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

Is Fine Gael in climate change denial

12346

Comments

  • #152
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I was picking up on your claim of double counting fuel sales.


    My claim was that emissions are being counted twice, not fuel sales.

    I showed how Luxembourg was being hit twice, for emissions it was emitting from fuel being used and sold in Luxembourg along with the emissions from the fuel that other countries were buying from it.


    I don't actually know if this is standard practice, for example are Saudi Arabia's emissions calculated in the same way?



    It's own emissions from fuel burnt there along with the emissions from fuel it supplies to other countries, or is Luxembourg's case unique?


  • #153
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,116 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    dense wrote: »
    My claim was that emissions are being counted twice, not fuel sales.

    I showed how Luxembourg was being hit twice, for emissions it was emitting from fuel being used and sold in Luxembourg along with the emissions from the fuel that other countries were buying from it.


    I don't actually know if this is standard practice, for example are Saudi Arabia's emissions calculated in the same way?



    It's own emissions from fuel burnt there along with the emissions from fuel it supplies to other countries, or is Luxembourg's case unique?


    What? This doesn't make any sense at all. Can you explain, with links to the relevant metrics and methodologies how you reached the conclusion that Luxembourg was being hit twice. Your initial scenario was debunked, so why you maintain it is puzzling.


  • #154
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Well, you are wrong.

    In my example, China is contributing more to the problem, but the Vatican City is contributing disproportionately more to the problem.

    A belief that holds that the countries that are the largest emitters are not disproportionately contributing more to the problem of global warming than smaller emitters who are contributing much less is not something you will get much traction with, but you are welcome to hold it.


  • #155
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    What? This doesn't make any sense at all. Can you explain, with links to the relevant metrics and methodologies how you reached the conclusion that Luxembourg was being hit twice. Your initial scenario was debunked, so why you maintain it is puzzling.


    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109087696&postcount=139


    Can you link to where it was debunked?


  • #156
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    dense wrote: »
    A belief that holds that the countries that are the largest emitters are not disproportionately contributing more to the problem of global warming than smaller emitters who are contributing much less is not something you will get much traction with, but you are welcome to hold it.

    In the Vatican vs China thought experiment it was the Vatican that was disproportionately producing more carbon emissions per capita than China.

    This is fairly remedial stuff. It’s fairly extraordinary that you can’t even grasp this.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    In the Vatican vs China thought experiment it was the Vatican that was disproportionately producing more carbon emissions per capita than China.

    This is fairly remedial stuff. It’s fairly extraordinary that you can’t even grasp this.

    And the absolute contribution to the problem of global warming from the lower emitter doesn't matter:
    blanch152 wrote: »
    The absolute level of contribution doesn't matter when you are discussing the proportional level of contribution and whether this is disproportionate.

    I grasp it all fine.


  • #158
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That has to be found anyway.

    It does.

    €600,000 in fines amounts to ~ €3000 per household.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/households-face-3000-tax-bill-on-fuel-and-energy-to-cover-climate-costs-37550460.html

    Perhaps we can use a carbon tax to fund the fines for failing to tackle climate change via a carbon tax.

    It is not an issue that can be ignored by Fine Gael who are accused of being in climate denial.


    We will be funding fines on top of rising carbon taxes.

    The ESRI's states that:


    Quote:
    "...it is crystal clear that Ireland is far from meeting the non-ETS emission reduction targets by 2020 and 2030 even with significant increases in the carbon tax."

    The ESRI says carbon tax will need to be increased over 10 years to €300 per tonne in order to avoid fines.

    https://www.esri.ie/news/an-increase-in-carbon-tax-would-have-small-impacts-on-households-and-producers


    Quote:
    "A new computational model developed by the institute that factors in economic data, environmental trends and energy consumption, has found carbon tax on fossil fuels will need to increase to €300 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted over the coming decade to avoid substantial fines in the form of compliance costs."


    Non-ETS emissions in Ireland must be reduced by 20 per cent on 2005 levels by 2020, but the EPA estimates the overall reduction will be 1 per cent at best, due to economic growth and agricultural expansion. The 2030 target is 30 per cent."


    Carbon tax will have to increase substantially – from €100 per person a year to €1,500 a year – if Ireland is to meet legally-binding targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, according to ESRI projections."

    https://www.irishtimes...i-1.3704655?mode=amp


    €1500 per person or €7bn per year in additional funding to meet our climate obligations.

