Are We Sufficiently "Green" Qualified?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sophrosyne

Registered User
Messages
1,577
While not a major election issue this time around, “Green” is an exponentially growing EU and global concern.

The reason I pose this question was that back in the day a friend of mine attended a high level conference on the oil industry in Ireland, which included inter alia representatives of the oil industry and the government.

What struck him was that the governmental representatives were very much and disappointingly on the back foot as they had no oil industry expert – not even one.

I accept that every political party needs a knowledge mix, but do any of the Green Party members, including MEPs have “Green” qualifications.

The current EU “Green Deal” will have profound implications for our economy, our businesses and our daily lives.
 
Last edited:
I am not clear on your question.

Ask you wondering if Green Party people have any scientific or economic expertise on areas of "Green" concern, to go with their enthusiasm.
 
Good question. The Australian government established a Green Skills forum which came up with a green skills plan which was in turn endorsed by the Australian government. That was a decade ago. I don’t think we have gone on the same journey.
Given the emotive nature of most public discourse in this country, from housing to immigrants to the health service I don’t see this being any different.
 
the greens are simply a bunch of new age hippies, they will have their day in the sun for a few years but come the next election they will be kicked into touch just like labour. they are in now just to make up the numbers.
 
The whole push for biofuel and diesel by greens in the past has worked out so well.
I wonder what the next backfire will be.
 
blueband said:
the greens are simply a bunch of new age hippies, they will have their day in the sun for a few years but come the next election they will be kicked into touch just like labour. they are in now just to make up the numbers.
Click to expand...
Ah no, That's just not true. They may not get the same seats in the next election but climate change it real (and the world is round).
 
What I mean is do we know exactly what “green” means before spending billions?

And it will be billions.

Ireland supports the EU Green Deal.

This deal aims to activate at least €1 trillion (which might not be enough) in order to become the first zero-emission region by 2050.

Roughly half of this will come from the EU budget, at least €300b from national contributions and the balance from the private sector. Bear in mind that the now exited UK was the 3rd or 4th largest net contributors to the EU budget in recent years.

The European Banking Authority is assessing whether capital required for banks to deal with potential risks could be lowered when they provide credit and loans to sustainable-related projects. This beneficial regulatory treatment would incentivise credits to “green” causes.

The EBA chief. Jose Manuel Campa, already questioned this.

In an interview with EURACTIV, he said:

“The assessment of risks has to be evidence-based. “We’re not going to get to a green economy if in the process we end up encouraging banks to be insolvent, and get into another financial crisis.”

There will be a lot of money sloshing around for green based projects.

I fear through lack of expertise this could end similar to the property-based tax incentives, which engendered crazy borrowing, a get-rich-quick mentality among professional and amateur property developers and a race to the bottom in the quality of urban renewal.

All political parties will have to have “green” policies, but for the Greens it is their raison d'être.
 
Last edited:
Purple said:
Ah no, That's just not true. They may not get the same seats in the next election but climate change it real (and the world is round).
Click to expand...
climate change is indeed real but I wouldn't be banking on the greens to solve the problem, part of their plan is to halt all new road infrastructure and put in cycle lanes...that and a raft of new taxes should set us back a few decades. you could laugh at the greens if they were not so downright dangerous.
 
blueband said:
climate change is indeed real but I wouldn't be banking on the greens to solve the problem, part of their plan is to halt all new road infrastructure and put in cycle lanes...that and a raft of new taxes should set us back a few decades. you could laugh at the greens if they were not so downright dangerous.
Click to expand...
You're entitled to your opinion but I happen to agree with them that the balance between spending on roads versus public transport needs to change. I would agree with them that we do need to spend more on public transport which obviously means less on roads. I also fully agree that we need more cycle lanes in our cities and large towns. I personally don't see what is dangerous about that!
 
Ceist Beag said:
You're entitled to your opinion but I happen to agree with them that the balance between spending on roads versus public transport needs to change. I would agree with them that we do need to spend more on public transport which obviously means less on roads. I also fully agree that we need more cycle lanes in our cities and large towns. I personally don't see what is dangerous about that!
Click to expand...

Halting all new road infrastructure is not balance, so you don't actually seem to be agreeing with them!
It is dangerous if it means dangerous roads and known blackspots are not tackled.

