Does the government only go in for the "big shows"

brianthebard

The title is a polite way of asking if the government is only worried about hte big crises and doesn't know how to deal with day to day issues that could make a big difference in the long run.
Example; New York has banned trans fats, starting next year afaik. This is a small enough change to the law, has only good effects for citizens, and would ban something which has no benefits for peoples health. Our government has not made this move yet. Why?

no 2. ban incandescent light bulbs. We see the ads telling us how much energy we could save if we switched to the energy saving bulbs, but why not just make it into law? That way we can start to save money, energy and move towards our carbon goal. Everyone's happy.

The last time the government made small but meaningful changes like this was the plastic bag levy and the smoking ban, but since then have they given up? Are they just too preoccupied with keeping the HSE from imploding?

simu

/oops

see below

simu

You'd think the Greens especially would try to bring in some innovative small changes to prove that they have some sway in this govt but no sign of anything yet...

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

fruit gums have no benefits to peoples health, neither do cans of coke or fanta.I'd be verry interested in the health benefits of sambucca or goldschlager too, if you happen to have them handy.

simu

Mordeth wrote: »

fruit gums have no benefits to peoples health, neither do cans of coke or fanta.I'd be verry interested in the health benefits of sambucca or goldschlager too, if you happen to have them handy.

Yeah, but people are aware that too much sugar or alcohol is bad for you. It can be harder to figure out if sth contains trans fats.

brianthebard

simu wrote: »

You'd think the Greens especially would try to bring in some innovative small changes to prove that they have some sway in this govt but no sign of anything yet...

yeah I was definitely thinking of the greens as well. FG promised to put 2% veg oil/biofuel in petrol and 5% in diesel pumps if they went into government,cause that's a change that can be made without affecting engines. Mordeth you've missed the point, trans fats don't even have to be listed in nutritional content information, they contribute hugely to obesity and health problems and many people don't even know they exist. You wouldn't be taking any one product off the market by banning them, you'd just stop their use. Whereas banning wine gums or alcohol is different.

WoollyRedHat

simu wrote: »

You'd think the Greens especially would try to bring in some innovative small changes to prove that they have some sway in this govt but no sign of anything yet...

You mean the greens that have just announced an incinerator in the southside of Dublin, basicallyy a place where all our rubbish will be burnt and the fumes emitted into the sky, pre elections they were all for stopping global warming, now they're in it doesn't really matter, so they have just gone agaionst everything they said they would do.

I wouldn't expecdt anything great of the Greens anymore, they have no credibility imo.

Hotblack Desiato

brianthebard wrote: »

Example; New York has banned trans fats, starting next year afaik. This is a small enough change to the law, has only good effects for citizens, and would ban something which has no benefits for peoples health. Our government has not made this move yet. Why?

Because someone in the food industry would complain, and sue the state for interfering in free trade of goods within the single market, etc. etc. This could be an area where the EU restricts what we can do.

no 2. ban incandescent light bulbs. We see the ads telling us how much energy we could save if we switched to the energy saving bulbs, but why not just make it into law? That way we can start to save money, energy and move towards our carbon goal. Everyone's happy.

Banning them would be going too far (typically, Greenpeace want it :rolleyes:). You can't use CFLs in all fittings or with a dimmer switch. Tax them if you must but let the consumer decide whether they are appropriate for them, or not. CFLs have an environmental impact, too (they contain mercury). I'm waiting for LEDs to get more widely available and affordable before replacing the kitchen halogens, for example.

Hotblack Desiato

brianthebard wrote: »

yeah I was definitely thinking of the greens as well. FG promised to put 2% veg oil/biofuel in petrol and 5% in diesel pumps if they went into government,cause that's a change that can be made without affecting engines.

Biofuels are a con, we're not Brazil growing two crops of sugar cane a year. In our climate, factoring in the fossil fuels used in fertilizers, machinery, refining and transport of the fuel, it's debateable whether there's any real benefit at all. It's great news for farmers though especially if they can extract yet more grant money for it...

brianthebard

ninja900 wrote: »

Because someone in the food industry would complain, and sue the state for interfering in free trade of goods within the single market, etc. etc. This could be an area where the EU restricts what we can do.

Again, the NY example would say otherwise, especially considering how big business is much more involved over there.

Banning them would be going too far (typically, Greenpeace want it :rolleyes:). You can't use CFLs in all fittings or with a dimmer switch. Tax them if you must but let the consumer decide whether they are appropriate for them, or not. CFLs have an environmental impact, too (they contain mercury). I'm waiting for LEDs to get more widely available and affordable before replacing the kitchen halogens, for example.

Britain has already announced a ban, and the Irish government are talking about it but it could be almost a decade before it comes in, which is too late ito preventing Ireland from being fined. Of course cfls have an environmental impact, but much less than ordinary bulbs. And you can now get dimmer switch bulbs.

Finally, the biofuels argument wasn't for or against, merely an example of small but meaningful policy. Sugar beet could again become a worthwhile crop for example. Having said that I'm not a fan of biofuels in any case, its only an example.

mike65

Gormley announced the ban on incandescent bulbs as of 2009 about 2 hours ago.

As for little improvments in life - I nominate turning left on a red light where safe to so so.

Mike.

Hotblack Desiato

brianthebard wrote: »

Again, the NY example would say otherwise

No, it doesn't. New York is obviously not subject to EU directives. Like it or not, our government doesn't have the freedom to do as it chooses in quite a number of areas. I don't know whether that's the case in this specific area, but the EU regulates pretty much everything else to do with the food industry.

Britain has already announced a ban, and the Irish government are talking about it but it could be almost a decade before it comes in, which is too late ito preventing Ireland from being fined.

Perhaps if we paid something approaching the true cost of the energy we use, people would not be so willing to waste energy needlessly (just look at the stupid outdoor lights going up on loads of houses right now :rolleyes:)

brianthebard

ninja900 wrote: »

No, it doesn't. New York is obviously not subject to EU directives. Like it or not, our government doesn't have the freedom to do as it chooses in quite a number of areas. I don't know whether that's the case in this specific area, but the EU regulates pretty much everything else to do with the food industry.

Show me the directive that says its illegal then. I know that a number of EU countries have banned MSG/e621, a food additive. Surely that would be against your hypothetical directive?

Hotblack Desiato

brianthebard wrote: »

Show me the directive that says its illegal then. I know that a number of EU countries have banned MSG/e621, a food additive. Surely that would be against your hypothetical directive?

FFS, I didn't say it was illegal, just that it might be. You're welcome to do your own research if you want to prove or disprove it one way or the other.