Green budget

Macha

Did anyone notice any "green" aspects to the budget? Anything you were hoping for that didn't happen?

I caught a bit of there being tax relief for cycling to work and €200 tax p.a. on work parking spaces. A bit rusty on the details.

Húrin

I think there is increased funding for water treatment and home insulation. But it's nowhere near enough. Again, the purpose of the greens' presence in government is seriously in question. Given the gravity of the problems the Greens specialise in, it's extremely frustrating to even think about continuing to support them.

blackbox

So how does charging an employer 200 euro for a parking space equate to "green".

step 1 - employer charged for parking spaces

step 2 - hard pressed employer decides to reduce costs by reducing/removing parking spaces

step 3 - employee has to drive around town for an extra 30 minutes looking for a spot to park, and probably has to pay more for it.

result: more traffic congestion, more pollution, more consumption of precious fossil fuels, employer dissatisfaction, employee dissatisfaction (and a little more money for the government to keep the public service happy).

Will the employee give up his job - what do you think?

Will the employee use public transport? - not likely - anyone for whom this is practical will already be doing it.

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

I think there is increased funding for water treatment and home insulation. But it's nowhere near enough. Again, the purpose of the greens' presence in government is seriously in question. Given the gravity of the problems the Greens specialise in, it's extremely frustrating to even think about continuing to support them.

I think you might be right. What would you have liked to have seen apart from funding for treatment & insulation? What do you think about the Metro being given the go-ahead?

blackbox wrote: »

So how does charging an employer 200 euro for a parking space equate to "green".

step 1 - employer charged for parking spaces

step 2 - hard pressed employer decides to reduce costs by reducing/removing parking spaces

step 3 - employee has to drive around town for an extra 30 minutes looking for a spot to park, and probably has to pay more for it.

result: more traffic congestion, more pollution, more consumption of precious fossil fuels, employer dissatisfaction, employee dissatisfaction (and a little more money for the government to keep the public service happy).

Will the employee give up his job - what do you think?

Will the employee use public transport? - not likely - anyone for whom this is practical will already be doing it.

OK firstly, there a few reasons why free private car spaces are bad:
1) They're only available to a select few private individuals so when they're not being used by them, they're effectively wasted, empty space.
Eg, there's a car park just off stephen's green near Elverys-it's basically empty every weekend.
2) These spaces do encourage people to drive to work because
a) they're free
b) they don't have to go looking for them
c) they're usually very close to the place of work

3) It is incredibly expensive for an employer to provide car spaces. We were lectured by a parking consultant and he estimated the cost at either €4000 or €5000 /year (Twas a while ago...). This included rental of the space, maintenance, lighting, cleaning,employment of security guards, video-taping, video cameras etc.

I may be mistaken but I think it's the employee that will be charged the €200, not the employer. With over 50% of Irish people driving to work (according to Census 2006), I don't think everyone who could be cycling/using public transport is doing so.

I would have liked to see a few more carrots, as people on here have noted that there are a lot of sticks. Especially in transport, whereby you have to provide viable alternatives. For example, if they want people to cycle, they should also invest in decent cycle tracks & change the law that you can park in a non-mandatory cycle lane for 30mins (what garda is going to sit & wait 30mins to give you a ticket..) and cycle lanes that end at 7pm, when cyclists actually need them more - when it's darker & more dangerous.

rathbaner

Gormley announces carbon budget

RTE.ie Wednesday, 15 October 2008 15:53
40% of the country's electricity is to be secured through renewable sources by the year 2020, an increase of 7% on the previous target.
The announcement was contained in this year's Carbon Budget, which was presented to the Dáil by Environment Minister John Gormley.
The Green Party leader said that statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency showed that greenhouse gas emissions decreased by more than 1% last year.
Advertisement

However, Mr Gormley said he could not guarentee that the Government's target of reducing emissions by 3% each year would be achieved in 2008.
The Minister said a significant effort to make public transport more appealing was pending.
He said this would include ensuring bus passangers can know what times buses will arrive at individual stops, rather than when they leave the terminus.
On the new motor tax system, which rewards lower-emission vehicles, Mr Gormley said the first three months of the new system showed a strong trend towards the public buying smaller cars.
Emissions from agriculture, the largest emitting sector, have increased, but Minister Gormley said he hoped this would reduce with a longer grazing season.
A leading member of the ESRI has estimated Ireland's emissions jumped by nearly 5% in 2007.

leeroybrown

It appears that the car parking issue is very light on detail due to the budget being brought forward. From what I've heard this morning it looks like the employer will be charged the €200 per parking space and after that it's up to them to decide how to deal with the cost. It'll be interesting to see how various employers deal with this.

