Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
People jaded by 'Green' issues
Options
Comments
-
I note you haven't answered my bin charges question yet.KhanTheMan wrote: »And you know this the same way you know when i started paying bin charges because you are clairvoyant. I get it.
How do I know there were serious y2k bugs that needed fixing? Because I spent several months of my life supervising a team of programmers who fixed them. How do I know that ESB had y2k bugs to fix? Because they attempted to fix them.
There's a certain amount of deductive reasoning going on here. If I'm wrong about something, show me to be wrong.0 -
No, I would rather people back up their claims with some evidence. I’m still not entirely sure what your initial claim was (regarding motor tax) so how am I supposed to know what figures to look for? Am I a clairvoyant too?
<looks at own sig>
Oh, the irony.
That’s a complete cop-out; “what’s the point in backing up my argument – nobody will believe me.”
As taconnol has already said, you provide the source and it’s then up to others to deem whether said source is credible.
The only thing I can take from all of this is that you are unable to support your argument.
Wait aminute here haven't a few of the people preaching about backing up claims here not backed their own claims. Didn't people say the motor tax take was higher only because car ownership was up since the new tax system was brought in or about flying not being the norm etc. And look at that. They haven't even checked the figures for themselves never mind back it up. These are the ones making life hard for true environmentalists.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »I note you haven't answered my bin charges question yet.
How do I know there were serious y2k bugs that needed fixing? Because I spent several months of my life supervising a team of programmers who fixed them. How do I know that ESB had y2k bugs to fix? Because they attempted to fix them.
There's a certain amount of deductive reasoning going on here. If I'm wrong about something, show me to be wrong.
You assume you know things about people when you don't.
Looks like you're famous for it on boards too.0 -
I think you’ll find that I did back up my claims about car ownership here:KhanTheMan wrote: »Wait aminute here haven't a few of the people preaching about backing up claims here not backed their own claims. Didn't people say the motor tax take was higher only because car ownership was up since the new tax system was brought in...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57129350&postcount=58
Here’s some more figures for you; car sales in July 2008 (after the new tax system came into force) were up 25% on sales in July 2007:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0805/breaking37.htmIrish Times wrote:New car sales surged in July as motorists took advantage of the introduction of lower taxes for more environmentally friendly vehicles.
New figures released today by the Society of the Irish Motor Industry (Simi) show 16,386 new cars were sold last month, compared to 13,150 in July 2007. The figures represent an increase of 24.61 per cent.
Now, are you going to back up your claim that the new motor tax system is effectively a “stick in the name of the environment”? Sounds like opinion to me.0 -
Khan, the majority of the population are with you
. 0 -
Advertisement
-
If I'm wrong about something, show me to be wrong.KhanTheMan wrote: »You assume you know things about people when you don't.
Really?Looks like you're famous for it on boards too.0 -
'....It's generally a great way for the Governments to rake in revenue for doing nothing really...'The greens always have to have some silly thing to nark on about. It's generally a great way for the Governments to rake in revenue for doing nothing really.
In general the people are really fed up to the bones of listening to the tree hugging tail wagging nonsense that comes out of the mouths of the so called " green side ".
I know some people here will slate me for my comments but sorry guys, everyone really is fed up of the crap. We're not going to give up our daily comforts or our holidays to Spain. Around me there are 15 or 20 people, all of which feel the whole " going green " thing is absolute waffle. If there was a reasonable arguement then people would listen, weather records have been kept for a very short time, for anyone to judge climate change based on just over 100 years data is just stone mad.
The opposite is in fact true. There are very real environmenal issues which need to be urgently addressed in Ireland, ranging from energy, pollution, quality water availability and availability of quality food produce.
The main problem is actually getting backing from the government to implement the critical changes. Generally, these changes come too late if and when they come at all. So, you may forget the idea that it is a politically driven money spinner.
I find many people share your mistrust and apathy for 'green' issues. I think it's because you assosiate it with 'tree-hugging hippies'. Perhaps, if you understood the very real effects it will have on your near future, then you will feel less inclined to dismiss it as a 'fad'.0 -
-
Tell me this, what " change " do -you- feel is necessary ? I'm a reasonable guy, i'm so fed up of all these green taxes I have lost any interest I have had in going green.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
I think we've drifted away from the point here. I do think people are jaded and partially because some previous issues lacked credibility.
