Water charges?

darling.x

I've heard something recently about water charges being brought in for home owners. Whatever pr¡ck decided this deserves to be hung by the balls. Are they for real. I've got so much arguements building up against this. We're all going to have to go around like dirtbags soon, and to make it worse theres no shortage of water. Its raining everyday.

darling.x

What do other people think of these water charges.

oscarBravo

Polluter pays. Seems fair enough.

BendiBus

I favour water charges.

Firstly, it's not free. It needs to be collected, stored, treated (unless you're in Galway!), and piped to you.

Secondly, there will soon be a shortage of clean drinking water in Dublin. Plans are already being made to bring water from the Shannon to Dublin to supply the capital. That won't happen for free. And it may be damaging to the environment in the Shannon region.

Thirdly it takes energy to do all the above.

From an economical and environmental point of view, water must be charged for.

I accept that the authorities need to take steps to eliminate or reduce losses in the distribution system (quite significant) and maybe that it should only be paid for above a certain level of consumption, otherwise the least well off end up paying disproportionately.

But we waste an awful lot of water. If we had to pay for it we might be more cautious.

I'm happy to listen to alternatives to get people to become more responsible!

old boy

las vagas does not have to import any water i rest my case

BendiBus

old boy wrote: »

las vagas does not have to import any water i rest my case

Is it free? Let me help you with that one

http://www.lvvwd.com/cfml/rate_calculator/cust_serv_rates.cfml

EuFatCat

oscarBravo wrote: »

Polluter pays. Seems fair enough.

So using water is pollution?? catch yourself on.

BendiBus wrote: »

I favour water charges.

Firstly, it's not free. It needs to be collected, stored, treated (unless you're in Galway!), and piped to you.

Secondly, there will soon be a shortage of clean drinking water in Dublin. Plans are already being made to bring water from the Shannon to Dublin to supply the capital. That won't happen for free. And it may be damaging to the environment in the Shannon region.

Thirdly it takes energy to do all the above.

From an economical and environmental point of view, water must be charged for.

I accept that the authorities need to take steps to eliminate or reduce losses in the distribution system (quite significant) and maybe that it should only be paid for above a certain level of consumption, otherwise the least well off end up paying disproportionately.

But we waste an awful lot of water. If we had to pay for it we might be more cautious.

I'm happy to listen to alternatives to get people to become more responsible!

And do people not pay a massive amount of their income in taxes. What do they get in return.

The whole water issue is farce, create a false crisis and then rip the plebs off.

I realise that most of you greenies are in green jobs, however the average Paddy buying into this rubbish is a fool.

Macha

Edit: just realised there is no feckin point.

mikemac

Businesses pay rates, farmers have paid for water and the meters for years.
Home owners pay nothing?

I wouldn't like to see it introduced but it's only a few years away

EuFatCat

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: just realised there is no feckin point.

you got it, anybody in favour of a domestic water charge has not even got a point.

Macha

EuFatCat wrote: »

you got it, anybody in favour of a domestic water charge has not even got a point.

I mean't there's no point arguing with conspiracy theorists like you. The basic necessities for entering into a debate with someone is that both people have open minds. Unfortunately, that disqualifies you.

SeanW

Casey?

spadder

A Domestic house should be given an allowance of litres every year, if you abuse your water usage, and go over your limit, then charge. This is just another way for the greens to make themselves appear to be busy, all they are doing is playing into the hands of huge greedy coporations like Veola , oxygen, the swines who operate the incinerators(name escapes me now).

Don't be fooled, green poilicies are big business. I am sick of the Gormley and the Greens.
I want to make a stand against these pious bastards, I drive a small engine car, I go to the recycle centre every sat ( and pay €2 to hand over valuable resources to a private company who make huge profits) .I have changed light bulbs to the low energy type when the old ones blow. I do my part where I can, not because Gormley tells me to, because I care. I would take the train, if there was one where I live.

I want people to make a distinction between Green party politics and day to day efforts of ordinary people to save the planet.

I hate the Greens and I do care about the planet.


These muppets are giving environmental awareness a bad name with their stupid carbon numbers websites, daft unworkable ideas and shameful political U turns.

Húrin

EuFatCat wrote: »

I realise that most of you greenies are in green jobs, however the average Paddy buying into this rubbish is a fool.

What is this supposed to mean? What are greenies?

Húrin

spadder wrote: »

I want to make a stand against these pious bastards, I drive a small engine car, I go to the recycle centre every sat ( and pay €2 to hand over valuable resources to a private company who make huge profits) .I have changed light bulbs to the low energy type when the old ones blow. I do my part where I can, not because Gormley tells me to, because I care. I would take the train, if there was one where I live.

