Water Charges, New Tax

However the Minister admitted today it is unlikely that water metering will be in place by June 2012 - which means domestic water charges will not be reintroduced before the next general election.

He would not be drawn on how much each of Ireland's 1.1 million households would be charged but said a speculated figure of €400 per household was wide of the mark. He pointed to other EU countries as a possible indicator.

Mr Gormley said in January the Government intends to raise as much as €1 billion per annum from water metering charges when they are introduced.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0419/breaking42.html

Kurnell Desalination Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

enough water for 600,000 people.....cost including the building of enough renewable energy to power the desalination plant .......1.2 Billion Euro


Thats Sydney, now Perth similiar population....to supply 17% of the population with desalinated sea water: 266 million euro....
Perth Seawater Desalination Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Gormley wants a billion a year....I call shennannigans! Its to plug the deficit but we all knew that didnt we

oh and:
Desalination plant wins award for most wasteful use of taxpayers money | StreetCorner.com.au

Fat_Fingers

Fair play to John Gormley, he has build up some mighty reputation for himself.

From failed lightbulb ban then move onto the night when Irish taxpayer was landed with having to provide banks guarantees John Gormley was deep sleep at his Irishtown home. Then this colossally talented man moves to his next pet project Carbon tax on all fuel and now water tax. You have to admit this guy is a genius!

dvpower

I don't understand. Are you saying that Gormely is going to secretly build a desalination plant?

bamboozle

the bigger issue is the 40% plus of water that we lose through leakages
and the fact that the powers that be dont know where some of the wastage occurs,
compare this to cities like tokyo where wastage is about 3.6% and leaks are repaired on a same day basis.

dvpower

bamboozle wrote: »

the bigger issue is the 40% plus of water that we lose through leakages
and the fact that the powers that be dont know where some of the wastage occurs,
compare this to cities like tokyo where wastage is about 3.6% and leaks are repaired on a same day basis.

This being one of the reasons why water charges are a good idea. When people are paying directly for it, they will value it and won't stand for this amount of wastage.
If we can manage to ringfence the revenue collected from charges to pay for the cost of the service then we have a good chance of getting this wastage reduced.

Fat_Fingers

its not going to happen , its just another tax that will go up every year....

dvpower

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

its not going to happen , its just another tax that will go up every year....

What do you mean its not going to happen? Do you mean you dont want it to happen?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-household-water-bills-as-gormley-rolls-out-meters-2143889.html

Cookie_Monster

dvpower wrote: »

What do you mean its not going to happen? Do you mean you dont want it to happen?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-household-water-bills-as-gormley-rolls-out-meters-2143889.html

i presume he means the proper ring fencing of funds won't happen

Head The Wall

dvpower wrote: »

This being one of the reasons why water charges are a good idea. When people are paying directly for it, they will value it and won't stand for this amount of wastage.

The meters will only record whats used in the houses though. Most of the waste is in the trunk lines feeding water from treatment plants to the various districts

MaceFace

dvpower wrote: »

This being one of the reasons why water charges are a good idea. When people are paying directly for it, they will value it and won't stand for this amount of wastage.
If we can manage to ringfence the revenue collected from charges to pay for the cost of the service then we have a good chance of getting this wastage reduced.

Huh? The government are introducing charges to make people angry about wastage so they can be given out to and forced to fix the problem?
Lets get real, they couldn't care less about the leaky pipes. It is exactly the same short sightedeness with the pothole roads because of hotch potch repairs.

I am not against water charges, but make no mistake, it will not be a fair cost to all as the poorest will suffer most, the tax take from the charges will be much more than the cost of the service which will enable local councils to continue splurging money on councillors trips abroad, committee payments, roundabout building, traffic light erection, all the while accepting no responsibility for the shenanigans where the water supply is toxic or simply cut off.

All I am waiting for is to be told that I have to have a meter installed in my house and it will cost 500 quid for the priveledge. Some cowboy will come out and screw a box to the side of my wall or dig up by path and not do a proper repair job.

If that clown really wanted to do something about it, he would immediately put plans in place so we are not using valuable drinking water to flush our toilets or water our flowers. But no, a solution to that will require proper planning rather than the quick fix meter in your house and tax you for it.

Macha

MaceFace, the changing of pipes so that potable water is not used in toilets etc is incredibly labour and cost-intensive. Where exactly would money for that sort of programme come from? Water charges! There's absolutely nothing stopping you putting in a water butt and using the collected water for your garden, cleaning your car etc.