In my case I have a work parking permit that I rarely use as I generally cycle to work rather than use my car. If my employer falls under this new scheme the cost that they'll need to deal with will be very significant.

brianthebard

Húrin wrote: »

I think there is increased funding for water treatment and home insulation. But it's nowhere near enough. Again, the purpose of the greens' presence in government is seriously in question. Given the gravity of the problems the Greens specialise in, it's extremely frustrating to even think about continuing to support them.

Purpose of the greens in government was always in question tbh, this is just making it painfully clear to all concerned. What's the purpose of declaring a new renewable energy target if we haven't even met the old one, and afaik are not on track to achieve it either?

Macha

leeroybrown wrote: »

It appears that the car parking issue is very light on detail due to the budget being brought forward. From what I've heard this morning it looks like the employer will be charged the €200 per parking space and after that it's up to them to decide how to deal with the cost. It'll be interesting to see how various employers deal with this.

Just checked this and its the employee who will pay the levy, not the employer

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1015/1224020737542.html

brianthebard wrote: »

Purpose of the greens in government was always in question tbh, this is just making it painfully clear to all concerned. What's the purpose of declaring a new renewable energy target if we haven't even met the old one, and afaik are not on track to achieve it either?

Well the original target was 33% for 2020 and now its 40%. I don't know what the current figure is..SEI website is acting up. I think a big criticism was that we weren't aiming high enough so at least they've done something about it.

leeroybrown

taconnol wrote: »

Just checked this and its the employee who will pay the levy, not the employer

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1015/1224020737542.html

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. It still doesn't attribute the claim to any official source though. It conflicts with what I had been told this morning which was apparently a comment by a minister. I think that further illustrates how little work has gone into this thus far.

If that's the case then the question I have now is, do I the cyclist end up footing the bill for the (oversubscribed shared) parking space that I'm allowed to use but generally don't? Hopefully I'll just be able to give up my permit and escape liability.

jaycen

leeroybrown wrote: »

Thanks. I hadn't seen that. It still doesn't attribute the claim to any official source though. It conflicts with what I had been told this morning which was apparently a comment by a minister. I think that further illustrates how little work has gone into this thus far.

If that's the case then the question I have now is, do I the cyclist end up footing the bill for the (oversubscribed shared) parking space that I'm allowed to use but generally don't? Hopefully I'll just be able to give up my permit and escape liability.

Levy is on the employee as tacannol said.

I'd imagine that once you don't have the permit then you won't pay (could be wrong knowing the way this government does things.)

leeroybrown

I'd still like to hear some official confirmation from somewhere if anyone has a link.

This will be extremely entertaining in my place of work anyway. There's a sizable element who somehow feel the 'right' to car parking here...

Macha

Admittedly the particular words used by Lenihan were a bit unclear. But here's a Q & A on the topic from the Irish Times. Not sure if that's official enough for you:

http://scripts.ireland.com/askexperts/special/budget/2009/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewanswer&questionid=3582&pn=2&lastID=3555&anum=8

Of course it also depends on the definition of a "major urban area" so it depends where your work of place is -do you think it would qualify.

LOL - I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the sitting rooms of all these self-righteous people demanding car spaces.

leeroybrown

TBH at this stage I think the real answer is that no one actually has a clear answer yet. I guess we'll have to wait until closer to the Finance Bill to get more detail.

Macha

For more debate confusion, a thread on the topic just started in the Politics forum:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055399386

leeroybrown

Now that I'm out of work and have more time to look at this I think that judging by the wording in the budget summary and the potential implementation costs I'd suggest that the 'per employee paid by the employee' version is right and that it will be an employee's BIK based deduction as this is something that can be done per pay period, through the existing Revenue structures and using employers existing payroll processes.

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

I think you might be right. What would you have liked to have seen apart from funding for treatment & insulation? What do you think about the Metro being given the go-ahead?

Significant cutbacks in funding for the NRA. They're still getting 500 million more than all of public transport.