I want people to make a distinction between Green party politics and day to day efforts of ordinary people to save the planet.

You are so self-righteous.

Jet Black

Sure why not? Its the second last thing thats free the last being air(sush!)
I would be happy to pay for water. IF I did not have to pay for other things like the toll. As a nation over the last few years we took every charge the government gave us because we where too busy making money. Things have changed this year. Will this be accepted?

air

I'm in favour of domestic water charges on the basis that the tragedy of the commons holds true for all societies. If people had to pay for water then I believe that consumption would drop dramatically and we wouldnt waste it.
I've been to countries where people pay for water and people's attitude to it is completely different, they treat it like the precious resource that it is. I am totally against the proposal to take water from the Shannon to Dublin and I believe that the shortfall could be made up by:

1. Introducing domestic water charges
2. Providing grants for rain water collection / grey water reuse with the capital that would have gone into the Shannon project
3. Mandating that the above technoligies be included in all new developments.
4. Investing more of that saved capital in relining or replacing parts of the distribution network to reduce losses.

Finally I cant get over people that think that they have a "right" to be provided certain services for free by the state or anyone else.

Dirk Gently

air wrote: »

1. Introducing domestic water charges
2. Providing grants for rain water collection / grey water reuse with the capital that would have gone into the Shannon project
3. Mandating that the above technoligies be included in all new developments.
4. Investing more of that saved capital in relining or replacing parts of the distribution network to reduce losses.

Finally I cant get over people that think that they have a "right" to be provided certain services for free by the state or anyone else.

People can't live without water. If water becomes a product then people who can't afford it will suffer and pay with their health. Everyone has the right to life and good health regardless of income levels.

I'm a Dub but I'm totally against the Shannon project. The water levels in the Shannon are low enough without us taking any more out of the river. Not only does it effect the local environment but if effects tourism and industry along the river. A lot of that region depends on the Shannon for jobs.

Bad planning can account for a lot of the waste and I'd like to see that tackled first. Sure, give domestic households a quota and if breached charge from the point the quota was breached but poorly planned new housing estates and poor location choice for industry which uses huge volumes of water and lack of investment in water treatment and collection plants have done more to drain the supply than the citizen taking a shower or having a glass of water.

Dublin will run out of water in a few short years but turning it into a commodity will only put more poor people in hospitals they cant afford. Your points are decent enough but number 1 is a non runner from my point of view as there will always be people who simply can't afford it and will get their water cut off even if they are the most efficient water users in the country. Tax the wasters of water not those who will use it wisely but can't afford the rates.

air

I take your point on the "poor people" but I have no doubt that the government would ensure that they are taken care of in the same way that they provide housing, electricity, income, fuel allowance etc etc to people on social welfare as it is.
Having said that, your argument overall regarding the quota is sound and it would be a good start.

spadder

Húrin wrote: »

You are so self-righteous.

soap opera reply

Húrin

spadder wrote: »

soap opera reply

I'm just amazed how people can type something like "people like me are saving the planet" with a straight face, especially when it's merely justified by a weekly visit to the recycling centre.

spadder

Húrin wrote: »

I'm just amazed how people can type something like "people like me are saving the planet" with a straight face, especially when it's merely justified by a weekly visit to the recycling centre.

There are plenty of people like me who make the effort, what do you suggest we do?

There is going to be a backlash at envirnomental awareness because of the Greens. I find, most people do care about green issues and do their part where they can, but Gormless & co. like to take credit for peoples efforts, this really p'$$e's me off. They are turning the whole struggle into political issues which will backfire badly. The Greens will go the way of the PD's, just watch.

EuFatCat

Húrin wrote: »

What is this supposed to mean? What are greenies?

Greenies are fools who have unknowlingly subscribed to an agenda whose main aim is the elimination of the very people who support it. The environmental movement is nothing more than a front for depopulation.

spadder wrote: »

The Greens will go the way of the PD's, just watch.

The greens are not going anywhere. This greening farce is here to stay. If the plebs do not stand up, every breath will be taxed.



Water from the Shannon? The big boys are laughing that the plebs even repeat such stupid "proposals". The false water shortage is nothing more than scam to try and convince people to accept water charges.


Don't forget that the boys who really run the show, the EU, have demanded that water charges are introduced by 2011. Thats why our little puppets are promoting this tatter.

