hinault wrote: » The Cabinet is collectively responsible. The Greens were members of the cabinet that prepared the legislation for the bank guarantee and NAMA. And then voted for the bank guarantee and NAMA. You want to have your cake and eat it.
Adrian009 wrote: » It was Fianna Fail, not the Greens, that caused this enconomic meltdown. So, I am still thinking of giving them a vote, but they had better stick to their principles from now on. Let the last few years be a wake up call, because they are in the last-chance saloon.
johno2 wrote: » I agree with you on the first 2 points, especially the first one. Due to EU legislation and international treaties (Kyoto) all parties are now beginning to take the message that the greens have been pushing for 30 years on board. It was their inexperience in high level politics that destroyed them in the popularity stakes. Bertie stitched them up really well after the last election. He knew that unpopular policies would have to be implemented by the 2007 government and most of them were a perfect fit for the green party. He even had 6 independents on board which meant the greens didn't have the votes to get FF out of government during the first year of government if they started to get cold feet about FF policies. After that first year I think they may have begun to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Apart from the stag hunting and the dog breeding bills, nearly everything else was pretty much going to happen in some form or another anyway. It was always going to have a financial cost attached to it because it's easier to mess up the environment than it is to protect it. Bertie knew this and figured he'd let the ignorant masses put the blame on the greens instead of FF. I can honestly say I saw a backlash coming against the greens less than a month after the last election, and that was before the full extent of the economic situation became clear. I'll be voting for my local Green candidate, I have to thank the greens for finally opening up some business opportunities that allow me to work in a field that I have always wanted to. Until they had their time in government there was acres of red tape and a sickening resistance from the bureaucrats to any business idea that was remotely green. Now we have good recycling centers in all major towns, smart meters to allow export of electricity back into the grid, organic certification for farms, grants to improve the energy efficiency of houses and businesses, proper incentives to drive energy efficient vehicles and water metering is well advanced (but may yet be killed off). Most of this would have happened anyway but I think it would have been to a much lower standard if the GP weren't involved. johno
barclay2 wrote: » I'm guessing this is in reference to staying in government for, some would argue, too long. Correct me if i'm wrong on that, you didn't support your claim with any specifics. They stayed in government until they could help put through a piece of legislation they felt was necessary for the country - even though they knew it would make them even more unpopular. And THEN they left government to face electoral destruction. Saying that is "party before country" puts the truth exactly backwards. If they had left government so that someone else could put through difficult legislation, THAT would have been party before country. You may also have meant their original decision to enter coalition with FF. They entered government with a party that had just been given a uniquely strong mandate to govern. Furthermore, they and the whole country knew that entering government with FF has historically been a self-damaging political decision for small parties in Ireland - and they did it anyway. They did it because they wanted to fight for policies that they felt were too important to leave until the next election. Leaving those policies until the next election would have been politically wise for them - it would have been party before country - but they chose the far more demanding job of going into government. A costly political decision for them, yes. Party before country, no.
vaalea wrote: » social aspect is huge in green party, but it's big on sustainable growth and support of community/small business/etc... as said already it all ties in together you have checked out http://vote.greenparty.ie/vision ? Economy, Community, Sustainability.
barclay2 wrote: » If they had left government so that someone else could put through difficult legislation, THAT would have been party before country.
hinault wrote: » By the end of next weekend hopefully the Greens will be a footnote in parliamentary history. They put party before country. Just like their coalition partners.
Seweryn wrote: » Bio fuel production in Ireland......To cut the story short, it simply means that the PPO(pure plant oil) is now over €1.50 per litre after the new levies, taxes and fees are pumped into the price of the Bio-Fuel, which makes no sense at all for anyone to buy it as motor fuel. It is not the end of the story. If no one is going to buy if from now on, the local producers and all their employees will be soon signing on the Dole. And the Government will have to borrow more money to pay the unemployed people their benefits instead of supporting local businesses. By doing this, the Government also "promotes" usage of fossil fuels. How green is that I have no idea :mad:.
barclay2 wrote: » I would argue that environmental and social issues are not unconnected either, but i won't go on at length about it. Two quick examples: quality public transport, an environmental/economic issue, is also a social issue. Car-dependent societies disadvantage those who can't afford a car. town planning, an aspect of environmental/economic policy, is also an aspect of social policy - green areas and youth facilities facilitate social inclusion and can discourage anti-social behaviour.
Just on the issue of your local green candidate having a snowflake's chance in hell - don't let that stop you voting for him/her. If you agree with them more than other people, you should vote for them. If they do get very few other votes, then they'll be eliminated after the first count and your second preference will be redistributed to your next preferred candidate.
The Mad Hatter wrote: » Thank you very much for the considered responses Tarobot and barclay2. I'm not going to reply point-by-point as I don't disagree on any particular points that you both have made. For me it's really a case of prioritising, not between environmental issues and economic ones (as I don't think any party has any real means to lead us out of the economic mire we're in right now), but between environmental issues and social ones. I've also seen so much ineffectiveness and weak-handedness in climate legislation in particular internationally that I've become rather cynical about the whole process working politically. I certainly understand the "lead by example" argument, and it's something that we've successfully done before on small but important matters (smoking in public areas and plastic bags). But I think serious climate legislation requires a much stronger push than these things because it's far more complex than simply banning something or taxing it, and would require a great deal more public support. I will probably include a high preference (not first) for the Green candidate in my constituency (I quite like the suggestions of changes to the political system in their manifesto, if nothing else), but in my constituency in particular he doesn't stand a snowflake's chance in Hell, in the middle of Summer, on a particularly balmy day.