    Would anyone like to propose how Fine Gael should be addressing this?


  • #159
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    dense wrote: »
    It does.

    €600,000 in fines amounts to ~ €3000 per household.

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/households-face-3000-tax-bill-on-fuel-and-energy-to-cover-climate-costs-37550460.html

    Perhaps we can use a carbon tax to fund the fines for failing to tackle climate change via a carbon tax.

    It is not an issue that can be ignored by Fine Gael who are accused of being in climate denial.

    3000 per household per year would go along way to improving our housing stock


  • #160
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    3000 per household per year would go along way to improving our housing stock

    It would, but I have since edited that post, I estimate, using published figures, that the total climate spend here, including carbon taxes and renewable infrastructure is going to cost in the region of €7bn per year.

    I would welcome any corrections to that estimate.


  • #161
    Dytalus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    dense wrote: »
    €1500 per person or €7bn per year in additional funding to meet our climate obligations.

    Would anyone like to propose how Fine Gael should be addressing this?

    Ideally by slowly building up the tax, if it's something they're going to have to do. If they keep pushing it off to avoid angering people, then it just means one of two things will happen:
    • We get fined for not meeting targets, costing taxpayers money...and angering people.
    • They increase it in large 'catch up' increments, causing a very sudden spike in cost of living...and angering people.

    I still don't think a straight carbon tax is the best way to handle our carbon emissions, as I detailed above. Too many rural areas with long commutes and no regular public transport, and EVs/Hybrids are still expensive. And that's just a carbon tax on petrol, never mind anything that hits heating fuels for houses that might not have electric heating and cannot afford renovation.

    But it's better than getting smacked with yearly fines for not meeting our emission targets, which I'd wager people will be even less happy about.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Ideally by slowly building up the tax, if it's something they're going to have to do. If they keep pushing it off to avoid angering people, then it just means one of two things will happen:
    • We get fined for not meeting targets, costing taxpayers money...and angering people.
    • They increase it in large 'catch up' increments, causing a very sudden spike in cost of living...and angering people.

    I still don't think a straight carbon tax is the best way to handle our carbon emissions, as I detailed above. Too many rural areas with long commutes and no regular public transport, and EVs/Hybrids are still expensive. And that's just a carbon tax on petrol, never mind anything that hits heating fuels for houses that might not have electric heating and cannot afford renovation.

    But it's better than getting smacked with yearly fines for not meeting our emission targets, which I'd wager people will be even less happy about.

    Yes, and this whole situation has very close parallels to the much promised, automatic and imminent but ultimately imaginary fines that were magically sending themselves all the way from Brussels to Ireland for not having water charges.

    Lobbyists for carbon taxes/emissions reductions may be a little like lobbyists for water charges, promising all manner of imaginary fines ignoring due process if their policies are not implemented

    I previously linked to a newspaper report containing reference to an annual €600m fine,

    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/ireland-faces-annual-eu-energy-fines-of-600m-36857141.html

    On closer analysis there appears to be no official source for that figure, so it is likely to have been plucked from thin air by climate lobbyists, the mysterious unnamed "experts" who provided the figure used in that report.

    So it appears to be fake news.
    No source for the figure and no explanation as to how it was arrived at.

    Indeed the Minister for Climate Changes office has disputed the accuracy of that figure.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/penalties-for-missing-climate-change-goals-to-be-less-than-claimed-minister-says-1.3508293?mode=amp

    Looking at this opinion piece, from the Institute of International and European Affairs, that €600,000,000 (I might have typed six hundred thousand earlier, apologies if I did) seems to have been completely fabricated by lobbyists for carbon taxes/reducing emissions:

    https://www.iiea.com/energy/behind-renewable-energy-fines/

    Again, if anyone has a source for that figure to correct me, or a contrasting opinion as to who is behind it, it would be most welcome.

    If not, we can put the €0.6bn a year in fines for not meeting our climate commitments down as fake news, and, Fine Gael probably already know it. ;)


  • #163
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Dytalus wrote: »
    Ideally by slowly building up the tax, if it's something they're going to have to do. If they keep pushing it off to avoid angering people, then it just means one of two things will happen:
    • We get fined for not meeting targets, costing taxpayers money...and angering people.
    • They increase it in large 'catch up' increments, causing a very sudden spike in cost of living...and angering people.