Del2005

air wrote: »

I'm in favour of domestic water charges on the basis that the tragedy of the commons holds true for all societies. If people had to pay for water then I believe that consumption would drop dramatically and we wouldnt waste it.
I've been to countries where people pay for water and people's attitude to it is completely different, they treat it like the precious resource that it is. I am totally against the proposal to take water from the Shannon to Dublin and I believe that the shortfall could be made up by:

1. Introducing domestic water charges
2. Providing grants for rain water collection / grey water reuse with the capital that would have gone into the Shannon project
3. Mandating that the above technoligies be included in all new developments.
4. Investing more of that saved capital in relining or replacing parts of the distribution network to reduce losses.

I've been to countries where people pay for water also and saw a hell of a lot of it wasted. Rich people won't be affected by this and will still waste water as much as before, and maybe more cause they are paying, and the only people who will be badly affected will be middle income earners who earn too much for free/goverment subsidized water.

They should fix the leaking pipes before they start charging for water, but they'll proberly introduce the charge to pay for fixing the pipes!!

Finally I cant get over people that think that they have a "right" to be provided certain services for free by the state or anyone else.

If you pay your taxes how is it free? If they can't provide the service with the taxes we pay, why don't they do what all private companies have to do and reduce overheads instead of increasing the price?

Del2005

EuFatCat wrote: »

Don't forget that the boys who really run the show, the EU, have demanded that water charges are introduced by 2011. Thats why our little puppets are promoting this tatter.

The governemnt got an exemption for us on this.

Húrin

spadder wrote: »

There are plenty of people like me who make the effort, what do you suggest we do?

Give up your delusion that you're saving the planet bit by bit. The most self-righteous people are usually the least informed.

Even if you're not consuming the extra petrol that the girl driving the SUV is, how are you doing anything other than helping reduce the price of fuel? As long as oil and coal are removed from the ground, somebody, somewhere will burn it - no matter how smug you are. And how many tonnes of carbon dioxide does the manufacture of a car emit? It's between 30 and 50 tonnes. Point is, only direct political action can do anything about the climate. "Carbon footprints" are just a buzzword.

Besides, if you were that serious about reducing your "carbon footprint" - a diversionary waste of time if there ever was one - you would move close enough to work to not require driving.

There is going to be a backlash at envirnomental awareness because of the Greens. I find, most people do care about green issues and do their part where they can, but Gormless & co. like to take credit for peoples efforts, this really p'$$e's me off.

The Greens are going down unless they take their chance now to grab FF by the balls and demand real action on climate change or they pull the plug on the government. We should be starving the DAA and NRA of money and using it to build a renewable energy station for every town in Ireland.

However, the environmental crisis will not go away. With the recent economic downturn people are starting to imagine what it will be like when the current climate collapses begin to hit this society.

They are turning the whole struggle into political issues which will backfire badly.

Climate change is political, very political. I agree that the Greens are crap but it's because they are not politicising climate change enough.

Húrin

EuFatCat wrote: »

Greenies are fools who have unknowlingly subscribed to an agenda whose main aim is the elimination of the very people who support it. The environmental movement is nothing more than a front for depopulation.

So what's the 'real' reason for depopulation?

EuFatCat

Húrin wrote: »

However, the environmental crisis will not go away. With the recent economic downturn people are starting to imagine what it will be like when the current climate collapses begin to hit this society.

.

Climate collapse, have you been watching too much of the discovery channel?

oscarBravo

Bugger off, casey.

spadder

Húrin wrote: »

Besides, if you were that serious about reducing your "carbon footprint" - a diversionary waste of time if there ever was one - you would move close enough to work to not require driving.

This is a stupid statement, Do you think people want to commute for 3 hours
every day?

I live an hour from Dublin, because that's where I could afford a house.This was due to mass coruption between politicians and developers. The Greens are now part of this very same government. There is no train, no bus, so I will continue to drive.

SeanW

Húrin wrote: »

Give up your delusion that you're saving the planet bit by bit. The most self-righteous people are usually the least informed.

Broad strokes my friend, very broad. I personally used to trust everything the Green Party, Greenpeace types would say. Though if you have been reading my more recent posts, for the last 2-odd years that has not been the case.

Even if you're not consuming the extra petrol that the girl driving the SUV is, how are you doing anything other than helping reduce the price of fuel?

I never realised that people who tried to conserve fuel were doing such a bad thing! Perhaps I should dump my 1 Liter 98 Polo, forget about that motorcycle I had my eye on, and go grab the biggest Hummer I can afford/find - because anything else would be just "helping reduce the price of fuel?" ...