For example - the incinerator issue in Ringaskiddy in Cork neatly ignored (or was unaware of) the fact that several local pharmas already have their own incinerators operational in the region. However this raises an additional question of what damage these are doing or who is monitoring their output?
Another one is the suggestion that we were going to run out of fossil fuels before the millenium. For me, that really put the credibility of a lot of environmental groups on the line. If the information is inaccurate, why should we take them seriously? Likewise Brent Spar - it turned out that Greenpeace's estimates were way out of kilter with the real amount of oil remaining - but at the same time it didn't clash with the fundamental issue of the most appropriate way to deal with disused platforms etc.
The problem now is that its inconvenient and impinges on our quality of life. Back in the days when bin collections were free and fuel not too expensive it was easy to not think of consequences. Likewise its hard to get people to think about water when it appears to be a free and unlimited commodity.
I was surprised a while ago when an OU classmate told me he had driven from close to Banbridge to a tutorial in north Dublin at 50mph to conserve fuel. For a lot of gombeen ovrgrown boy and girl racers in Ireland a couple of years ago this would've been unthinkable. Yet people are starting to think about it and do it. When it hits them in the pocket it gets real.
Likewise bottle banks - few people bothered with these a few years back and often they were extremely inconveniently placed, especially for non-car owners. Now they are seriously overflowing as people try to limit waste due to pay-by-weight charging.
Part of the problem is that people don't want to change their lifestyles and sacrifice conveniences. The reality is that we don't really know where we are going, who is giving the most accurate information and what will happen if we don't.0 -
Which green taxes are you talking about? At present, the benefits of going green far outweigh the 'head-in-the-sand' alternative.Tell me this, what " change " do -you- feel is necessary ? I'm a reasonable guy, i'm so fed up of all these green taxes I have lost any interest I have had in going green.
For example, you can actually pay less road tax on a vehicle with low emissions and run it on low priced and low taxed Bio fuel. You can obtain grants which will allow you insulate your home (with natural products) so you save on heating bills and fuel consumption. An A1 BER rated home will reduce fuel ingestion. All these measures actually help you save money. What's tiring about that?
Also, despite the Kyoto Protocol adding immense pressure for countries like ours to reduce our carbon footprint, NO carbon tax will be imposed in the governments Budget, despite worsening emissions rates in this country.0 -
To be fair, I think that most activists around Ringaskiddy who oppose the incinerators are only too aware of the existing incinerators in their area, not to mention the environmental hazard of the steel plant. The two new incinerators will of course have a capacity far greater than all the others in the area combined. This is perhaps not the right thread to argue for or against this, but I would challenge your assertion that the presence of other incinerators implies that the issue "lacked credibility", as you put it.I think we've drifted away from the point here. I do think people are jaded and partially because some previous issues lacked credibility.
For example - the incinerator issue in Ringaskiddy in Cork neatly ignored (or was unaware of) the fact that several local pharmas already have their own incinerators operational in the region. However this raises an additional question of what damage these are doing or who is monitoring their output?
A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent. Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. Increased government revenue from increased fuel prices could be employed for carbon mitigation programmes, - the other purpose of a carbon tax. However, that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives. Personally, I believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish, for better or worse.EyeOnTheBall wrote: »Also, despite the Kyoto Protocol adding immense pressure for countries like ours to reduce our carbon footprint, NO carbon tax will be imposed in the governments Budget, despite worsening emissions rates in this country.0 -
'....A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent...'To be fair, I think that most activists around Ringaskiddy who oppose the incinerators are only too aware of the existing incinerators in their area, not to mention the environmental hazard of the steel plant. The two new incinerators will of course have a capacity far greater than all the others in the area combined. This is perhaps not the right thread to argue for or against this, but I would challenge your assertion that the presence of other incinerators implies that the issue "lacked credibility", as you put it.
A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent. Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. Increased government revenue from increased fuel prices could be employed for carbon mitigation programmes, - the other purpose of a carbon tax. However, that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives. Personally, I believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish, for better or worse.
That is stating the obvious. No one can accurately determine the effectiveness of any plan until it becomes active. However, as a theoretical model, it provides a starting solution to a problem.
