People jaded by 'Green' issues

Húrin · 13-09-2008 12:02pm

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah agree about bikes, trains and ferries. The way of the future combined with bio kerosene
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=jet-fuel-from-algae-passes-first-te-2008-09-09
electric cars and renewable energy sources like solar wind and wave

That's interesting. I hope it works for them. I still wouldn't fly though (due to the extreme nature of airport security.)

Húrin · 13-09-2008 12:54pm

taconnol wrote: »

I am not talking about rural areas - it is somewhat inevitable that private-car use will be higher in rural than urban areas.

It is possible that Lynas is talking about rural areas, or more likely outer suburbs. I should email him and ask.

The simple fact is that Irish people use their cars more than anyone else in the EU, and the rest of the world.

Even more than in the USA, where 15 year olds do driving tests?

Also, I think Lynas's article is a joke. It smacks of someone who is tired of coming 4th & has decided to get in a few digs at the person in 1st place.

I doubt it. He's no nationalist.

No offense, but I don't have much regards for Dublin Cycling Campaign, although I was a member once.

Personally I don't think they're radical enough, but what's your issue with them?

Yes, I totally agree with all of this, I hate cycling down Dame St. Plus the latest scheme by Dublin City Council with JC Decaux is a joke!!

I always cross the Liffey by Bridge St and Church St if going North, and often by Capel St and Parliament St if going south, and turning right after that. Anything further east is trouble.

Why is it a joke? The schemes in France show that it is making cycling more popular. People try out the public bikes a few times, then decide to buy their own when they find that they like cycling.

Yes I'm aware of the benefits of Dublin's gardens but my issue with them is this: they are private gardens, totally dependent on the whim of the owner as to whether they will languish in weeds, be paved over, keep as an ornate interest or actually put to some good use.

In a low oil future it will presumably be in everyone's interest to grow their own food.

In Sweden, sufficient public outdoor spaces are provided, which can easily be converted into food-producing spaces if the need arises in the future.

But who will work them, other than those with an interest in doing so? It seems like the same arrangement as private gardens, but with much worse security. (Security breaches and vandalism have been the downfall of many a community veg garden.)

As usual, there is a way of doing things & Ireland gets it wrong practically at every turn.

Provocative. There are many ways of doing things.

Macha · 13-09-2008 3:20pm

Húrin wrote: »

Even more than in the USA, where 15 year olds do driving tests?

Unfortunately, yes. I am referring to car use, not car ownership. We do have quite high levels of car ownership but we use them more than anyone else.

Húrin wrote: »

I doubt it. He's no nationalist.

Alright, fair enough.

Húrin wrote: »

Personally I don't think they're radical enough, but what's your issue with them?

Well, I obviously have no problem with the campaigns for awareness of obstacles facing Dublin's cyclists (being one myself). What I disagree with is their idea that cyclists should be separate from other traffic. For example, I don't know if you've seen the bollards at the bottom of O'Connell St that separate out the cyclists from the rest of the lanes - that was Dublin Cycling Campaign. I disagree completely with this approach and feel that cyclist should have their place on the roads, just like everyone else and should be respected (and act) like a fully legitimate road user. The idea of separating us out marks us out as different & I don't think its at all necessary.

Also, a recent study showed that drivers give cyclists less space when there is a cycle lane. Cycle lanes in DUblin are ignored anyway. I think we should just get rid of them.

Húrin wrote: »

Why is it a joke? The schemes in France show that it is making cycling more popular. People try out the public bikes a few times, then decide to buy their own when they find that they like cycling.

Ok it's a joke because
1) We are getting nowhere near as good a deal as Paris and other cities under the same scheme, in terms of the ratio of facilities: advertising space granted
2) The bikes aren't going to be delivered until 2009 but JC Decaux already have put up many of their billboards
3) Dublin city centre is already VERY tight on space (eg Dame St). You have 3 lanes of traffic for the lovely cars & buses, while people are crammed onto narrow pavement, squashed in, waiting at pedestrian lights. The situation is made even worse by Dublin City Council allowing pubs to put out terraces on public pavement (ie that hotel by the Foggy Dew - the pavement narrows down to about 1 foot across!). Can we really afford more street furniture, with no function, apart from advertising? (This is the reason the DTO opposed the scheme)
4) Many of the signs that have already been put up, have been placed in locations that are very dangerous to blind people and block the line of sight of drivers in relation to pedestrians and pedestrian lights. They have been forced to take some of them down.