We're the only country in Europe that doesn't have water charges and it's high time we stopped subsidising people who use huge amounts and business for that matter - who pay for something like 1% of the water they use.

murphaph

Metered water is an excellent idea. Water is a precious resource that is not cheap to deliver to the user. My GF still can't understand that water in Ireland "is just piped to people with no way of knowing who uses what". I agree and the proposed method is really quite fair with a set "free amount" and anything over that being paid for. I have metered water here in Berlin. It's a "single building" meter but the building only has 10 apartments so I (and I presume my neighbours) try to limit the use to keep the bill down at the end of the year.

It does work as a waste reduction tool. The problem of waste through leaks must be tackled too, but the two things aren't somehow mutually exclusive or interdependent on each other. They can and should be done in parallel. I saw the change water metering had on my dad's commercial premises a few years ago: dramatic change in mentality towards water when there's a meter there.

Cool Mo D

I think water charges are an OK idea, but really what should be done is to give everyone a certain free allowance of water, and pay when it is exceeded.

murphaph

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I think water charges are an OK idea, but really what should be done is to give everyone a certain free allowance of water, and pay when it is exceeded.

That is the plan!

cynder

My house was built 5 years ago and has a meter on the stopcock in my drive way.

I will just have to park the car on it ever time the man comes to read it.... lol.....

Head The Wall

They will be read electronically, they just drive around and get the readings that way.

Some towns in the states have two water supply's, one for drinking etc and the other for sprinklers. This involves having two water meters though and also two water mains coming in. There is a huge infrastructure cost bringing two mains everywhere as opposed to 1 so I don;t see it happening here

cynder

If they are gonna read it electronically anyone with any knowledge could tamper with it.

Eyes on have an accurate read like gas and electric.

They would have to have your permission to enter your property to install this meter. (looking for any loop holes)

Paleface

I think the taxing of water is a great idea as long as the money is used to improve the water infrastructure nationwide.

As previously mentioned there is a huge amount of waste currently and nothing is being done about it.

Head The Wall

grindelwald wrote: »

If they are gonna read it electronically anyone with any knowledge could tamper with it.

Eyes on have an accurate read like gas and electric.

They would have to have your permission to enter your property to install this meter. (looking for any loop holes)

There's already a stopcock to turn off your water, probably on the footpath. If you don't want a water meter they will just cut you off. Simple as that really and they can bring in legislation to cover all the loopholes.

Anyone that has a problem with it is propably someone who is wasteful with it. Think back 2 years ago you could nearly spend €400 on 2 or 3 nights out and people think thats bad value for a years water supply.

Macha

Head The Wall wrote: »

Anyone that has a problem with it is propably someone who is wasteful with it. Think back 2 years ago you could nearly spend €400 on 2 or 3 nights out and people think thats bad value for a years water supply.

Even so the €400 per household has been dismissed by Gormley. I can't imagine water charges coming in that don't offset regressive implications.

MaceFace

taconnol wrote: »

MaceFace, the changing of pipes so that potable water is not used in toilets etc is incredibly labour and cost-intensive. Where exactly would money for that sort of programme come from? Water charges! There's absolutely nothing stopping you putting in a water butt and using the collected water for your garden, cleaning your car etc.

We're the only country in Europe that doesn't have water charges and it's high time we stopped subsidising people who use huge amounts and business for that matter - who pay for something like 1% of the water they use.

I do agree with metering and charging but like anything else, the poorest are hit hardest by these charges.
I don't accept though that water is precious. It is only precious because our system of its use is outdated and it has been badly managed.

As for a movement to non-potable water, this could easily be achieved by introducing directives for all new houses that they are built to take advantage of a dual intake if and when it arrives.
The only reason it doesn't happen is because for some reason Ireland can only plan for the next five years and doesn't think about the big picture.

Does anyone have any confidence that the tax raised from water charges will be ringfenced to the actual service, and if the cost of producing and delivering water does fall below the level of this tax intake that it will result in a fall in the cost of the service?

And let's stop calling it a charge. It is a tax as it is a charge imposed by the state on the public and there is no way of avoiding it.

Cookie_Monster

MaceFace wrote: »

Does anyone have any confidence that the tax raised from water charges will be ringfenced to the actual service, and if the cost of producing and delivering water does fall below the level of this tax intake that it will result in a fall in the cost of the service?