The Mad Hatter wrote: » You're right, we should all stop listening to the scientists and take the word of the comedian. As to whether I'll vote Green, they're pretty much the only party taking environmental issues seriously, but I'm beginning to lose hope that politics - particularly the politics of small countries - can make any real difference. With the amount of spin put out there by fake-science organisations set up by big polluters, it's little wonder the science is doubted by less informed people, but that does cause significant problems for any government trying to legislate for environmental causes. I'm glad the Green Party got a chance to do that here, but the global impact of their work will be small. It won't make any great difference until China and the US get their act together. To be honest, though, I've all but given up on voting on environmental issues. If I lived in a larger country that had more impact, then maybe, but here it seems almost pointless, so on an issue like this we must necessarily be a country that hops on the bandwagon rather than the country that gets it rolling. I've also abandoned the notion of voting economically. The suggestion of renegotiating the IMF deal doesn't seem feasible to me: even if it were to take place, it would be a token gesture and wouldn't make any real difference. So that means I'll pretty much only be voting on social issues, which at least makes my job easy.
yeahme wrote: » http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arbpu1xKAow Right im off for now but will leave you with this. The exended version is a lot better by the way. But I think he gets his point across fairly well.
johno2 wrote: » Despite what you'd like to believe, the people with the expensive mortgages are precisely the people that caused this economic problem. They fueled the bubble. I was sent mortgage application forms that I never asked for by 2 different banks, one which I didn't even have an account with. I knew I couldn't afford the repayments so I used the forms to light the fire. Fact! People were greedy. Fact! They bragged to each other about how well their property portfolios were doing. (I overheard young 20-somethings doing this) Fact! Other people are not responsible for the dilemma your choices put you in. Fact! We can pull out of this, and avoid a repeat performance if we stop denying the real reasons behind it. Fact! You're looking for a scapegoat so you don't have to look inwards and acknowledge that you played a part in this mess. Fact! The Green Party policies require an upfront cost to implement them, but they will pay for themselves in the long run and continue to benefit everyone after they have been paid off. johno
taintabird wrote: » What's your suggestion ? fact people have mortgages fact they need to pay for them fact people need to eat fact it isn't possible for every one to live five minutes from work or relocate. The greens don't seem to have any ides how difficult it is for a large number of people struggling to mack ends meet in this country at the moment. They were instigators of a lot of extra expense on people and I hope it wont be forgotten on election day
vaalea wrote: » No amount of "this is good for the short-term" helps people and businesses who will be in the future not be able to pay their bill even by 10 cent. 'this is good for the short-term' gave you celtic tiger and people had no problems paying their bills then?! sustainable growth will help now, but it won't help everyone- not those who are reluctant to give up bad habits... it wouldn't prop up consumerism and people will have to accept changes in business... not keep things the way they were and still expect to pay the bills when there are no more customers for what they offer.... just like there is a time when SUV factories needed to change or die. Detroit has died because they were not future-forward thinking, but is now being rebuilt with new-urbanism and community gardens etc, and becoming a model for the world rather than simply example of ruin. Same goes for irish business... and govt policies can aid change and sustainable growth in struggling business.
ei.sdraob wrote: » here is a very detailed document from our own eirgrid with figures and costs
vaalea wrote: » that information is not very clear to me.. the benefits. nuclear needs fuel and decommissioning(which means what exactly) and is just too freaky. If BP leaks oil allover the ocean, what prevents a nuclear disaster.... and especially if war.
vaalea wrote: » nice to choose gas/oil backup... why not biomass backup? and companies are coming up with different ways to store and/or use excess energy during high wind periods.
barclay2 wrote: » Do you know if hydro alone can handle that peak load? Would we have to expand our use of hydro or are we already using all the available sites for it? Expanding use of hydro would of course have some negative environmental consequences too, i'd want to be sure that it's worth it.
alphabeat wrote: » why do you keep banging on about 'climate skeptics and ' climate deniers ' we have climate - it is controlled by the biggest object in the solar system - the SUN . and climate changes - again because of the sun calling someone a denier or a skeptic because they believe that the biggest object in the solar system ( big hint there = 'solar' ) affects climate and not a few hairless apes with cars is the raving of a lunatics lost cause. this country needs a stable financially competent , forward thinking government - not a bunch of sandle wearing idiots and a book of climate fairy storys.
johno2 wrote: » I agree with pretty much everything you said, but hydro is a perfect candidate for handling peak load. In fact Ardnacrusha is a key part of handling our current peak loads. These days the water is only released during demand spikes. Just on the point of smart energy use, refrigeration (especially industrial scale) is a juicy low hanging fruit for this application. Washing machines and similar examples are also a good idea, but I can just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth I'll hear in the future from anti-green people who can't handle some occasional inconvenience in their lives. johno
barclay2 wrote: » Just on the issue of renewables, storing capacity and baseload generation. We currently need a back-up supply of energy to allow for unanticipated spikes in demand, and renewables cannot provide this back up reserve because the amount of power they provide fluctuates.
telekon wrote: » Maybe if we vote them back in they can triple the carbon tax rate. Yay! :rolleyes: Some of us depend on transport for their work. Disaster of a tax. €1.44 at the moment!! Jesus, like. Thanks a million ye cretins. :mad:
johno2 wrote: » I can't understand what point you think you are making here. You have linked in a very impressive looking graph which has OCGT technologies circled. To my knowledge nobody in Europe is building those anymore because CCGT is much more efficient. You have also linked to a webpage from Eirgrid which is currently showing that we are producing 1000 MW of electricity from wind turbines. Is that the best argument you can come up with to show that wind power is ineffective?We will continue to have fossil backed wind power until we are generating enough wind power to justify the huge civil engineering works required to store our excess wind power. That will require large reservoirs which we're not going to build right now because we'd have to run fossil power stations to pump water into them. In the meantime, our windfarms are saving us the equivalent of 100,000 liters of oil per hour (at the time of posting, it varies obviously) johno
