Green Party savage Green Homes Scheme

by Joe Sat Sep 22, 2007 00:29

When Edelman work for the Israeli Government trying to brainwash Russians they use the affiliate 'Imageland'.

They claim to have lowered the, 'number of references to Israel in the military context', by 'news generation' and a 'Long-term PR campaign'. Well done!

But why do the Irish Government need these slick PR people to tell us the 'facts'? At least now we know why Ministers Gormley and Ryan look like demented puppets - because they are!

Slick PR or just more nauseating bull-crap?

by Lenny Sat Sep 22, 2007 01:05

I didn't look at the website of the PR firm but if what you say is true that sounds seriously dodgy, quite disturbing actually.

As for the cuts to the greener homes sheme, are you sure that's what it is? I was under the impression the scheme was about to run out totally, but that Ryan secured a smaller, extended version. Not trying to defend him however.

by Gwen Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:34

Oh yes, it's a major cut in government grants for eco-friendly home improvements. Grants, as listed below are dignificantly reduced, in some cases halved. Very significant for people who were hoping such grants would be increased, enabling them to install wood-pellet burners, solar-panels, water-heaters etc.

This marks a major change in Government policy under the Green Party, who have direct responsiblity for this area, against assisting the public to become more eco-friendly.

Biomass - Boiler reduced from €4,200 to €3,000
Heat Pump – Vert’l ground reduced from €6,500 to €3,500
Heat Pump – Horiz’l ground reduced from €4,300 to €2,500
Heat Pump - Water to water reduced from €4,300 to €2,500
Heat Pump - Air Source reduced from €4,000 to €2,000
Solar - Flat Plate reduced from €300/m2 to €250/m2

It was expected that grants would have been massively increased but as is the case with all Green Party policy, a complete reversal in what we see.

To add insult to injury, the Green Party is taking advice form a US PR company on how to tell us this is in fact "Phase Two" of the Grants and not indeed a cut!

Lining up to sell out - Gormley and Ryan

by Lenny Sat Sep 22, 2007 16:50

..perhaps because I didn't explain myself properly.

I thought that the scheme was about to RUN OUT anyway, that is it was only ever going to be available within a certain time period, and that the Greens pushed to have it continue in some form, albeit significantly reduced, which is a shame. I don't think Ryan should get the blame, whatever my feeling towards him, because would it not have run out altogether and be gone completely if it was just a FF-PD govt?

I can't believe they're using that PR firm. It's rather sick.

by Mike Novack Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:55

Did they HIRE that PR firm? Or is this a case where the PR firm offered to help them out "pro bono"? Sorry, but when it's a case of getting the best professional help an open question whther you take into account what other clients that professional outfit is willing to do work for. You don't turn down a law firm because they take on briefs for sleezebags, do you? Or if you do make that decision, you need to make it very clear because that's an "unusual" position many of us might not agree with.

And in a case like this you really do have ask whether this "reduction" was something that the Green Party wanted or the best extension they could get. They aren't exactly in a very strong position in the coalition.

Look, I understand the frustration some of the "left" must feel with the Greens agreeing to be "in government" instead of aligned with you BUT you need to look at your own decisions, what compromises YOU are willing to make with "environmental" interests to get people who are BOTH red and green to side with you. So far I have seen little evidence that you would be willing to give an inch, so sure in yourselves that the "environmental" issues are irrelevant.

Take the "bin tax" campaigns as an example. It's not so much that you campaigned against the changes as to HOW -- in total disregard of the valid issues of the "greens". You didn't, for example, argue that the poor should be compensated/subsidized to prevent them from being harmed from "pay per throw" schemes that might affect choices on the ground "to recycle or not to recycle". You argued that this was not a relevant consideration (what the environmental effects would be). In other words, you have been telling the "greens" that you don't give a damn about their concerns.

Try looking at this situation in reverse. Suppose that YOU were "in government" and the Greens a minor coaltion partner. Just how much would YOU have given on THIS ISSUE (subsidies for homeowners to install private alternative systems). Not much I bet, as it wouldn't fit with your vision of socialism and the ill being attacked in your mind irrelevant (because you believe, perhaps sincerely, that our environmental problems are an illusion caused by capitalism and like all social ills will miraculously vanish* when capitalism is ended).

* NOTE (an important one) A belief that eliminating a CAUSE of a problem will make the damage already done vanish is a separate matter from believing that cause is to blame. If a bully has been going around smashing kneecaps, eliminating that bully will prvenet MORE people getting lamed but will not correct the lameness of those already injured. So saying that it was under capitalism that our environment got so screwed up is NOT enough to justify a belief that eliminating capitalism will fix it -- and you have to justify WHY you think socialist industrial society won't be just as damaging to the environment. Understand? You need to say more about this, give you analysis of socialism with regard to the environment.