As long as oil and coal are removed from the ground, somebody, somewhere will burn it - no matter how smug you are.

Not if we have a clear, multi-functional, non-fossil strategy.

And how many tonnes of carbon dioxide does the manufacture of a car emit? It's between 30 and 50 tonnes.

2nd hand Japanese cars, FTW!

We should be starving the DAA

Wonderful idea. Then our economy will go down the crapper as tourism, international business travel, as well as the ability of our citizens to see the world, will become severely constrained.

and NRA of money

Even better! No more town bypasses so long distance traffic will continue bringing intermediate towns to their knees while causing everyone involved to waste fuel! I can't wait!

and using it to build a renewable energy station for every town in Ireland.

All of which would fail the first time the wind stops blowing/sun stops shining.

Climate change is political, very political. I agree that the Greens are crap but it's because they are not politicising climate change enough.

And also pursuing strategies that are completely opposed to alleviating climate change.

Macha

SeanW wrote: »

Broad strokes my friend, very broad. I personally used to trust everything the Green Party, Greenpeace types would say. Though if you have been reading my more recent posts, for the last 2-odd years that has not been the case.

Er..you do realise the hypocrisy in that part? Broad strokes...Greenpeace types..pot..kettle..black.

SeanW wrote: »

I never realised that people who tried to conserve fuel were doing such a bad thing! Perhaps I should dump my 1 Liter 98 Polo, forget about that motorcycle I had my eye on, and go grab the biggest Hummer I can afford/find - because anything else would be just "helping reduce the price of fuel?" ...

His point is this middle-class environmentalism where people switch off light bulbs and then take a flight to NY is pointless. It's results, not effort that matter.

SeanW wrote: »

Wonderful idea. Then our economy will go down the crapper as tourism, international business travel, as well as the ability of our citizens to see the world, will become severely constrained.

And we all know our economy and those little numbers going up and down are the most important things in the world.

SeanW wrote: »

Even better! No more town bypasses so long distance traffic will continue bringing intermediate towns to their knees while causing everyone involved to waste fuel! I can't wait!

There are far more important things infrastructure-wise than building yet more roads. If rail were seriously invested in, there wouldn't be as much traffic. The predict-and-provide mantra of the 1970s has been proven to merely increase traffic but we still stick to it. Why exactly are we spending more money on roads than any other type of transport?

SeanW wrote: »

All of which would fail the first time the wind stops blowing/sun stops shining.

Stop exaggerating. You also conveniently ignore the advances in storing renewable energy.

SeanW wrote: »

And also pursuing strategies that are completely opposed to alleviating climate change.

They're a minority in government. What exactly would you have them do?

oscarBravo

taconnol wrote: »

And we all know our economy and those little numbers going up and down are the most important things in the world.

With all due respect, you're doing your argument no favour with statements like this.

Macha

oscarBravo wrote: »

With all due respect, you're doing your argument no favour with statements like this.

Yes, perhaps it was a little extreme. But obsession with the health of the economy to the detriment of everything else is perhaps the single biggest problem facing the environment at the moment.

Yes, the economy is important but so is the environment and society. This country is mired in a "jobs at all costs" mentality and by god there are some huge costs.

And what about when air traffic is included under carbon calculations? What then? There is no carbon-proofing or joined-up thinking in any of this government's policies.

oscarBravo

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, perhaps it was a little extreme. But obsession with the health of the economy to the detriment of everything else is perhaps the single biggest problem facing the environment at the moment.

If we go back to the glory days of the eighties and catastrophically high levels of unemployment, do you think anyone's going to give a damn about the environment? If you don't have a healthy economy, you don't have anything.

Macha

oscarBravo wrote: »

If we go back to the glory days of the eighties and catastrophically high levels of unemployment, do you think anyone's going to give a damn about the environment? If you don't have a healthy economy, you don't have anything.

If you don't have a healthy environment, you don't have anything.

I do believe a healthy economy and environment can co-exist but not with this government's policies

oscarBravo

...and so we come from extreme positions and find agreement in the middle: a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not only equally desirable, but ultimately interdependent.

My original point stands. Extreme statements such as the one I took exception to are ultimately unhelpful, as they serve to reinforce the perception of a Green lunatic fringe.

djpbarry

spadder wrote: »

I live an hour from Dublin, because that's where I could afford a house.
...
There is no train, no bus...

So why did you buy the house then? You must have been prepared to commute by car when you decided to buy it?

dresden8

air wrote: »

Finally I cant get over people that think that they have a "right" to be provided certain services for free by the state or anyone else.