However, I don't agree with the Metro at all. It is simply too expensive for the limited service it is to provide, and the disruption and destruction of parts of Dublin for its construction. There are much cheaper public transport options available, and if Dublin City Council charged private cars for access to the city centre while throwing in a few more buses, the problems that "necessitate" a metro would be reduced. I also dislike the idea of making it easier to get to the airport.

THe money allocated for the Metro could be spent much better on making the whole country more sustainable in many ways. More could be done and it would not be Dublin-centric.

Higher charge on flights would have been good, as these are most definitely a luxury item.

Cutbacks in funding for the DAA. Ideally, shelving the new runway project.

Quickly phasing out the €59 million in annual subsidies to internal flights.

Allocation of money to Dublin, Cork, Galway, etc city councils to build continental-style cycling infrastructure.

Tipsy Mac

The reason employers have to pay it is so that civil servants can avoid paying anything, otherwise it would never have been let into the budget. There's over 4,000 free civil servant parking spaces in Dublin, these cause massive congestion.

Gormley should have set free parking in all public metered parking spaces for hybrid vehicles along with a 0% VRT rate on their purchase, this would have made the vehicles attractive to purchase. I have no figures on the amount of hybrid vehicles in the country but I am guessing by the number of Toyota Prius I see that it's somewhere around 0.1% if even that much which is a disgrace.

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

Significant cutbacks in funding for the NRA. They're still getting 500 million more than all of public transport.

Agree. We should be pumping money into public transport and RAIL freight like there's no tomorrow...well you know what I mean

However, I don't agree with the Metro at all. It is simply too expensive for the limited service it is to provide, and the disruption and destruction of parts of Dublin for its construction. There are much cheaper public transport options available, and if Dublin City Council charged private cars for access to the city centre while throwing in a few more buses, the problems that "necessitate" a metro would be reduced. I also dislike the idea of making it easier to get to the airport.

Yeah, a friend of mine is doing his thesis on whether it would be more cost-effective to do the metro or set up some sort of bus system-not sure on the details. I'll post up the results of it when he's done. Good point on not making transport to/from airport better.

Do you think that the congestion charge would be fair without proper viable options? I'm not sure just a few more buses would cut it. Plus, we need to get some non-radial networks in place.

THe money allocated for the Metro could be spent much better on making the whole country more sustainable in many ways. More could be done and it would not be Dublin-centric.

You and I have already had this discussion Interestingly, if you take the island of Ireland as a whole, the population size of our cities is a lot more balanced. Normally, the numbers approximately half each step down:

Dublin: 1,000,000
Belfast: 580,000
Cork: 200,000
Galway: 80,000
Limerick: 10,000

Higher charge on flights would have been good, as these are most definitely a luxury item. Cutbacks in funding for the DAA. Ideally, shelving the new runway project. Quickly phasing out the €59 million in annual subsidies to internal flights.

Yes, at a time when the EU are making noises about including flights in carbon calculations, it doesn't really make long-term sense. Then again, we are an island and it's a hard one to get around. I say build a tunnel to Wales.

Allocation of money to Dublin, Cork, Galway, etc city councils to build continental-style cycling infrastructure.

+1

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

The reason employers have to pay it is so that civil servants can avoid paying anything, otherwise it would never have been let into the budget. There's over 4,000 free civil servant parking spaces in Dublin, these cause massive congestion.

Gormley should have set free parking in all public metered parking spaces for hybrid vehicles along with a 0% VRT rate on their purchase, this would have made the vehicles attractive to purchase. I have no figures on the amount of hybrid vehicles in the country but I am guessing by the number of Toyota Prius I see that it's somewhere around 0.1% if even that much which is a disgrace.

Are there really that many? Pretty disgraceful and hypocritical, although I think civil servant spaces are going to be included under this new measure.

One of the main purposes of parking is to deter people from using their cars. Cars have a number of negative impacts and carbon is only one of them. So I wouldn't be in favour of giving hybrids free parking, although with the number of hybrids you mention and the assumed mentality of purchasers, it wouldn't be a big problem.

rathbaner

taconnol wrote: »

You and I have already had this discussion Interestingly, if you take the island of Ireland as a whole, the population size of our cities is a lot more balanced. Normally, the numbers approximately half each step down:

Dublin: 1,000,000
Belfast: 580,000
Cork: 200,000
Galway: 80,000
Limerick: 10,000

The population of Limerick city and the immediate urban area (environs/suburbs) is 90,778 (based on the 2006 census carried out by the CSO), of which 52,560 live within the city limits and 38,218 live in the city's immediate environs in both County Limerick and County Clare.
Limerick is the fourth most populous city in the Republic of Ireland after Dublin, Cork and Galway (though its urban area population is greater than Galway's) and the city including suburbs is the fifth largest urban area on the island of Ireland (after Dublin, Belfast, Cork and Derry Respectively).