    I still don't think a straight carbon tax is the best way to handle our carbon emissions, as I detailed above. Too many rural areas with long commutes and no regular public transport, and EVs/Hybrids are still expensive. And that's just a carbon tax on petrol, never mind anything that hits heating fuels for houses that might not have electric heating and cannot afford renovation.

    But it's better than getting smacked with yearly fines for not meeting our emission targets, which I'd wager people will be even less happy about.

    I expect to get jumped on for this, but nonetheless;
    It's about trust. Nobody trusts government, FF or FG or both, will do the right thing. Both have track records for putting other concerns above the tax payer or incompetently making decisions favouring others above the tax payer (depending on how much benefit of the doubt you're willing to give).
    I suggest the majority of people will not believe any carbon tax is for the greater good so instead of another feet to the fire series of threats that 'we better or else', 'we've no choice' and so on, there needs to be a building of trust. Maybe bring such move in in increments, show why it's happening, explain in a clear manner. Then after a time make the increases.
    I expect some hammer of a tax and political scaremongering followed by public protests, but that seems to be how we do things unfortunately.


  • #164
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    It's such a shame the debate in Ireland on climate action revolves around carbon taxes. There are so many other better policies and ones that don't raise shackles like taxes do.


  • #165
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Macha wrote: »
    It's such a shame the debate in Ireland on climate action revolves around carbon taxes. There are so many other better policies and ones that don't raise shackles like taxes do.

    But funding a means of supplying alternative sustainable energy to replace the 90 to 94% of our energy requirements currently derived from oil cannot be done without tax increases.

    They can be dressed up as something else but ultimately funding for an unprecedented national sustainable energy infrastructure has to come from somewhere.

    But it essential that indpendent cost/benefit analyses are employed to estimate the projected affects that any of these taxes will have on alleviating the problem of global warming.

    There's little sense in imposing global warming taxes on households if we don't know how they'll affect global warming.


  • #166
    ednwireland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,753 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    dense wrote: »
    But funding a means of supplying alternative sustainable energy to replace the 90 to 94% of our energy requirements currently derived from oil cannot be done without tax increases.

    They can be dressed up as something else but ultimately funding for an unprecedented national sustainable energy infrastructure has to come from somewhere.

    but we all know thats not going to happen even if huge carbon taxes are brought in, the gov. wont fund any alternatives hence carbon taxes are just revenue raising and are in no way linked to behaviour change.

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • #167
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    ednwireland wrote: »
    but we all know thats not going to happen even if huge carbon taxes are brought in, the gov. wont fund any alternatives hence carbon taxes are just revenue raising and are in no way linked to behaviour change.

    That's likely what will happen. They, (who ever) need to get out there, show their intent and furnish results directly related to any tax.


  • #168
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,391 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    dense wrote: »
    But funding a means of supplying alternative sustainable energy to replace the 90 to 94% of our energy requirements currently derived from oil cannot be done without tax increases.

    They can be dressed up as something else but ultimately funding for an unprecedented national sustainable energy infrastructure has to come from somewhere.

    In reality, you can raise revenues in any way you like - carbon taxes are just one option - and a regressive one at that. You can also do many things to decrease the costs of investment in the transition, which will have to not just be in the energy sectors but also in agriculture and other land uses. One example is the creation of a clear and stable policy framework that attracts private investments. And those can include micro-investments. The recently agreed EU Renewables Directive includes rules to facilitiate and support households, small businesses etc to invest in things like rooftop solar. Those are the sort of investments that can have a knock-on benefit of reducing the costs of larger projects through broadening public support for the transition.

    The associated socio-economic benefits also need to be considered. The European Commission estimates the health savings alone from Europe fully decarbonising by 2050 at around E200bn per year. Let's also not forget that the costs from the impacts of climate change will inevitably increase. River floods alone cause E5bn in damages in Europe today but that could increase to E112bn if we do nothing to tackle climate change. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_en.pdf

    By the way, Ireland's imported energy is fossil fuels, not just oil. We import coal, gas and oil. I have to say, I think we do a pretty good job of supporting relatively high shares of non-synchronous energy resources (including renewables but also DC imports) on our grid - plus we're quite isolated - but we need to do much more - and tackle the heating/cooling, transport and agriculture sectors as well.


