Bin Charges Protestors

Húrin

Can anybody explain why people in west Dublin continue to protest against being asked to pay for the collection of the waste they produce? I mean, it was understandable when Dublin City Council applied a blanket charge, but now that there's a pay-by-weight system, what is the justification?

It seems to me that people are just demanding the right to produce as much waste as they want and to pollute for free. If these people consumed less, and recycled and re-used more (which is what we all should be doing) they wouldn't have to pay so much.

secret_squirrel

Maybe they regard bin charges as the thin edge of a local taxation wedge, and believe that paying Income Tax, VAT and PRSI and all the other central govt taxes as enough?

Just a guess though.

monument

H&#250 wrote: »

Can anybody explain why people in west Dublin continue to protest against being asked to pay for the collection of the waste they produce? I mean, it was understandable when Dublin City Council applied a blanket charge, but now that there's a pay-by-weight system, what is the justification?

Local council ‘rates’ were abolished for residential buildings by a FF government as a self-serving political tool, after this the cost of bin and water charges etc was taken from central taxation.

So if people are being taxed for something vie central taxation, and new direct taxation is introduced, it can only mean double taxation.

As the Green Party points out, our government’s green credentials are extremely lacking, so arguments along environmental lines are weak at best.

As for pay-by-weight, some of the lightest materials can be the most environmental unfriendly (plastic, aeroboard etc).

H&#250 wrote: »

It seems to me that people are just demanding the right to produce as much waste as they want and to pollute for free. If these people consumed less, and recycled and re-used more (which is what we all should be doing) they wouldn't have to pay so much.

The EU (and common sense) says that the process should be top down - the consumers are not the original producers, the manufactures are. Just look at excessive and/or environmental unfriendly packaging on a huge amount of items.

If nobody in the government is willing to suggest that living like a tree hugger or whatever is what they want, I’m not buying their green-washing advertisement campaigns that it’s our fault.

Don’t get me wrong here, I think we look at the government to solve far too much these days. But regulating industry, packaging, and retail sectors is the most important link in ‘the race against waist’ (sic) – but these areas are largely ignored.

What is happening is a bypassing of real problems and a diversion of attention - the race against waist, the power of one etc.

The power of one not to buy a SUV for driving around town would be a far more productive advert then turn of the lights – but we wouldn’t want to shame urban SUV owners.

A great similar example is the gob****s like the case of a junior minister in the UK diverting attention from the real problems when he suggested that air travel is causing a large percentage of the pollution. It’s not. In Ireland taking bulk cargo to off rail on onto the roads (like cement which is well suited to rail) is a recent example of government linked stupidly – causing knock-on problems such as more congestion, damage to roads, etc.

Húrin

secret_squirrel wrote:

Maybe they regard bin charges as the thin edge of a local taxation wedge, and believe that paying Income Tax, VAT and PRSI and all the other central govt taxes as enough?

If this is covered by income tax, then there is no incentive to reduce the amount of waste one produces.

monument wrote:

So if people are being taxed for something vie central taxation, and new direct taxation is introduced, it can only mean double taxation.

No, it's paying for a service. See my reply to secret_squirre.

As the Green Party points out, our government’s green credentials are extremely lacking, so arguments along environmental lines are weak at best.

I agree that this government's record isn't great, but that doesn't mean that if it's a government action, then it must be environmentally unfriendly. That's like saying autobahns are bad because Nazis built them.

As for pay-by-weight, some of the lightest materials can be the most environmental unfriendly (plastic, aeroboard etc).

I don't think that households are generally producing that much foam or aeroboard.

The EU (and common sense) says that the process should be top down - the consumers are not the original producers, the manufactures are. Just look at excessive and/or environmental unfriendly packaging on a huge amount of items.

I agree entirely, although the householder does share some responsibility. This doesn't justify the blatant shirking of responsiblity that these protestors demonstrate.

If nobody in the government is willing to suggest that living like a tree hugger or whatever is what they want, I’m not buying their green-washing advertisement campaigns that it’s our fault.

Just because I'm disagreeing with the protestors, it doesn't mean that I'm taking the government's line.

RuggieBear

godwin's law

constitutionus

well basically theyre againts double taxation which is what it is. its the governments job to provide services paid for with our tax's and theyve abrogated their responsibiltiy for refuse collection here. and it is the thin edge of the wedge cause water rates are on the way after the next election. or do you think mary harney got all new house built with a facility for water meters for a laugh?

looking for a culprit? the EU , they want this and theyre gonna get it. feel free to slag me off but time will prove me right

Mr. Presentable

Trouble with the bin charges is that they lead to illegal dumping. It happens round my area all the time. I think there should be questions asked of people who don't produce enough waste! For example, two houses on my road never put out a bin. So, are they very green and efficient, or are they getting rid elsewhere?

monument

H&#250 wrote: »

If this is covered by income tax, then there is no incentive to reduce the amount of waste one produces…

No, it's paying for a service. See my reply to secret_squirre.

It’s paying for a service twice.

H&#250 wrote: »

I don't think that households are generally producing that much foam or aeroboard.

What about plactic? And anyway aeroboard-like material is a lot of electronics packaging of which we do buy a reasonably good deal of.

H&#250 wrote: »

I agree that this government's record isn't great, but that doesn't mean that if it's a government action, then it must be environmentally unfriendly. That's like saying autobahns are bad because Nazis built them.

H&#250 wrote: »

agree entirely, although the householder does share some responsibility. This doesn't justify the blatant shirking of responsiblity that these protestors demonstrate.

Just because I'm disagreeing with the protestors, it doesn't mean that I'm taking the government's line.

Of course not, but it looks like you’re buying their green-washing advertisement campaigns. The problem should be sorted top down – less unneeded packaging, less environmentally unfriendly packaging first.

nipplenuts wrote:

Trouble with the bin charges is that they lead to illegal dumping. It happens round my area all the time. I think there should be questions asked of people who don't produce enough waste! For example, two houses on my road never put out a bin. So, are they very green and efficient, or are they getting rid elsewhere?

It also has caused an increase in backyard burning, and street burning as can be seen in some parts of Dublin (for the latter, I was surprised when informed that a pile of ashes wasn’t just from vandals burning for the fun but a method of getting rid of household waste).