Macha

sorry yeah, I was tired when I was doing it & skipped a 0.But thanks for the quote

slagger

Its a green budget alright. Nothing like a recessionary budget to reduce carbon emissions. One wonders if Gormley will introduce a carbon tax next year!!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49E47L20081015

brianthebard

taconnol wrote: »

Just checked this and its the employee who will pay the levy, not the employer

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1015/1224020737542.html


Well the original target was 33% for 2020 and now its 40%. I don't know what the current figure is..SEI website is acting up. I think a big criticism was that we weren't aiming high enough so at least they've done something about it.

Setting a target is not doing something about it, targets are set and not met every day.

Macha

brianthebard wrote: »

Setting a target is not doing something about it, targets are set and not met every day.

Yes brian, but it's the first step. If you don't set a high target you're never going to get there.

brianthebard

This is an article from May.

Under EU proposals, Ireland, by 2020, has to cut carbon emissions by 20 per cent and increase renewable energy to 16 per cent. To compensate for this, and the growing energy needs of the country, it has been estimated that 6,000mw (megawatts) of energy must be produced from renewable sources by then. Last year, only 58mw of wind energy was added to the grid. If targets are to be reached, between 300 and 400mw must be connected to the grid annually, between now and 2020.

full story

Now in all honesty, what difference does it make if the targets are 16, 40, 90%, if the government is not making the effort to meet them? Its fairly clear from the above that even 16% will not be met by 2020 at current rates.

Macha

I can't really argue with you b. I think that targets are an important first step, but only that. You're right that it has to be backed up with action.

anyone annoyed about the budget check this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055404191

It has been discovered that the Government has created conditions that will allow up to 6.5 BILLION be given to a builders bail out.

Check out the thread if you want to make a complaint about it.
It includes instructions and a template for a legal complaint.

How many wind turbines would 6.5 billion build??????????????

MADNESS
Get and do something about it. Its OUR money :mad::mad::mad:

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

Yeah, a friend of mine is doing his thesis on whether it would be more cost-effective to do the metro or set up some sort of bus system-not sure on the details. I'll post up the results of it when he's done. Good point on not making transport to/from airport better.

I doubt there is even an argument about it. Underground tunnels and railways are bloody expensive especially when you're building them here. Again, restricting the freedom of private cars will improve public transport. We don't need to set up "some sort of bus system" to Swords. It already exists.

I also don't see why Malahide railway station should not be made a junction, with a branch going out westwards towards Swords and perhaps Ashbourne.

Do you think that the congestion charge would be fair without proper viable options? I'm not sure just a few more buses would cut it. Plus, we need to get some non-radial networks in place.

Dublin's public transport is already good enough to justify a congestion charge. There's room for improvement, certainly, but it's not so bad as to make a congestion charge problematic.

You and I have already had this discussion Interestingly, if you take the island of Ireland as a whole, the population size of our cities is a lot more balanced. Normally, the numbers approximately half each step down:

This is the way Ireland really works:

Dublin: 1,000,000
Cork: 200,000
Galway: 80,000
Limerick: 90,000

The Irish government does not fund or plan Belfast infrastructure, so it's not mystery given the above, that it's all Dublin centric.

Yes, at a time when the EU are making noises about including flights in carbon calculations, it doesn't really make long-term sense. Then again, we are an island and it's a hard one to get around.

Peak oil will finish mass flying in the next decade anyway. Mark my words, if DAA builds another runway by 2012, before 2014 there will be a tribunal asking why so much money was wasted on something so underused.

I say build a tunnel to Wales.

I would strongly disagree with that. Is it even possible from an engineering POV?

If it were, its construction would probably cause more environmental disruption and carbon dioxide emissions than every flight that has ever left Ireland for Britain put together.

It would cost more than any sane government would pay.

It's already easy to get to Britain without flying.

Are there really that many? Pretty disgraceful and hypocritical, although I think civil servant spaces are going to be included under this new measure.

Yes, it's the awful truth. Civil servants are the aristocracy.