  • #169
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Macha wrote: »
    In reality, you can raise revenues in any way you like - carbon taxes are just one option - and a regressive one at that.

    Of course you can and they need not be called a carbon tax.
    But manifestos promising tax cuts/or non tax increases will be appearing in the not too distant future. It's going to need some inventiveness.

    Macha wrote: »
    You can also do many things to decrease the costs of investment in the transition, which will have to not just be in the energy sectors but also in agriculture and other land uses.


    One example is the creation of a clear and stable policy framework that attracts private investments.

    For an investment to be attractive it has to offer a return, so it needs to be seen whether private investment would be the most beneficial for the taxpayer .

    And all of that will be happening in a era where energy prices to the consumer will be going in one direction and it won't be down.


    Macha wrote: »
    By the way, Ireland's imported energy is fossil fuels, not just oil. We import coal, gas and oil.

    Of course, but our current energy requirements are equivalent to approximately 15million tons of oil a year, and a just a fraction of that energy is currently supplied by renewables.
    Macha wrote: »
    I have to say, I think we do a pretty good job of supporting relatively high shares of non-synchronous energy resources (including renewables but also DC imports) on our grid - plus we're quite isolated - but we need to do much more - and tackle the heating/cooling, transport and agriculture sectors as well.

    Well, the solution does call for unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.


  • #170
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    dense wrote: »
    The one that I find most interesting is Luxembourg's.
    It has one of the highest per capita Co2 emissions in Europe but it's "fuel tourists", motorists from surrounding countries travelling to purchase fuel there, are often cited as one of the reasons it's per capita figure is so high:

    However, there are still problems in connection with CO2 emissions, especially as Luxembourg's economy is the most carbon-intensive in the OECD in per capita terms even though this is partly due to the sales of fuel to non-residents.[1]

    But of course that fuel is burned elsewhere so the emissions derived from it can not also be Luxembourg's, yet, they are counted as being Luxembourg's.
    Which doesn't make sense.

    So there is clearly some double counting going on there.

    It would be interesting to know what level it is occurring on a global scale.

    And using the accepted logic that Luxembourg is somehow being "caught out" by neighbouring countries buying fuel from it, and it being responsible for the emissions from said fuel, surely whoever we're buying our oil and coal from should be responsible for our emissions from it? ;)

    Maybe that's why those oil producing countries have such a huge per capita figure, meaning there's some serious double counting going on......

    You're either confused of deliberately attempting to skew the facts here.

    http://www.oecd.org/environment/country-reviews/44844761.pdf

    Page 6:
    However, decoupling problems persist, especially for CO2 emissions. Trends in the transport and energy sectors are of concern, particularly as the "motorisation rate" is among the highest in the OECD, and taking account of sales of fuel to non-residents, Luxembourg's economy is the most carbon-intensive in the OECD in per capita terms.

    This does not in any way suggest that the emissions are being double-counted as you suggest.


  • #171
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's about trust. Nobody trusts government, FF or FG or both, will do the right thing. Both have track records for putting other concerns above the tax payer or incompetently making decisions favouring others above the tax payer (depending on how much benefit of the doubt you're willing to give).
    I suggest the majority of people will not believe any carbon tax is for the greater good so instead of another feet to the fire series of threats that 'we better or else', 'we've no choice' and so on, there needs to be a building of trust.

    It is about trust Matt, but trust works both ways I'm afraid.

    For example, if you had the temerity to enquire of Fine Gael or Fianna Fail (or the lobbyists proposing carbon taxes/emissions cuts) for a detailed explanation of their understanding of Ireland Inc's past and potential future role in affecting global warming/climate change you'll quickly be derided as some sort of awkward contrarian.

    That shouldn't happen.
    It wouldn't happen in any other policy area but it happens in this policy area.

    If that happens the majority of people, assuming the majority of people are interested enough to ask the most basic of questions, expecting them to be comprehensively answered, they may be very likely to democratically reject any of the policies being proposed.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You're either confused of deliberately attempting to skew the facts here.

    http://www.oecd.org/environment/country-reviews/44844761.pdf

    Page 6:



    This does not in any way suggest that the emissions are being double-counted as you suggest.

