The best solution to reduce Irelands carbon footprint and reduce traffic by a huge %

BigglesMcGee

A friend of mine sent this email to John Gormley in February but didnt even receive a reply to say thanks for the email. He has emailed it around to all of his friends and has given me permission to post it up here as an idea.

I believe it is so simple to implement and yet would be so effective all around that its impossible to ignore this idea. But the Green party and Minister for the Environment John Gormley has ignoed it.

Why? Probably because at the bottom of it the govt are happy with the massive tax take on Fuel an do not want to lose any of this huge revenue stream despite what they may publicly say. Also it would highlight the useless Broadband coverage we have here.

There really is no other down side to this. People and employers are not forced to take it, but if they do they get tax credits, and reduce their CO2 footprint. Win, win.

Anyway, have a read and let us know what you think. Also can i ask anyone who thinks its a good idea to emaiul it to every member of the reen party.

Also if we can keep this thread to discussing just this idea then it wont get diluted with millions of off topic posts. Can always start new threads for any other ideas.

---

Dear John

Please read the rest of this email as yourself i feel is the person who can get this idea to the people who make the decisions and help it along.
I don't know where to start with getting the idea out there and believe that you can make this happen.

I have an idea which can cut traffic on Irish roads dramatically and also ease pressure on our current infrastructure.
It negates the need for a carbon tax or road usage tax and also will all but solve our cities traffic congestion problems.

It will assist us dramatically in meeting our Kyoto commitments.

It will not hit the ordinary person in the pocket via taxes.

I am disgusted the short-sighted (lets just charge more tax) attitude of our government when there are simpler ways.
My idea is as simple as follows.

As it is i would think a massive percentage of cars driving into cities are carrying office workers or other people who may be able to work from home.
We can take a huge chunk of these cars off the road by doing the following :

1 - Give a tax credit to employers for each employee who they can get to work from home.
2 - Give a tax credit to employees who choose to work from home.

Its so simple - I feel the only reason not to do this is that the govt just want to tax people as much as possible anyway. Its disgraceful.

These credits don't have to be very high, just enough to make people think about making the switch.

This helps out employers by
a - They pay a little less tax.
b - They need less office space for their employees.
c - They save on equipment needed in offices.
d - They do not have carbon producing PCs left on all night.
e - Their goodwill will not go unnoticed.

It helps employees by
a - Saving them hours a day on commuting.
b - Allows them to spend more time with their families instead of in traffic
c - The use a fraction of the petrol they would have
d - People who cannot work from home will enjoy easier and less stressful commutes because of the reduction in traffic on the roads.

It helps the govt in general by
a - They do not have to pile more taxes upon our already penal stealth taxes.
b - They meet their Kyoto commitments.
c - Public transport chaos Will ease.
d - Infrastructure and decentralization will be much smaller issues and will cost less money.

I really hope you can see the sense in this and plug any holes that may be in the idea, but i would like it out in the public domain where it has to be at least discussed as an option.

The technology is there, lets give people an incentive to use it and reduce their carbon footprint, instead of taxing them to death.

Regards,
XXXX XXXX

---

Del2005

It's good in theory, but since the goverment is screwed for cash I can't see it happening.

AngryHippie

Thats gonna hit govt. revenue twice, Not only will they be giving back some income tax, but they are also losing out on VAT and Duty from fuel sales.

Don't get me wrong, Its a great idea, but the dept. of finance will do three sums on that one a blow it out of the water. It would wind up costing hundreds of millions out of govt. coffers.

It's gonna be funny if the hauliers go on strike though.....Central purchasings achilles heel is the humble lorry driver:eek:

BigglesMcGee

And yet it would save billions on the need to improve infrasturcture and rail links etc. I think it would save more than it costs, but not in the short term, which is al the govt are interested. Imagine how much you cold save on M50, transprt 21 if you seriously reduced the amount of commuters. Imagine how much could be saved by the commuter not having to spend money getting to work. All the tax credit would have to be would be something towards a broadband connection, hel they dont even need to give a tax credit at all probably. Just for a couple of years to start the all rolling. They dont seem interested at all in the short term well being of the country - just make announcements that mean fukc all at the end of the day.

thecaptain

Del2005 wrote: »

It's good in theory, but since the goverment is screwed for cash I can't see it happening.

quick insight mate. the government screw for cash, they are never screwed.

i dont think the fat cat expense accounts will be reined in for a while yet.

the government is a bottomless pit of cash, for the big boys.

i have also send John a few e mails, a slightly different approach. i called him a tosser, idiot, and wagon jumper and useful idiot. he did not respond to my email.

and another insight, governments give orders, they do not sit around taking advice from the plebs about how to run the show. john has no concerns about meetin "our targets", you see missed targets are big business and that at the end of the day is the foundation of the carbon tax scam.

luckat

It's a brilliant idea.