I'll pay for my "free" services when they stop deducting income tax from me. Not to mention VAT and excise on goods I buy, VRT, stamp duty, levies, PRSI and road tolls. If anybody else can think of any throw them in.

You might get these services for "free", I pay through the nose for them.

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

I'll pay for my "free" services when they stop deducting income tax from me. Not to mention VAT and excise on goods I buy, VRT, stamp duty, levies, PRSI and road tolls. If anybody else can think of any throw them in.

You might get these services for "free", I pay through the nose for them.

Why aren't you complaining about having to buy food?

robtri

Dublin, doesn't have a water shortage problem, the problem is old leaking pipes, if Dublin County and city fixed the old leaky pipes, there won't be this issue.

I agree with water charges for business's, including farmers, as they can use vast quantities and deserve to be charged.
I am against domestic water charges. it is a ridiculous effort to take more money from people and disguising it as a green initiative....

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

I agree with water charges for business's, including farmers, as they can use vast quantities and deserve to be charged.

Domestic users can use vast quantities of water too. Should they not be charged for wastage?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why aren't you complaining about having to buy food?

Because it was never provided for as part of the taxes for services deal. I don't just pay taxes to have Cowen's arse puffed up on even more expensive and comfy cushions

Water is part of the taxes for services deal.

If I don't qualify for these services and have to pay now, give me my freaking money back!!

oscarBravo

dresden8 wrote: »

Because it was never provided for as part of the taxes for services deal. I don't just pay taxes to have Cowen's arse puffed up on even more expensive and comfy cushions

Water is part of the taxes for services deal.

What taxes for services deal?

If I don't qualify for these services and have to pay now, give me my freaking money back!!

What about the people who have always had to pay for water and waste disposal? Should they get a refund?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

What taxes for services deal?

I like to think I pay taxes to central and local government in return for services provided by the state.

I fully realise I'm being incredibly naive and that the working plebs are just here to prop up the rich and powerful.

I just don't like when they point out to us what kind of saps we're being taken for. At least do it behind our backs!

And, possibly!

dresden8

Just to turn it around a bit;

What do we pay taxes for if not in return for services from central and local government?

Is it to give Cowan a more fluffy and plump cushion?

oscarBravo

We pay taxes for services, sure. But you've been talking about water being automatically one of those services as if it was written down somewhere.

We pay taxes, and the government provides services from those taxes. What services get provided is decided by the government. If you don't like the services that are being provided, vote for someone else.

The question remains: why are people so upset about not getting free water, but nobody's demanding free food?

dresden8

oscarBravo wrote: »

The question remains: why are people so upset about not getting free water, but nobody's demanding free food?

Because we know if they provided free food we would be expected to pay extra in taxes.

This is not about getting new services for extra money, but keeping the ones we have for the same money. (Apart from the increased levy and increased VAT, and reduced social welfare entitlements et al!).

And don't worry even though FF will recover from the latest mess, I don't think the Greens will, especially since they will take the rap.

djpbarry

dresden8 wrote: »

Because we know if they provided free food we would be expected to pay extra in taxes.

This is not about getting new services for extra money, but keeping the ones we have for the same money.

The reason the charge is being considered is because we are using massive amounts of water and a lot of it is waste. Take for example the guy who feels the need to wash his sports car with a hose at least once a week - those are your tax €'s he's washing down the drain. You don't think it's fair that he should have to pay more than you? Or do you think people should be entitled to waste as much water as they please at no extra cost to themselves?

dresden8

djpbarry wrote: »

The reason the charge is being considered is because we are using massive amounts of water and a lot of it is waste. Take for example the guy who feels the need to wash his sports car with a hose at least once a week - those are your tax €'s he's washing down the drain. You don't think it's fair that he should have to pay more than you? Or do you think people should be entitled to waste as much water as they please at no extra cost to themselves?

That's all well and good, but you know as well as I do this is a revenue raising exercise.

We had the polluter pays here in Fingal on the bin charges. €8 a bin tag, you put out less, you pay less. Everybody is happy and green and saving the planet. Lots of stuff gets recycled and people keep their bin charges to a minimum.

Only of course when they weren't getting the money they wanted they went and slapped on an annual charge as well as the bin tags.

They're gonna use the guy with the sports car as an example as to why the rich shouldn't get this stuff for "free", and then charge us all anyway.

You don't raise revenue by hitting the rich, you only hit it by hitting the bulk of the people, the low to middle PAYE earners, the saps who pay for everything and get nothing in return.

Not even their "free" services anymore.

Húrin

"sports car", what a contradiction paradox!