Take a look:

http://www.dermotlacey.ie/blog/2008/07/erection-of-dangerous-jc-decaux-metropoles-must-be-suspended/

I mean look at this shoddy mess in comparison to Paris. We have serious problems in this country with just bending over backwards whenever a big multinational appears on the horizon. It's like we're some starry-eyed teenager that can't complete a sentence when in the presence of their favourite actor. It's pathetic the way we can't handle ourselves.

Húrin wrote: »

In a low oil future it will presumably be in everyone's interest to grow their own food.

Of course, but I'm afraid I don't have as much faith in human nature as you do. Even today, people don't do things that are in their own interest because its too much hassle, costs too much money, any reason you can think of.

Húrin wrote: »

But who will work them, other than those with an interest in doing so? It seems like the same arrangement as private gardens, but with much worse security. (Security breaches and vandalism have been the downfall of many a community veg garden.)

That is something that will have to be addressed if/when the time comes. The residents of the apartment block can join together. Apartment blocks do share common facilities today and deal with these issues today. It's not some new problem.. Security breaches and vandalism are also problems with private property.

Húrin wrote: »

Provocative. There are many ways of doing things.

Of course, but I think very few would argue with me when I say we had a chance to do something great with this country back in 1994 and we royally screwed the whole thing up. I mean in relation to urban design, public transport provision,water treatment, building regulations blah blah blah I could go on. These days I get more of shock when the government actually shows some long-term joined up thinking, rather than kowtowing to private interests and only being able to think as far ahead as the next election.

KhanTheMan · 13-09-2008 6:10pm

Its starting to sound like a bunch of Nazis in here at this point. Read what some of you are saying. Its like you want to control everyones habits but only as long as they dont conflict with your own.

If you want to do something environmentally friendly then go live beside your job and walk to work. Dont even waste the carbon it costs to make the bike you're cycling now. Dont tell others they cant live outside the city and have a garden unless you are prepared to go all the way and not just some of the way that suits yourself.

If you want to ask people not to fly, then go the whole way yourself and dont even get any transport that uses carbon. Walk to your holidays.

Jaysus, the thread is full of do what i say , not what i do here.

Macha · 13-09-2008 7:35pm

KhanTheMan - I do practice what I preach. I don't know why you think I don't

KhanTheMan · 13-09-2008 7:59pm

taconnol wrote: »

KhanTheMan - I do practice what I preach. I don't know why you think I don't

Wasnt aimed at you taconnel.

But in general i have these questions for those who are demanding that we all reduce our carbon footprint.

Do you walk everywhere? Do you never fly? Do you live in a tent? All these things will help reduce the carbon footprint of our country. And if its possible to reduce your carbon footprint still more, while you are preaching to others to reduce theirs, then you are a hipocrite.

If you really wanted to reduce the worlds carbon footprint then you would do these things and more.

Or do you just demand that others reduce their carbon footprint down to a level that you think they should because that is a level that you yourself are comfortable with. If you can demand that others change their lifestyles then you must be prepared to go further than you already do yourself.

I have a garden. I grow my food. I have a water butt, compost heap etc.
I am in the process of building a home-made solar heat collector which will feed solar heated air into my already operational aerothermal heat pump. I use puplic transport and walk, but i still have to drive 7 miles to a train station to get to work.

I do what i can, but i DONT pretend to be all righteous and tell other people that they MUST do what "i" consider to be neccesary for them to do. You can all always do more.

Macha · 13-09-2008 8:25pm

OK

Well, I would love for it to be the case that it is up to everyone to do as they see fit but unfortunately, other people's decision don't just affect them.

A guy putting in a faulty septic tank - he's allowed to do what he wants? Well..no, because then he is polluting another person's drinking water. I could give hundreds of other examples, but you see what I mean.

Of course, I don't advocate that people go live in a tent but at the same time, I think people these days have this impression that the way we live today is some sort of god-given right and that people have always lived like this. We haven't always lived like this and last time I checked, owning an SUV wasn't written into our constitution.

I would love that enough people, not even everyone, but enough people had the common sense to take the actions that you have. But unfortunately that just isn't human nature. And in my opinion, there are some things more important that an individual's freedom. Like biodiversity. Like sustainable energy, etc.

Now I'm not talking about freedom of speech, freedom to vote. No I'm talking about people screaming about their right to buy kiwis from new zealand.