MeatProduct

It's a good idea and we could use the US as a model. I have dealings with a medium sized business over there and almost 80% of the workforce are based in home offices. They make a lot of use of WebEx to have meetings and to keep in touch as well as their own in-house project management and tracking tool that keeps everyone on common deadlines no matter where they are based.

It's also a very important consideration for the quality of life of individuals. Nobody wants to see the rest of their lives spent in an office away from their family (unless they have relationship problems, etc.).

Of course a certain amount of businesses cannot cater for the home office option. I'm curious to know what kind of percentage of Irish business could realistically have employees working from home, any ideas?

Nick

BigglesMcGee

I've seen this in several companies i've worked in in the UK. They have roaming desks so anyone who comes in just picks a desk and plugs in their laptop. Most people worked 4 days from home and one in the office with their whole team.

The companies tended to start with a few working from home but it was so well taken up that they actually embraced it and found ways to solve any problems they had with it and then expanded the concept.

One of the companies even bought a few apartments in London for overnighters and also paid air fares for their staff when they needed to go to the office. And yet they saved on costs too.

I think it would work for practically anyone who works from a desk and does not need direct interaction with people or equipment in the office.

ECOLOGICAL

Hi thats a really excellent idea thats absolutely disgraceful no politician picked up on it lobbying local politicians and keeping this post going is essential .Politicians are going to have to start working for local interests again tide is changing look at results of Lisbon Treaty ,big wake up call for politicians ,no longer is any seat safe for them they will have to earn it hard the way it should be ,a big responsibilty lies on politicians shoulders now these days and the people are watching very closely to their actions .One way to help remote working is www.logmein.com which is free if free account is set and www.crossloop.com which creates individual 12 digit code every time a login remotely is initiated.

karen3212

Sorry, I thought that companies have begun to move back to locating in large centres of population more and more, so they can pick up larger numbers of creative staff. If creativity and invention is the way forward for the west, since anything that can be automated may be outsourced or automated, then it would make sense to look toward making sure people have good public infrastructure in large centres of population. Then people get to work easily and can bounce ideas off each other all day. Of course I might be looking too far ahead for the topic at hand.

The company I work for lets people work from home, but only if you have to travel a really long distance to get to work, all the same they are very reluctant to let people do it still. They are a US company.

BigglesMcGee

ECOLOGICAL wrote: »

Hi thats a really excellent idea thats absolutely disgraceful no politician picked up on it lobbying local politicians and keeping this post going is essential .Politicians are going to have to start working for local interests again tide is changing look at results of Lisbon Treaty ,big wake up call for politicians ,no longer is any seat safe for them they will have to earn it hard the way it should be ,a big responsibilty lies on politicians shoulders now these days and the people are watching very closely to their actions .One way to help remote working is www.logmein.com which is free if free account is set and www.crossloop.com which creates individual 12 digit code every time a login remotely is initiated.

My workmate actually emailed this thread to a few journos and the top people in the green party today asking will the run with this idea and if not, why not.
Im about to send out an email now.
Everyone else who is interested here could do the same.

Grizzly 45

Great Idea...In a country where telecomms and Broadband actually functions ,and doesnt cost the Earth to use.

silverharp

leave it to the market, if the price of energy goes up to painful levels then companies will adopt it as a strategy.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

leave it to the market, if the price of energy goes up to painful levels then companies will adopt it as a strategy.

This also shows the flaw in the suggested reasoning. People keep arguing that what's needed for idea X to really, really take off is a tax-break....whilst at the same time arguing that the idea itself is cost-saving.

This makes no sense.

If an idea is cost-saving, and the argument for adopting is it reduction of cost, then it doesn't require a tax-break...particularly when, as in the case of the OP, it is argued that it need not be a large tax-break, but rather some token.

Thus, one can conclude that if companies haven't already embraced this idea wholesale, then offering them some token tax-break isn't likely to change that. There are clearly other factors at play.

Incidentally, if you wish to contact someone in government, I would make the following basic suggestions:

1) Use traditional "snail-mail" rather than e-mail.
2) Make sure your spelling and grammar are correct.
3) Stay on-topic.
4) Argue your point.

I realise that point 1 is advocating a less-green option, but you'd be amazed in the difference that's given to someone who's willing to shell out a few pennies for a stamp, and go to the trouble of envelopes, posting, and all that.

Point 2 - This should go without saying.

