Friday, March 16, 2007
Greens decline Whitehouse invitation…
Looks like one of Northern Ireland’s political parties will not be joining the annual junket St Patrick’s celebrations in Washington. The Green’s (newly arrived as political players), have been invited, but have declined their invitation in protest at the Iraq war and the US administrations lack of commitment to tackling climate change.
From the Green Party:
“Green Partiy colleagues in the US and across the world have been consistent in their opposition to President Bush’s illegal war in Iraq. Moreover, if the Green Party is to be true to its commitment to combat climate change, we must walk the talk. The Party has decided that a two-way trip across the Atlantic to celebrate St Patrick’s Day in the Whitehouse is not a compelling reason, morally or practically, for emitting half a tonne of CO2.”
Citing the lack of leadership shown by the Bush Adminstration on climate change Dr. Barry explained: “Our decision to decline this invitation should not be read as a criticism of the American people,
but of the Bush Adminstration. Despite the Bush adminstration’s lack of commitment to tackling climate change, there are many positive signs of grassroots leadership on the issue in the United States - in California, for example. Dozens of Mayors representing some 25 million Americans have signed up to an initiative to get American cities to meet the US’s Kyoto environmental target which George Bush repudiated: cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by 2010.”
Mick Fealty @ 10:16 AM
The Greens should be called the Preaching Party of the Essenes. But, then, they do like to keep it dim, don’t they.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 10:50 AMPrinciples eh. These Green boys and girls won’t get far with that attitude.
Did any other local parties oppose the Iraq war or indeed condemn the US administration over its environmental policy?
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 10:51 AMdid anyone see dispatches on channel 4 a week or 2 ago about climate change? seems carbon dioxide is less than 1% of the atmosphere and man has contributed a tiny fraction of that. the earth has been heating up for the last 150 years but man made carbon dioxide has only been on the rise since the 1940s. add to that the fact that the earth has been much hotter than now for long periods over the last few thousand years, without mans help.
lots of facts were pointed out that make nonsense out of present CO2 worries.
having watched it i now doubt very much that man made CO2 is to blame.so fly across the atlantic as much as you want it wont make any difference to global warming…
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 10:53 AMEranu - that was one small group of scientists disputing what the overwhelming majority of their peers say.
George Monbiot’s rebuttal, among amany others. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2032575,00.html
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:05 AMThe fact that carbon dioxide is less than 1% (0.0383% according to wikipedia) is the reddest of herrings. It’s the % change that matters. Misinformation and misdirection like this are a disgrace to “science” and the “scientists” who peddle them.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:20 AMEvidence if evidence was needed about how far the Greens north of the border are from the levers of power.
I couldn’t see the Republic’s Greens taking such a “stand” so close to a Dáil election.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:21 AMWell done to the Green party, if only SF and the SDLP had showed the same principles over Iraq. (not sure what the PUP position on Iraq is]
How anyone who claims to oppose this war could break bread with Bush, whilst the slaughter in Iraq continues and he is about to light the blue touch paper on Iran is a mystery to me. If Martin McGuinness believes leaking to a Guardian journalist that SF whispered in Blairs ear that he was wrong on Iraq will exonerate his own Parties craven political cowardice over Iraq, when they gave Bush political cover by attending a White House party, then he has missed the point entirely.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:22 AMThe Greens are to be commended for their stance.
It is very rare to find a party which acts on a matter of principle when most of the others seem to say “if you don’t like this principle don’t worry we have plenty of others”Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:23 AMAn excellent move by the Greens. They are showing a considerable talent for making the right noises. The cheek of them! Brilliant.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:24 AMAs an SF member I must say fair play to the Greens, I agree with many of their basic policies in the Free State as well.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:36 AMSargent on St Patrick’s Day jaunts
“It is also somewhat contradictory that 29 government members, who will travel 300,000 kilometres by air for St Patrick’s Day and whose transport will emit 180 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions – the equivalent of driving a car for a million kilometres – have been asked to highlight global warming. This is not a credible message, when the Government is doing so little at home to help individuals and businesses to become more carbon-efficient,” concluded Deputy Sargent.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:46 AMA stance more suited to a Students Union than to a party which aspires to seriousness.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:47 AMthe greatest greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOUR (some 70% of the gases responible for the greenhouse effect) C02 is minor compared to this and will make little change to climate
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:49 AMTypical. Just when Ulster eventually says “Yes” along comes some new boy on the block and says “No!”
BTW...how much electricity does a black and decker drill use to do someone’s knees in?
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 11:56 AMHenry “A stance more suited to a Students Union than to a party which aspires to seriousness.”
Just interested in what your definition of a serious party would be then Henry. Would it include a basic lack of principles and a lick of any half-washed arse that might get you a rung up the ladder of poltiical power? Fair play to the greens for this - the only sad thing about it being that if they were ever to make it into government that there principles would most likely evaporate in the heat of the cauldron of power. Just look at what happened to the german Greens opnce Joschka Fischer and co. got in.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:04 PMI note Dr Barry said all this.
Just hope Brian didn’t have his taxi to the airport ordered!
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:07 PM14. Is it a rechargaebale or purely mains powered?
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:10 PMA rise in CO2 will raise temperature, evaporate more water from the sea, which will mean more water vapour, more temperature rise - see a pattern yet?
BTW, I wonder how much CO2 our politicians are pointlessly dumping into the air to have their faces seen at the White House?
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:13 PMDid any other local parties oppose the Iraq war or indeed condemn the US administration over its environmental policy?
Alliance have done both.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:15 PMThe Sun is responible for heating the earth , not CO2!!! C02 is a extremely minute gas in the atmosphere!
for crying out loud MARS and the other planets are experiencing climate change! The sahara desert used to be a bloody oasis , all that changed without mans help
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:25 PMThe Sun heats the earth, green house effect keeps the heat in. Your bed is warmer with a blanket, it doesn’t provide the heat.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:37 PM“A rise in CO2 will raise temperature”
thats what the masses believe. the dispatches programme showed that CO2 is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and is a tiny green house gas. as was said above, water vapour is by far the biggest green house gas. they showed that sun activity affecting the ocean which in turn affects cloud cover is what drives the temperature up.
to put things in perspective, volcanos produce more CO2 than all mans efforts put together.there were loads of facts that are never mentioned by ‘global warming’ scientists because so many people have built a job out of the belief that we have caused global warming. if we had, then the temperature graph for the last 150 years would be fairly flat with a sharp increase in the last 50 years or so. but its not. temp has been rising steadily for the last 150 years.
if its on again definately watch it.
im off to fill the car up :)
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:39 PMMook, so how come other planets are heating up ?
What caused the Sahara to turn from oasis to desert?If CO2 is to blame, why did the earths temperature DECREASE from 1940-1970 even those man made CO2 emessions were greater then than at any other time in history?
CO2 follows temperature rises.
The UK was a much warmer place a millenium ago without the help of CO2 emissions from cars or planes.
The earth, thanks to the Sun and solar activity, willheat up and cool down and theres little man can do about it.Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:42 PMand while we`re at it, the sea, trees and animals produce around 99% of all co2 emissions in the world, so man made emissions are so small any change will be neglible
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:51 PMI don’t disagree that the climate itself changes over long periods and will continue to do so no matter what we do. However, it has got to the stage where human activity is having a global impact on the planet like never before, and not just with CO2. I just think we’re throwing many spanners into the works without enough thought for the consequences.
Posted by on Mar 16, 2007 @ 12:53 PM