And let's stop calling it a charge. It is a tax as it is a charge imposed by the state on the public and there is no way of avoiding it.

it will be the same sort of system as gas and electricity i would imagine...

Macha

MaceFace wrote: »

I do agree with metering and charging but like anything else, the poorest are hit hardest by these charges.
I don't accept though that water is precious. It is only precious because our system of its use is outdated and it has been badly managed.

How the poor are hit depends on the details of how the charge is implemented. The regressive aspect of the charge can very easily be mitigated.

Why don't you think water is precious? Do you know how much it costs to get a litre of clean drinking water to your house?

MaceFace wrote: »

As for a movement to non-potable water, this could easily be achieved by introducing directives for all new houses that they are built to take advantage of a dual intake if and when it arrives.
The only reason it doesn't happen is because for some reason Ireland can only plan for the next five years and doesn't think about the big picture.

Nope - too late for that. We've built all our houses and then some, over the last 10 years. It's getting to the stage where people are considering knocking down some of the houses than have been built. Sure that legislation could be put in place but the impacts would be tiny.

MaceFace wrote: »

Does anyone have any confidence that the tax raised from water charges will be ringfenced to the actual service, and if the cost of producing and delivering water does fall below the level of this tax intake that it will result in a fall in the cost of the service?

The Dept of Finance does not like hypothecation - no Dept of Finance does but let's hope that the water is ringfenced for water services. As for future tax intake being reduced, I would also hope that this is the case but we have to remember that our water infrastructure is suffering from decades of underinvestment and its going to take a lot of money to bring it up to par. So rates have to take into consideration water produced today but also investment in the infrastructure.

MaceFace wrote: »

And let's stop calling it a charge. It is a tax as it is a charge imposed by the state on the public and there is no way of avoiding it.

What is the difference between a tax and a charge levied for a service provided by the government?

MaceFace

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it will be the same sort of system as gas and electricity i would imagine...

If it is, I will be very impressed and it really will be a charge. However, I see it as the equivalent of road tax and will involve blanket ranges that will not take into consideration personal circumstances (except for the most basic).

taconnol wrote: »

How the poor are hit depends on the details of how the charge is implemented. The regressive aspect of the charge can very easily be mitigated.

Agree, but just like the (ahem) carbon tax, the revenue raised from it will go to paying Councillor Bobby to go on a fact finding mission to Egypt for two weeks to see how they deal with traffic issues.

taconnol wrote: »

Why don't you think water is precious? Do you know how much it costs to get a litre of clean drinking water to your house?

Oil is precious, gold is precious, you could even argue getting an apology from a minister is precious, but something that falls from the sky on an almost daily basis or any one of us can get in abundance from a two hour drive to the nearest coastline is certainly not precious.

Look, the pipes we have to bring water to our houses is more than paid for through the revenue that is received from the building of that house.
The only ongoing costs that would justify an ongoing charge is the upkeep of the pipes and the cost of treatment and delivery of the water.
As I said, I am in favour of metering and call me cynical, but I believe that what will happen is this will become just another long term strategy of raising money for local and national government for uses outside of what is says on the tin.

taconnol wrote: »

Nope - too late for that. We've built all our houses and then some, over the last 10 years. It's getting to the stage where people are considering knocking down some of the houses than have been built. Sure that legislation could be put in place but the impacts would be tiny.

No its not. There are plenty of houses been built around the country this year. Sure, not on the scale of two or three years ago, but it is still sizeable.
And again, why dismiss it just because we won't see any benefits within the next few years.

taconnol wrote: »

The Dept of Finance does not like hypothecation - no Dept of Finance does but let's hope that the water is ringfenced for water services. As for future tax intake being reduced, I would also hope that this is the case but we have to remember that our water infrastructure is suffering from decades of underinvestment and its going to take a lot of money to bring it up to par. So rates have to take into consideration water produced today but also investment in the infrastructure.


What is the difference between a tax and a charge levied for a service provided by the government?

If as I said above the money is ringfenced to the service we are being charged for, then we are good to go, but that simply will not happen.
Maybe we could privatise water but retain ownership of the infrastructure.

ei.sdraob

This is from a brochure we got from a guy we were talking with at the modern homes exhibition, €3800 all in

once they announce the charges and details, I will do the sums and see what the return on investment/payback period is

right now just sit and wait

RichardAnd

I've no real problem with Water charges as I never waste it anyway. Water is abundant, yes, but the stuff that comes out of taps is not being pumped from a river down the road; it costs alot of money to process water and make it fit for consumption.