Ok this is how I see it. At the moment, a lot of people's actions have long-term consequences, about which they are not aware and for which they do not pay. I'll take a non-carbon example to avoid that whole can of worms. So say we have a farmer who sprays his crops with pesticides. This act kills many insects, thus reducing biodiversity. This in turn has serious consequences for pollination (just see Germany's big panic this summer over their dropping bee populations..). Now, that farmer toddles off and the cost of the negative impact of his actions are not payed by him, but are externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair?

This is why I would be in favour of a carbon tax. If you really, really want to do all these polluting things, do them. But YOU are the one who is going to pay the cost of cleaning it up, no the exchequer.

That was totally rambly - hope it made sense!

BTW-I only fly when I have to (seriously, like obligatory college trip or family spending Xmas in Spain). I cycle everywhere, buy local, organic food with as little packaging as possible, have seriously reduced the amount of meat I eat, got a wormery for the apartment (no balcony-yuck!), recycle everything, have all eco-bulbs in the house, etc.

But I know that not everyone is going to do this and unfortunately, we are not in a position where people can carry on as they have for the past century. It's just not worth it - to us or future generations. I mean what will future generations think of us? We didn't do anything about it because we were too worried about infringing on people's rights to waste energy, natural resources and pump ridiculous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

I hate coming across as preachy but in the end, what is the other option? Running this planet into the ground? Anything is better than this, in my book. I want my children and grandchildren to live in a clean world, not one where everyone is running around screaming about their right to pollute.

To paraphrase Gandhi, there is enough in this world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed. We, in the West, are just greedy. And for me, the backlash against the environmental movement reminds me of a spoiled child whose just been told that she can't keep her expensive little toy.

KhanTheMan · 13-09-2008 9:34pm

taconnol wrote: »

OK

Well, I would love for it to be the case that it is up to everyone to do as they see fit but unfortunately, other people's decision don't just affect them.

A guy putting in a faulty septic tank - he's allowed to do what he wants? Well..no, because then he is polluting another person's drinking water. I could give hundreds of other examples, but you see what I mean.

Of course, I don't advocate that people go live in a tent but at the same time, I think people these days have this impression that the way we live today is some sort of god-given right and that people have always lived like this. We haven't always lived like this and last time I checked, owning an SUV wasn't written into our constitution.

I would love that enough people, not even everyone, but enough people had the common sense to take the actions that you have. But unfortunately that just isn't human nature. And in my opinion, there are some things more important that an individual's freedom. Like biodiversity. Like sustainable energy, etc.

Now I'm not talking about freedom of speech, freedom to vote. No I'm talking about people screaming about their right to buy kiwis from new zealand.

Ok this is how I see it. At the moment, a lot of people's actions have long-term consequences, about which they are not aware and for which they do not pay. I'll take a non-carbon example to avoid that whole can of worms. So say we have a farmer who sprays his crops with pesticides. This act kills many insects, thus reducing biodiversity. This in turn has serious consequences for pollination (just see Germany's big panic this summer over their dropping bee populations..). Now, that farmer toddles off and the cost of the negative impact of his actions are not payed by him, but are externalised to the rest of society. How is that fair?

This is why I would be in favour of a carbon tax. If you really, really want to do all these polluting things, do them. But YOU are the one who is going to pay the cost of cleaning it up, no the exchequer.

That was totally rambly - hope it made sense!

BTW-I only fly when I have to (seriously, like obligatory college trip or family spending Xmas in Spain). I cycle everywhere, buy local, organic food with as little packaging as possible, have seriously reduced the amount of meat I eat, got a wormery for the apartment (no balcony-yuck!), recycle everything, have all eco-bulbs in the house, etc.

But I know that not everyone is going to do this and unfortunately, we are not in a position where people can carry on as they have for the past century. It's just not worth it - to us or future generations. I mean what will future generations think of us? We didn't do anything about it because we were too worried about infringing on people's rights to waste energy, natural resources and pump ridiculous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere?

I hate coming across as preachy but in the end, what is the other option? Running this planet into the ground? Anything is better than this, in my book. I want my children and grandchildren to live in a clean world, not one where everyone is running around screaming about their right to pollute.

To paraphrase Gandhi, there is enough in this world for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed. We, in the West, are just greedy. And for me, the backlash against the environmental movement reminds me of a spoiled child whose just been told that she can't keep her expensive little toy.