By all means push for better cycling infrastructure and better public transport, and obviously that has to come at the expense of something, but all halting all new road infrastructure is something for a college debating society not a serious political party.
Won't this mean new developments (commercial and residential) are unfeasible also, if they require road infrastructure to them?

Besides, don't those electric cars they want us to drive need roads? Or are they scifi hover versions?
 
Odyssey I think we both know they would not get everything they want if they do go into government! If as a compromise they end up getting more money spent on public transport and less on roads I'm good with that. I'm sure you know they won't get a block on spending on roads.
BTW all new road infrastructure does not mean fixing dangerous roads.
 
Ceist Beag said:
Odyssey I think we both know they would not get everything they want if they do go into government! If as a compromise they end up getting more money spent on public transport and less on roads I'm good with that. I'm sure you know they won't get a block on spending on roads.
BTW all new road infrastructure does not mean fixing dangerous roads.
Click to expand...

So you're not in favour of their actual declared policy?

And sometimes to fix a dangerous stretch of road you need new road infrastructure to do so if it's more than just potholes and putting up a few signs.
 
blueband said:
climate change is indeed real but I wouldn't be banking on the greens to solve the problem, part of their plan is to halt all new road infrastructure and put in cycle lanes...that and a raft of new taxes should set us back a few decades. you could laugh at the greens if they were not so downright dangerous.
Click to expand...
I don't think that means no investment in roads at all. It's more things like the Galway bypass. We need to tackle urban sprawl and that means better transport within our cities, not more dormitory estates outside them.
I cycle in Dublin city centre frequently and while I won't use any cycle lane which is just a line on a footpath as pedestrians are more dangerous than motorists I do find it generally safer than it was 20-25 years ago. Motorists are far more considerate of cyclists now than they were back then.
 
odyssey06 said:
Halting all new road infrastructure is not balance, so you don't actually seem to be agreeing with them!
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood their policy, it states:

We will secure 10% of the capital transport budget for walking, 10% for cycling and will split the remainder 2:1 in favour of public transport over road building and maintenance.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the manifesto stating they want to stop all road building and maintenance.

odyssey06 said:
Won't this mean new developments (commercial and residential) are unfeasible also, if they require road infrastructure to them?
Click to expand...

That work is mostly funded by the developers.
 
Leo said:
I think you misunderstood their policy, it states:
There's nothing in the manifesto stating they want to stop all road building and maintenance.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification... I was quoting a reply to an original post which mentioned: "part of their plan is to halt all new road infrastructure" and which was responded to as such.
Had it been challenged originally on that basis I would not have gone down that rabbit hole.
 
As the EU as a whole it would be nice not to be beholding to police states like Russia for our gas and some of the most oppressive states in the world such as Saudi Arabia for our oil.
It would be nice to start investing in what will be the dominant technologies in energy, transport etc for decades to come instead of dying technology.
In Ireland specifically it would be nice to have proper sustainable urban planning.
It would be nice to have good public transport.
It would be nice to have cheap energy efficient houses built using modern construction methods.
It would be nice to see policies which move farming towards what is sustainable both environmentally and ecologically rather than throwing more and more money at financing the gap between what they produce and what customers want.

On all of these topics and more the Greens have apositive, measured and constructive police platform.

They can be a bit bonkers on taxation; they think we should stop stealing taxes from other countries.
 
odyssey06 said:
Thanks for the clarification...
Click to expand...

No prob. I'd be of the same opinion that stopping all new investment wouldn't be a good thing, but there is a balance. New roads just seem to attract more traffic. There was a lot of talk back at the time that there wasn't sufficient traffic volumes to justify the expansion of the M50, it wasn't long before that came under pressure.
 
Purple said:
In Ireland specifically it would be nice to have proper sustainable urban planning.
It would be nice to have good public transport.
Click to expand...
On these two topics - we live out in Lusk, and it seems that the concept of town planning does not exist. We have just been seeing more and more houses built in a town that already has inadequate facilities and transport infrastructure.
 
Seagull said:
On these two topics - we live out in Lusk, and it seems that the concept of town planning does not exist. We have just been seeing more and more houses built in a town that already has inadequate facilities and transport infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Lusk should have thousands of more houses and apartments because of its location to Dublin ,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top