However, I've no doubt that this will cause a huge amount of whining, complaining and Joe Duffy's phones will be hopping for weeks. It reminds me of people complaining about paying bin charges a few years ago. This is probably why it's not being introduced immediately. the gap in time gives time for things to settle down abit and, hopefully, for the economy to stabilise, unemployment coming down etc etc.

Macha

MaceFace wrote: »

Agree, but just like the (ahem) carbon tax, the revenue raised from it will go to paying Councillor Bobby to go on a fact finding mission to Egypt for two weeks to see how they deal with traffic issues.

Do you have any evidence that the revenue from carbon tax have been used in this way?

MaceFace wrote: »

Oil is precious, gold is precious, you could even argue getting an apology from a minister is precious, but something that falls from the sky on an almost daily basis or any one of us can get in abundance from a two hour drive to the nearest coastline is certainly not precious..

Great. Please turn off your mains and try to live from rainwater or even better, seawater for a month. I'd love to see how you get on. I bet those two-hour drives to the coast to get something you can't even wash or clean anything in will become a joy.

MaceFace wrote: »

Look, the pipes we have to bring water to our houses is more than paid for through the revenue that is received from the building of that house.

What? Please show me your calculations.

MaceFace wrote: »

The only ongoing costs that would justify an ongoing charge is the upkeep of the pipes and the cost of treatment and delivery of the water.

Upkeep? As I said in my post earlier, we have to invest massive amounts of money just to make up for the years low or zero investment.

MaceFace wrote: »

No its not. There are plenty of houses been built around the country this year. Sure, not on the scale of two or three years ago, but it is still sizeable.
And again, why dismiss it just because we won't see any benefits within the next few years.

What is plenty? If people are so concerned about incurring charges, why legislate? The government is there to provide the incentives and people shouldn't always need a law behind them to figure out what's makes sense.

MaceFace wrote: »

If as I said above the money is ringfenced to the service we are being charged for, then we are good to go, but that simply will not happen.
Maybe we could privatise water but retain ownership of the infrastructure.

I'm afraid you didn't answer my question about the difference between a tax and a charge levied for a service provided. You don't seem to be grasping the fact that providing the water costs money. So straight away, most, if not all of the revenue collected will be going towards the costs of providing that water. Hopefully, the rest of the revenue gathered would go towards investment in the water infrastructure.

dvpower

MaceFace wrote: »

Huh? The government are introducing charges to make people angry about wastage so they can be given out to and forced to fix the problem?
Lets get real, they couldn't care less about the leaky pipes. It is exactly the same short sightedeness with the pothole roads because of hotch potch repairs.

Of course they don't care about leaky pipes. Bacause the people don't care about leaky pipes. There are millions of Euro being lost every year and it has never been a political issue of any consequence.
When the people are paying directly for their water they'll get a lot more vocal about the leaky pipes; it will then become an issue and we have some chance of it getting solved. Simples.

MaceFace wrote: »

I am not against water charges, but make no mistake, it will not be a fair cost to all as the poorest will suffer most, the tax take from the charges will be much more than the cost of the service which will enable local councils to continue splurging money on councillors trips abroad, committee payments, roundabout building, traffic light erection, all the while accepting no responsibility for the shenanigans where the water supply is toxic or simply cut off.

Of course the poor will suffer most. This is fair. The same as the poor suffer most from having to pay their food bills, their gas bills, their transport bills... It will be paid for by usage. What's not fair about that?

MaceFace wrote: »

If that clown really wanted to do something about it, he would immediately put plans in place so we are not using valuable drinking water to flush our toilets or water our flowers. But no, a solution to that will require proper planning rather than the quick fix meter in your house and tax you for it.

Do you currently use drinking water to flush your toilet?

Macha

dvpower wrote: »

Of course the poor will suffer most. This is fair. The same as the poor suffer most from having to pay their food bills, their gas bills, their transport bills... It will be paid for by usage. What's not fair about that?

It is possible to offset the regressive features of the charge

dvpower wrote: »

Do you currently use drinking water to flush your toilet?