'...Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. ..'
That sentence is apathetic at best. Does it make sense to abandon a pro-active project merely because an economic disaster has made that decision for you. An incentive to use less fuel is still a required agenda.
'....that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives....'
So, you're telling me that the Green Party are no longer part of government and therefore are unable to pitch for green funding?
I personally, do not understand where your argument is going.0 -
Quoted For Truth. The current Green policy seesm to amount to "Tax, Ban and Regulate."KhanTheMan wrote: »On people not knowing good ideas if it hit them in the head i point to the people with the stick attitude to changing peoples behaviour.
Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.
How about giving companies some tax breaks for each person they move to working a 10 hour 4 day week. One day less cars on the road.
Or what about building big free Park and Ride facilities near rural train stations (like in the UK and cities around the USA) instead of charging people who HAVE to drive miles to the station.
What about taxing petrol instead of road tax. The more you use the more you pay. Oh wait, they do both.
There are so many things that can be done FOR the general population.0 -
Ref: KhanTheMan
'...Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges...'
This is an inaccurate statement. There are many measures to encourage environmental changes. You mention taxes, yet the government have brought in initiatives to reduce tax on certain eco-compliances ie. reduction of road tax on low emission cars. There are lots of grants available which I would consider to be pro-active ie insulation, heating systems etc which all significantly reduce the carbon footprint. (see www.sei.ie)
Please provide evidence of your statement which supports the idea that the only measures employed are based on a system of taxes and charges.0 -
If it's stating the obvious why challenge it??EyeOnTheBall wrote: »'....A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent...'
That is stating the obvious.
...and it HAS been extensively modelled. CO2 emissions targets set by the EU and commited to by the government are coming under sustained attack from the ESRI, no less, because the models show that they're unrealistic and unachievable. According to the ESRI models, an additional €3 levy on a litre of petrol would be needed to achieve the target. Do you believe that that's a "starting solution"? If so, you belief defies all theoretical models that you refer to.No one can accurately determine the effectiveness of any plan until it becomes active. However, as a theoretical model, it provides a starting solution to a problem.
But I'm not arguing against the imposition of a carbon tax! You're trying to pigeonhole me here. I do believe however that the incentive to reduce energy consumption, which is one of the goals of a carbon tax, is equally provided to the consumer by energy price rises brought about other effects. The difference with carbon tax that you can decide which sectors of the economy should pay it and you can determine how the revenue is spent, and these are the more contentious issues for economists. But with rising energy prices, the scope for introduction of a carbon tax is reduced, in political and economic terms, and the issue of who should pay it becomes even more contentious.'...Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. ..'
That sentence is apathetic at best. Does it make sense to abandon a pro-active project merely because an economic disaster has made that decision for you. An incentive to use less fuel is still a required agenda.
It's clear you're on the offensive, but I'm not sure why. At least credit me with knowing who's in government! A programme for government was agreed between FF and the Green party last year. In it, there was a commitment to introduce a carbon tax within the lifetime of the government. Personally, unlike yourself, I believe it will be introduced, (if the government lasts the 5 years), but perhaps not in Budget 09. There was no commitment in the programme for government to redeploy unexpected windfall taxes accrued due to increased fuel prices for "green funding", as you call it. It would be naive to believe that in the current economic climate the Green party could secure funding over and above what was agreed in the programme for government.'....that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives....'
So, you're telling me that the Green Party are no longer part of government and therefore are unable to pitch for green funding?0 -
KhanTheMan wrote: »Heard that one from a friend in ESB International. He told me it wasnt a catastrophic failure at all, and was actually down to bugs in changes introduced by the attempt to be Y2K compliant. The Irony.
I worked there at the time. This is the true version of that comical episodeKhanTheMan wrote: »On people not knowing good ideas if it hit them in the head i point to the people with the stick attitude to changing peoples behaviour.
Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.
How about giving companies some tax breaks for each person they move to working a 10 hour 4 day week. One day less cars on the road.
Or what about building big free Park and Ride facilities near rural train stations (like in the UK and cities around the USA) instead of charging people who HAVE to drive miles to the station.
What about taxing petrol instead of road tax. The more you use the more you pay. Oh wait, they do both.