    Would you mind being a little more respectful?
    There is no need for the patronising attitude.
    Thank you.


    I showed that it's fuel tourists emitting CO2 in their own countries from fuel bought in Luxembourg that are being blamed for contributing to Luxembourg's high CO2 emissions.

    Do you accept that Luxembourg is not emitting that CO2?

    But that it is being counted towards their high CO2 emission rates?

    If that is the case, which it is, whoever we're buying our fuel from should be blamed for supplying it and should be taking full responsibility for it as is being expected of Luxembourg.

    "Under the Kyoto Protocol, Luxembourg pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2020. However, government commitment to this target has been weak, due to significant tax revenues (€800 million) derived from fuel tourism. This is because around 75% of fuel sold in Luxembourg is exported."

    Not forgetting that 100% of the transport fuel sold in Luxembourg is imported to begin with.


    https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.sgi-network.org/2014/Luxembourg/Environmental_Policies&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjPgYzZm-bfAhXNQhUIHWvkDP4QFjAAegQIChAC&usg=AOvVaw2G82df_s4aWP5UBtwVWWar

    The document you link to takes this into account:

    "However, decoupling problems persist, especially for CO2 emissions. Trends in the transport and
    energy sectors are of concern, particularly as the "motorisation rate" is among the highest in the OECD,
    and taking account of sales of fuel to non-residents, Luxembourg's economy is the most carbon-intensive
    in the OECD in per capita terms."

    Residents of neighbouring countries using fuel purchased in Luxembourg are being blamed for Luxembourg's high emissions.


  • #173
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    dense wrote: »
    It is about trust Matt, but trust works both ways I'm afraid.

    For example, if you had the temerity to enquire of Fine Gael or Fianna Fail (or the lobbyists proposing carbon taxes/emissions cuts) for a detailed explanation of their understanding of Ireland Inc's past and potential future role in affecting global warming/climate change you'll quickly be derided as some sort of awkward contrarian.

    That shouldn't happen.
    It wouldn't happen in any other policy area but it happens in this policy area.

    If that happens the majority of people, assuming the majority of people are interested enough to ask the most basic of questions, expecting them to be comprehensively answered, they may be very likely to democratically reject any of the policies being proposed.

    We're on two different tracks here. I believe climate change is a big problem and everyone has a role to play. Its unfair some cause more damage than others, but it's irrelevant at this point. Every country should do as much as they can.
    As regards carbon tax or the like, I agree. I have very little faith that once introduced it will have any baring other than to squeeze the public further as they witness no results. We need green initiatives such as grants to switch to solar power, wind and tax relief on the purchasing of electric cars and other such things. A move towards the inevitable now rather than a forced one later.


  • #174
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,116 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Macha wrote: »
    In reality, you can raise revenues in any way you like - carbon taxes are just one option - and a regressive one at that.


    I dislike the term regressive when used in relation to carbon taxes.

    Carbon taxes are regressive in that they do not increase in relation to income - but they are not income taxes, so why should they?

    Carbon taxes are progressive, in that they increase in relation to carbon use, which is their policy aim.

    It all comes down to what you define as regressive. Excise duties on cigarettes are regressive in relation to income, but progressive in relation to health.


  • #175
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    We're on two different tracks here. I believe climate change is a big problem and everyone has a role to play.

    I differ in that I don't see the value of role play in this.

    In any other area of unprecedented investment we would be actively seeking some sort of independent cost benefit analysis, outside of the realms of "belief".

    That might sound harsh or that I'm trying to be clever, but I'm not.

    I'm trying to be realistic about our role.


  • #176
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dense wrote: »
    I differ in that I don't see the value of role play in this.

    I suspect you differ in that you don't see climate change as a big problem.

    Two questions for you: do you accept that Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change? And do you accept in full the conclusions of the IPCC reports you quote in your signature, or are you quote-mining?


  • #177
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,116 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    dense wrote: »
    Would you mind being a little more respectful?
    There is no need for the patronising attitude.
    Thank you.


    I showed that it's fuel tourists emitting CO2 in their own countries from fuel bought in Luxembourg that are being blamed for contributing to Luxembourg's high CO2 emissions.

    Do you accept that Luxembourg is not emitting that CO2?