Anyone connected to the mains supply does. There's only one pipe going into your house and it contains drinking-quality water.

bamboozle

was it hibernian insurance which over the cold weather around Christmas time had advise on its website that people leave their taps running so they dont freeze!

dvpower

taconnol wrote: »

It is possible to offset the regressive features of the charge

Yeah. They could possibly give a free per person allowance to cover some part of very basic needs.

taconnol wrote: »

Anyone connected to the mains supply does. There's only one pipe going into your house and it contains drinking-quality water.

Yes. Point being that anyone complaining that the government isn't introducing a system where we have a seperate untreated supply for toilets and watering the garden needs to ask first why they haven't done it themselves.
The answer is because water is currently delivered at no charge. The day that the first water bills start dropping on the hall floor will be the same day that B&Q sell out of water butts.

Nijmegen

I'll be happy to pay for my water when they're capable of delivering an efficient, cost effective and well run system.

Now, remove 'water' from that sentence and replace it with:

• health service
• education sector
• police
• infrastructure
• social welfare
• etc etc etc etc

My biggest problem is that the only thing they'll do well will be collect the money.

ei.sdraob

Nijmegen wrote: »

My biggest problem is that the only thing they'll do well will be collect the money.

join the club

ardmacha

The day that the first water bills start dropping on the hall floor will be the same day that B&Q sell out of water butts.

I await the ads on TV.
B&Q. Our butts are bigger than Woodies

bamboozle

ei.sdraob wrote: »

This is from a brochure we got from a guy we were talking with at the modern homes exhibition, €3800 all in

once they announce the charges and details, I will do the sums and see what the return on investment/payback period is

right now just sit and wait

i'm kicking myself we didnt put in one of these last year when we had the chance, whatever about the payback i think having one would add great value to a property if you were to sell.

ei.sdraob

bamboozle wrote: »

i'm kicking myself we didnt put in one of these last year when we had the chance, whatever about the payback i think having one would add great value to a property if you were to sell.

its 1800 for the tank alone (8000 litres) to be put in, can connect it later time with rest of plumbing... im still deciding

Head The Wall

Go with it, water is going to be like oil. There's only one way the price is going and that will be up. 1800 shekels is very little in fairness

largepants

What is the situation for people with their own wells? I assume they cannot be charged.

donkey balls

largepants wrote: »

What is the situation for people with their own wells? I assume they cannot be charged.

according to gormless on the last word this evening people with their own wells wont be charged.

Liam Byrne

largepants wrote: »

What is the situation for people with their own wells? I assume they cannot be charged.

The Greens want people with their own septic tanks to be charged, so I wouldn't go banking on ownership being a given in their eyes.

They'll probably charge you to "inspect" it to ensure that it's not just decorative with a pipe coming from elsewhere.....and they'll probably do this annually for some inexplicable reason.

largepants

donkey balls wrote: »

according to gormless on the last word this evening people with their own wells wont be charged.

No doubt he'll intoduce a well tax or something similar.

skearon

blindjustice wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0419/breaking42.html

Kurnell Desalination Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

enough water for 600,000 people.....cost including the building of enough renewable energy to power the desalination plant .......1.2 Billion Euro


Thats Sydney, now Perth similiar population....to supply 17% of the population with desalinated sea water: 266 million euro....
Perth Seawater Desalination Plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So Gormley wants a billion a year....I call shennannigans! Its to plug the deficit but we all knew that didnt we

oh and:
Desalination plant wins award for most wasteful use of taxpayers money | StreetCorner.com.au

Translation: A penalty for those who deliberately waste water.

Households who stay within their allocation won't pay a cent.

Why should the tax payer fork out to pay for those who put self interest before national interest?

donkey balls

no doubt the charges will come in at some stage over the next few years,these charges will be small at first(prob 1st year)then after that there will be increases just like the bin charges.

danman

2 things here I'd like to ask.

Did I not read recently that we have to bring in water charges, due to an EU directive?
Am I wrong about this?

Second, why do Dublin residents oppose bin charges so much? We've been paying bin charges for ages. The rest of the country have been paying for dumping our rubbish for a long time, why do Dubs think they should be any different?

Sorry for going off topic, but I've always wondered why that is.

Nijmegen

It's an old debate, why don't dubs like paying for these things. The debate will turn to the fact that Dublin subsidizes many other regions of the country and war will break out with words like "the pale", "jackeens" and "muck savages" getting thrown around. Better to leave it...