Point 3 - I'm sorry, but as I read through the OP, and saw a reference to "penal stealth taxes", I was thinking that if I was the TD, I'd have binned it.

Point 4 - The letter to the TD claims there's any number of benefits which will arise from this simple strategy, without explaining how they logically follow from the government introducing a tax-break.

To be honest, the entire thing read a bit to me like someone either wanting their employer to be given a reason to let them work from home, or someone who is working from home and isn't happy with most of the benefits mentioned, but wants a tax-break on top of it. Its a bit like Prius-owners crying out for a tax-break because they're not happy with all the money they're already saving.

Victor

AngryHippie wrote: »

Thats gonna hit govt. revenue twice, Not only will they be giving back some income tax, but they are also losing out on VAT and Duty from fuel sales.

Not as much as you'd think, while yes duty would be lost, the savings by commuters would be turned to other expenditure. The economy would also be more efficient.

The problem is getting employers to agree tothe loss of control over their employees.

BigglesMcGee

bonkey wrote: »

This also shows the flaw in the suggested reasoning. People keep arguing that what's needed for idea X to really, really take off is a tax-break....whilst at the same time arguing that the idea itself is cost-saving.

This makes no sense.

If an idea is cost-saving, and the argument for adopting is it reduction of cost, then it doesn't require a tax-break...particularly when, as in the case of the OP, it is argued that it need not be a large tax-break, but rather some token.

Thus, one can conclude that if companies haven't already embraced this idea wholesale, then offering them some token tax-break isn't likely to change that. There are clearly other factors at play.

Incidentally, if you wish to contact someone in government, I would make the following basic suggestions:

1) Use traditional "snail-mail" rather than e-mail.
2) Make sure your spelling and grammar are correct.
3) Stay on-topic.
4) Argue your point.

I realise that point 1 is advocating a less-green option, but you'd be amazed in the difference that's given to someone who's willing to shell out a few pennies for a stamp, and go to the trouble of envelopes, posting, and all that.

Point 2 - This should go without saying.

Point 3 - I'm sorry, but as I read through the OP, and saw a reference to "penal stealth taxes", I was thinking that if I was the TD, I'd have binned it.

Point 4 - The letter to the TD claims there's any number of benefits which will arise from this simple strategy, without explaining how they logically follow from the government introducing a tax-break.

To be honest, the entire thing read a bit to me like someone either wanting their employer to be given a reason to let them work from home, or someone who is working from home and isn't happy with most of the benefits mentioned, but wants a tax-break on top of it. Its a bit like Prius-owners crying out for a tax-break because they're not happy with all the money they're already saving.

If it clears anything up.
The idea actually came from my friends a 16 year old son. He (the son) wrote it up. Apparently his school are trying to get it in the papers now.

I believe he did point out that the tax break was for the purposes of a kick start.

"These credits don't have to be very high, just enough to make people think about making the switch."

astrofool

It's flawed, communication between workers drops massively, and innovation drops off as a result (and lets face it, this is what Ireland needs and where the money is, not more dull jobs in call centres), there are numerous studies that show this (this is an area that has been massively researched, I'll see if I can pull up the names of the papers that document this).

However, flexi time, and the ability to work from home if needed are huge boons, both allowing people to travel when traffic is less, and be able to leave early and finish up work from home.

Unfortunately this does indeed sound like an idea from a 16 year old, as it has no real world application.

AngryHippie

Its a complex problem, You talk about govt. savings by cutting on infrastructural projects, but many of these represent a direct investment into the economy, not to mention the backbone of the ailing construction industry, It is projects like the Galway motorway, M3 etc that will prevent a complete collapse of construction in Ireland during this recession, So While people not commuting will place less demand on these projects, It will not make them redundant or unnecessary. Don't forget that a large percentage of the money spent on these projects comes back into the economy through wages, taxes, etc. So cutting on these to give people an incentive not to commute, while a noble idea, is cutting of one of the solid revenue sources, upon which the govt. has already built its models.....
I'm not against the idea, but it must not be over-simplified at the expense of an easy argument

silverharp

AngryHippie wrote: »

Its a complex problem, You talk about govt. savings by cutting on infrastructural projects, but many of these represent a direct investment into the economy, not to mention the backbone of the ailing construction industry, It is projects like the Galway motorway, M3 etc that will prevent a complete collapse of construction in Ireland during this recession, So While people not commuting will place less demand on these projects, It will not make them redundant or unnecessary. Don't forget that a large percentage of the money spent on these projects comes back into the economy through wages, taxes, etc.

look at Japan as an example that building infrastructure for the sake of the economy doesn't work, it's a dead weight that creates inflation and cost in the future.