What about building 2 - way Bus only roads down the middle of the motorways like in Chicago. They are just like trains but more flexible when they break down and can be moved out of the way or drive around obstructions. Capacity can be increased by adding another bus easily instead of buying new expensive trains.
There are so many things that can be done FOR the general population.
Agree with you 100%.0 -
Carbon Taxes will be introduced. No doubt about it, especially on flights. But they will be more in the form of Mandatory carbon offsetting (i have some insider info on the discussions with the airline industry - Dont even ask).
eg a Dublin to Warsaw return flight would cost about a fiver to offset.
Or Dublin - New York return about €15
People, You should be offsetting voluntarily anyway, so no great pain in this and very fair to all involved.0 -
Maniac101:If it's stating the obvious why challenge it??
...and it HAS been extensively modelled. CO2 emissions targets set by the EU and commited to by the government are coming under sustained attack from the ESRI, no less, because the models show that they're unrealistic and unachievable. According to the ESRI models, an additional €3 levy on a litre of petrol would be needed to achieve the target. Do you believe that that's a "starting solution"? If so, you belief defies all theoretical models that you refer to.
But I'm not arguing against the imposition of a carbon tax! You're trying to pigeonhole me here. I do believe however that the incentive to reduce energy consumption, which is one of the goals of a carbon tax, is equally provided to the consumer by energy price rises brought about other effects. The difference with carbon tax that you can decide which sectors of the economy should pay it and you can determine how the revenue is spent, and these are the more contentious issues for economists. But with rising energy prices, the scope for introduction of a carbon tax is reduced, in political and economic terms, and the issue of who should pay it becomes even more contentious.
It's clear you're on the offensive, but I'm not sure why. At least credit me with knowing who's in government! A programme for government was agreed between FF and the Green party last year. In it, there was a commitment to introduce a carbon tax within the lifetime of the government. Personally, unlike yourself, I believe it will be introduced, (if the government lasts the 5 years), but perhaps not in Budget 09. There was no commitment in the programme for government to redeploy unexpected windfall taxes accrued due to increased fuel prices for "green funding", as you call it. It would be naive to believe that in the current economic climate the Green party could secure funding over and above what was agreed in the programme for government.
(a) Your opening point was stating the obvious. It worries me that you have a problem with someone challenging that.
(b) The ESRI says carbon tax is cheapest way to cut emissions. The ESRI says an EU-wide tax on CO2 emissions would ensure that Irish industries, like farming, would not be at a disadvantage compared to other European countries. The ESRI are not taking a negative stance on Carbon taxes.
Copy and paste link
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0716/ireland/mhgbsnsncwau/
(c) I never made a point of 'who should pay the taxes'. Why are you using this as a counter point?
(d) I mentioned that there were no carbon taxes within the new budget. You jumped to the conclusion that I don't think this will be initiated at any point. Never said that.
(e) The current economic climate will determine whether or not green funding will be available. This point is correct, however, revenue remains 'potentially' accessible to Green Party initiatives. Do not completely rule it out. Green issues are at the fore of the political agenda, it is not naive to assume that revenue will be geared towards them.
I would be interested in hearing why you believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish?0 -
Advertisement
-
How does paying money offset any carbon emmissions ?:rolleyes:
The airplane is going to go there anyway, it's going to give off emmissions anyway. Handing some scummy government €15 for the pleasure turns people off all of this.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
As has already been explained, the logic behind a carbon tax is 2-fold:How does paying money offset any carbon emmissions ?:rolleyes:
1) As a deterrant that is directly proportional, and thus fair, to the amount of pollution, or carbon emitted.
2) To recoup the cost of removing the pollution and dealing with its impacts on the environment.
I get really disheartened when I see posts like this. You must have left your thinking cap at home. If people are deterred from flying, the plane won't be going. That is the point. And if people do decide to go anyway, then they will at least be contributing to the mess they're leaving behind.The airplane is going to go there anyway, it's going to give off emmissions anyway. Handing some scummy government €15 for the pleasure turns people off all of this.
Why should I pay, through my taxes, for all these carbon credits that the government has had to buy, when I rarely drive my car, etc? Polluter pays.0 -
If these are addressed to me, then I don't know why, since I didn't say that I, or the ESRI for that matter, was against the imposition of a carbon tax. (I also have no idea why you're worried!) You should try a little harder to read what people post before responding to them.EyeOnTheBall wrote: »Maniac101:
(a) Your opening point was stating the obvious. It worries me that you have a problem with someone challenging that.