As I say, give me cost effective and well run services and I'll pay. Fact is this country could be run better fir half the money.

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that the revenue from carbon tax have been used in this way?

€90m of the carbon tax is being used this year for energy efficiency schemes and relieving the fuel poor.
The rest of it is going straight into the government coffers.
They expect to raise €350m in a calendar year from carbon taxes but there is no way all of it will be available for energy efficiency schemes.

If they're doing that with the carbon tax, how can we expect to believe they will use all the money collected via water charges to actually be spent on improving the water infrastructure?

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

€90m of the carbon tax is being used this year for energy efficiency schemes and relieving the fuel poor.
The rest of it is going straight into the government coffers.
They expect to raise €350m in a calendar year from carbon taxes but there is no way all of it will be available for energy efficiency schemes.

If they're doing that with the carbon tax, how can we expect to believe they will use all the money collected via water charges to actually be spent on improving the water infrastructure?

Because there are a number of reasons why the carbon tax was set at the rate it was, primarily to coincide with the price of carbon under the EU ETS.

Secondly, the logic for introducing a carbon tax is not just to pay for mitigation measures but also to pay for the actual damage caused by that pollution. Thirdly, it is supposed to act as a price signal in the market to make market actors aware that this pollution carries a cost.

Why don't you wait until the details are released? I certainly hope the final product is closer to John Gormley's plans and not so similar to the Dept of Finance, which would like to ringfence exactly zero of the total income.

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

Because there are a number of reasons why the carbon tax was set at the rate it was, primarily to coincide with the price of carbon under the EU ETS.

But it doesn't coincide with the price of carbon.
It was set at a level higher than the carbon price

taconnol wrote: »

Secondly, the logic for introducing a carbon tax is not just to pay for mitigation measures but also to pay for the actual damage caused by that pollution.

So would you like to point out where all this money has been used to pay for actual damage in Ireland?

taconnol wrote: »

Thirdly, it is supposed to act as a price signal in the market to make market actors aware that this pollution carries a cost.

It does absolutely nothing of the sort unless something like a CRC is introduced in the country. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

taconnol wrote: »

Why don't you wait until the details are released? I certainly hope the final product is closer to John Gormley's plans and not so similar to the Dept of Finance, which would like to ringfence exactly zero of the total income.

Same old, same old.
DCENR and SEAI had hoped all the funds from the carbon tax would be routed into measures to reduce emissions and help energy efficiency. They have told me this.
There is absolutely no reason to think that the introduction of the water rates will be any different.

ardmacha

There is absolutely no reason to think that the introduction of the water rates will be any different.

Which is not the point. Water costs money. The government needs more revenue, this is a reasonable source of revenue.

Macha

Heroditas wrote: »

But it doesn't coincide with the price of carbon.
It was set at a level higher than the carbon price

Because the ETS carbon price was expected to rise, as it has done. It currently stands at €14.10. Given that the price can only be set once a year, the price has to make an estimated guess at what the average ETS carbon price will be. So far, they are not far wrong.

Heroditas wrote: »

So would you like to point out where all this money has been used to pay for actual damage in Ireland?

Firstly, Ireland has to buy carbon credits under Kyoto regulations. Secondly, there have been costs of climate change impacts on Ireland already. Has this exactly money been spent on it? I'm not aware of the inner workings of the Dept of Finance. I'm telling you the theory.

Heroditas wrote: »

It does absolutely nothing of the sort unless something like a CRC is introduced in the country. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Nonsense. Cap & Trade is not the only mechanism for pricing and reducing carbon. The EU ETS already covers large installations in Ireland.

Heroditas wrote: »

Same old, same old.
DCENR and SEAI had hoped all the funds from the carbon tax would be routed into measures to reduce emissions and help energy efficiency. They have told me this.
There is absolutely no reason to think that the introduction of the water rates will be any different.

You don't need to have the private ear of SEAI or DCENR to know that. The problem is the Dept of Finance.

But regardless, Gormley has already announced a huge programme of investment. Where exactly do you think that money is going to come from? We're not exactly rolling in it any more.

You're also forgetting that water costs money to produce - the money will be going towards that cost.

Heroditas

taconnol wrote: »

Nonsense. Cap & Trade is not the only mechanism for pricing and reducing carbon. The EU ETS already covers large installations in Ireland.

Define "installation"