    But that it is being counted towards their high CO2 emission rates?

    If that is the case, which it is, whoever we're buying our fuel from should be blamed for supplying it and should be taking full responsibility for it as is being expected of Luxembourg.

    "Under the Kyoto Protocol, Luxembourg pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 20% by 2020. However, government commitment to this target has been weak, due to significant tax revenues (€800 million) derived from fuel tourism. This is because around 75% of fuel sold in Luxembourg is exported."

    Not forgetting that 100% of the transport fuel sold in Luxembourg is imported to begin with.


    https://www.google.ie/url?q=http://www.sgi-network.org/2014/Luxembourg/Environmental_Policies&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjPgYzZm-bfAhXNQhUIHWvkDP4QFjAAegQIChAC&usg=AOvVaw2G82df_s4aWP5UBtwVWWar

    The document you link to takes this into account:

    "However, decoupling problems persist, especially for CO2 emissions. Trends in the transport and
    energy sectors are of concern, particularly as the "motorisation rate" is among the highest in the OECD,
    and taking account of sales of fuel to non-residents, Luxembourg's economy is the most carbon-intensive
    in the OECD in per capita terms."

    Residents of neighbouring countries using fuel purchased in Luxembourg are being blamed for Luxembourg's high emissions.


    With all due respect, you stated that there was double-counting. There isn't, which immediately detracts from all of your other points.


  • #178
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    dense wrote: »
    I differ in that I don't see the value of role play in this.

    In any other area of unprecedented investment we would be actively seeking some sort of independent cost benefit analysis, outside of the realms of "belief".

    That might sound harsh or that I'm trying to be clever, but I'm not.

    I'm trying to be realistic about our role.

    The problems arise when people get into whatabout. This is a global issue. It won't stop at our border if we decide to opt out. What ever others do or don't do, it's on us to do as much as we can. I know the U.S. Russia and other malcontents try ignore or buy their way out of it but we can't all have that attitude.
    Climate change is unprecedented. If spending improves the environment, our output, money well spent.


  • #179
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I dislike the term regressive when used in relation to carbon taxes.

    Carbon taxes are regressive in that they do not increase in relation to income - but they are not income taxes, so why should they?

    Carbon taxes are progressive, in that they increase in relation to carbon use, which is their policy aim.

    It all comes down to what you define as regressive. Excise duties on cigarettes are regressive in relation to income, but progressive in relation to health.

    The need not be regressive if designed as part of a scheme where the fuel usage of the less well off in society is subsidised by the better off.

    For example, their fuel allowance could be doubled to offset their carbon tax obligations from burning carbon intensive fuels or supply them with solar panel arrays.

    Which would make their carbon taxes less regressive:

    Carbon taxes can be a regressive tax, in that they may directly or indirectly affect low-income groups disproportionately. The regressive impact of carbon taxes could be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups.[11]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

    And it sounds like the sort of hare brained scheme we could hear a lot about in the future.


  • #180
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Climate change is unprecedented. If spending improves the environment, our output, money well spent.

    You've just said nobody trusts the government to do the right thing and spend our money on carbon taxes competently.

    Are you not being a little inconsistent on this?

    How can we build the trust that you said was needed if we can't ask questions relevant to our spending?

    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    "It's about trust. Nobody trusts government, FF or FG or both, will do the right thing. Both have track records for putting other concerns above the tax payer or incompetently making decisions favouring others above the tax payer (depending on how much benefit of the doubt you're willing to give).
    I suggest the majority of people will not believe any carbon tax is for the greater good so instead of another feet to the fire series of threats that 'we better or else', 'we've no choice' and so on, there needs to be a building of trust."


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    With all due respect, you stated that there was double-counting. There isn't, which immediately detracts from all of your other points.

    Emissions not being emitted in Luxembourg by the Luxembourgish are being counted as being CO2 emitted in or by Luxembourg.

    It's the reason their CO2 emissions are so high apparently.

    Luxembourg's emissions rate would be lower if the emissions from "fuel tourists" was not added in.

    Do you think we should use the same reasoning?

    We could say they're not our CO2 emissions, they belong to whoever we bought the fuel from.

    That is what is being said about Luxembourg - the emissions from the fuel they sell is theirs.

    You seem to think it is a legitimate position so why not?


Advertisement