devices on standby, turning off lights in rooms you are not in, all these little things have helped me reduce my electricity bill so it does make a difference.

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Maybe you see it as tokenism but I honestly think its a step in the right direction. We have to start somewhere.
I'll continue to try to cut back on energy usage because the more I do, the more I realise how much of my usage was just wasteful.

Deleted User wrote:

I'm of the understanding that it can be more economical to turn the waste paper into brickettes and burn them in your home multifuel boiler than it is to send it for recycling.

Perhaps it does consume more energy in the recycling process, but it also saves more trees. Besides I was saying that they should reduce the amount you get in the first place which would definitely be better than recycling.

Deleted User wrote:

For many that trip to the recycling depot will consume far more energy than can ever be reclaimed from the material returned, unless the depot is en-route to another destination.

That may well be true, but if they were in your town then you could simply walk. It also may encourage more people to recycle.
Recycle centres/zones can contain bins for batteries and clothes and many more things than just bottles and paper.
If I want to recycle batteries or CFL's at the moment I have to drive out to Trim.
I also have to drive to recycle bottles as there's no bottle bank in Enfield.
I'd never just drive to a bottle bank though, I'd only ever bring them along if I'm going to a supermarket with them.

You Suck!

RobAMerc wrote: »

I for one did not vote the Greens in, so my view may be a little tainted, but given the new tax regime for motoring, the banning of ordinary light bulbs in favour of cfl's ( at about 10 times the price) and now Gormley's restricting of the Hunt license, does anyone else feel the Green party (or more specifically Gormley) are imposing their morals on us under the guise of governance ?

I think these boys are trying to replace the Catholic church as our moral guardians or something.

Here, Ffin here, Sir! I salute you!

Your right!, the piety that was once vested in the church has now found new avenues of existence in modern day Ireland and the old wish to tell each other how live still go's strong!

I stopped complaining and left, but I would like to return someday. It's time Ireland discovered the merits of Libertarian philosophy and for once thought about individualism, responsibility and not expecting the govt to dictate how life should be lived. Will never happen, but I can always dream.

And in regards the greens, the german greens are shít cool, ours are a pale imitation. I'm happy to see a green movement, but a movement born out of pragmatism and not piety.

nobodythere

They're not imposing 'their morals' they're just imposing morals.

brianthebard

gerky wrote: »

Thats completely untrue these things can happen extremely quickly whats happening now wasn't predicted to happen for decades.

Thats as much a reason to ignore the scientists who were unable to predict what would happen accurately as it is to believe that global warming is happening. It annoys me so much that people will take scientists "predictions", often ones that are to happen in decades if not centuries, as fact. Not too long ago they were predicting global cooling.

brianthebard

barclay2 wrote: »

Is that not a bit of a contradiction? You say they've been anally raped and dropped their policies, yet somehow have free reign at the same time?

Not really. The greens dropped their complaints about Shannon, allowed the tara motorway project to go ahead (despite what the greens say, it is absolutely possible for them to overturn dick roche's decision), didn't vote against Bertie or Harney, (at the very least they could have abstained)-that's how they dropped their policies. Regards free reign, I mean Gormley's dealing of the hunting licenses, and his crusade against the incinerator in his own parish. There hasn't been a peep out of the other three since they got to power.

Conar

brianthebard wrote: »

Thats as much a reason to ignore the scientists who were unable to predict what would happen accurately as it is to believe that global warming is happening. It annoys me so much that people will take scientists "predictions", often ones that are to happen in decades if not centuries, as fact. Not too long ago they were predicting global cooling.

Yes but the potential consequences of inaction compared to those of action are vast.

Whats the worst that can happen if we're wrong about global warming?
Probably just that we'll have managed to learn how to be much more economic with our resources.

If we are right yet do nothing then we're simply screwed.

I know which wrong choice I'd rather make.