(b) The ESRI says carbon tax is cheapest way to cut emissions. The ESRI says an EU-wide tax on CO2 emissions would ensure that Irish industries, like farming, would not be at a disadvantage compared to other European countries. The ESRI are not taking a negative stance on Carbon taxes.
Copy and paste link
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0716/ireland/mhgbsnsncwau/
(c) I never made a point of 'who should pay the taxes'. Why are you using this as a counter point?
(d) I mentioned that there were no carbon taxes within the new budget. You jumped to the conclusion that I don't think this will be initiated at any point. Never said that.
(e) The current economic climate will determine whether or not green funding will be available. This point is correct, however, revenue remains 'potentially' accessible to Green Party initiatives. Do not completely rule it out. Green issues are at the fore of the political agenda, it is not naive to assume that revenue will be geared towards them.
No you wouldn't. You're clearly interested in arguing only for argument's sake, - which is something that I don't care to entertain.I would be interested in hearing why you believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish?
Do you think it would be acceptable to post in the Parenting forum that you hate kids, or in the Soccer forum that football was only for girls?How does paying money offset any carbon emmissions ?:rolleyes:
The airplane is going to go there anyway, it's going to give off emmissions anyway. Handing some scummy government €15 for the pleasure turns people off all of this.0 -
Manic101:
Perhaps your style of writing confuses me into believing you haven't a clue how to make a distinct point. Maybe that's what it is.
Up until now, I was genuinely interested into hearing why you believed carbon taxes will be the rock the Green Party perish on. But let's move on.0 -
EyeOnTheBall wrote: »Up until now, I was genuinely interested into hearing why you believed carbon taxes will be the rock the Green Party perish on. But let's move on.
Judging by your comments here and the disingenous tone of your responses I would agree with manic - that . . . . no you werent.
You were too busy liking the sound of your own voice and trying not very successfully to sound clever at somone elses expense.0 -
Any danger we could leave the handbags out of it, and actually have a discussion?
Thanks.0 -
Thanks for your interesting reply.Judging by your comments here and the disingenous tone of your responses I would agree with manic - that . . . . no you werent.
You were too busy liking the sound of your own voice and trying not very successfully to sound clever at somone elses expense.0 -
Allow me to clarify: my last post wasn't a request.0
-
Actually I was at a Green party meeting last night to select the candidate for next year's local elections. The guy who won was suggesting just such a system. Not just with water, but also transport, gardens, energy use, etc. I was skeptical in the sense that it sounds a bit like a tool to merely incentivise a kind of aesthetic "green lifestyle", more than a concrete environmental policy. But it probably has some merit to it.KhanTheMan wrote: »How about we go ahead and install water meters but allow those who use less to claim back some tax as they havent used the resource as much as others. Oh no, not a chance i of that happening.
You think the rising oil prices that will soon make cheap flights history, are because of taxes?KhanTheMan wrote: »Cheap air travel is actually the norm now, unless you havent noticed that Ryanair arent the only airline and that you can get to New York for a day or two wages. Been like that for a few years now too. I dont see this changeing ever - just the govts adding taxes now and again in the name of the environment.
What is wrong with this? In my garden I can grow most of the vegetables I need, which is pretty green in my book. Ireland is different, culturally, from Scandinavia. It is not a case that we need to be civilised to be more like Scandinavia - as many Danes, Swedes and Norwegians seem to think.The reason you're living in a house in Kildare and not an apartment in Dublin is due to a million human induced factors:
-Irish reluctance to live in apartments ("no, I want a garden! A gaarrdennn"!!")
While as a cyclist I would love to see Ireland embrace the bike more, Dublin is not the death trap it's usually made out to be. Besides, Sweden is equally, if not more of a car-dependent country than Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree, as do many in the green party and even more among non-Green environmentalists. But there's a problem: Fianna Fáil, and they love stealth taxes.KhanTheMan wrote: »On people not knowing good ideas if it hit them in the head i point to the people with the stick attitude to changing peoples behaviour.
Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.0
Advertisement