Its not written into the constitution that you live in an apartment or are allowed to cycle a bike (using rubber, steel etc - a carbon expensive little toy that you feel is your right to keep) either. My point is that the pain you would feel giving up the bike or the roof you have over your head now is equal to the pain of someone living in a different area giving up their car or their house with a garden, and yet people are willing to tell others what they should do and yet go no further themselves.

Macha · 13-09-2008 10:13pm

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Its not written into the constitution that you live in an apartment or are allowed to cycle a bike (using rubber, steel etc - a carbon expensive little toy that you feel is your right to keep) either. My point is that the pain you would feel giving up the bike or the roof you have over your head now is equal to the pain of someone living in a different area giving up their car or their house with a garden, and yet people are willing to tell others what they should do and yet go no further themselves.

As I said before, there is enough in the world for people's need but not their greed. I think owning a bike is well within the basic standard of living that it is possible for all persons to achieve in a sustainable manner.

And it's not like I have a problem with SOME people living in houses with gardens and big cars, but the problem here is that EVERYONE wants a house and a garden and a car and 5 annual holidays away and and and and...

I don't think its fair to equate someone losing their bike to someone losing their car. I appreciate that there are some people who are used to extravagant levels of living, but I don't have any particular sense of pity for these people. It's like the kids on MTV's Sweet Sixteen being sent to the Arctic Circle to see how other people live. If you live in such decadance that you cry if yous SUV is taken away from you, I'm not going to be crying along with you. Unfortunately, our society actually puts that sort of living up on a pedestal as if its what we should aim for, instead of acknowledging it for the ecological nightmare it is.

I mean, do you agree with what I wrote above? There are some things more important than upsetting some rich sod with too much money. Everything that I call for, both here and elsewhere, are all things that I either already do myself (ie take public transport, cycle, etc) or do not mind being subjected to (eg carbon tax). In this sense, no one can call me a hypocrite.

BigglesMcGee · 13-09-2008 11:41pm

taconnol wrote: »

As I said before, there is enough in the world for people's need but not their greed. I think owning a bike is well within the basic standard of living that it is possible for all persons to achieve in a sustainable manner.

And yet there you are. An opportunity to reduce your carbon footprint by walking instead of biking it, but its too hard for you to take it.

You could probably also get rid of the TV and move to the country and live off the land to reduce it more if you felt that strongly about the environment.

But yet its ok to tell others what to do.

taconnol wrote: »

And it's not like I have a problem with SOME people living in houses with gardens and big cars, but the problem here is that EVERYONE wants a house and a garden and a car and 5 annual holidays away and and and and...

And you want your bike and your apartment. Millions live without either. A step too far for you though.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think its fair to equate someone losing their bike to someone losing their car.

Just pointing out that you are not going as far as you could to reduce your carbon footprint. You are however, expecting others to go as far as YOU want them to though.

taconnol wrote: »

I appreciate that there are some people who are used to extravagant levels of living, but I don't have any particular sense of pity for these people. It's like the kids on MTV's Sweet Sixteen being sent to the Arctic Circle to see how other people live. If you live in such decadance that you cry if yous SUV is taken away from you, I'm not going to be crying along with you. Unfortunately, our society actually puts that sort of living up on a pedestal as if its what we should aim for, instead of acknowledging it for the ecological nightmare it is.

Nobody asked for pity, they just want less bleeding heart bull form those who arent willing to go the extra mile from where they are at, when its entirely doable if it was really about reducing ones impact on the planet. Looking like its more about being able to tell others what to do though and take the perceived moral high ground.

taconnol wrote: »

I mean, do you agree with what I wrote above? There are some things more important than upsetting some rich sod with too much money. Everything that I call for, both here and elsewhere, are all things that I either already do myself (ie take public transport, cycle, etc) or do not mind being subjected to (eg carbon tax). In this sense, no one can call me a hypocrite.

Exactly. Things that you do yourself. But if someone who does more than you called for you to go further you're having none of it. You dont want your toys taken away from you either but are happy for those with more toys than you to lose theirs.

Dont get me wrong. Im not singling you out, and i believe everybody should do what they can. But I dont think its anyones place to be judge and jury on everyone else. We all facilitate emmissions of carbon into the atmosphere by watching TV, buying a bike, car. Using washing machines, fridges, freezers, heating our houses. Even taking public transport. If we really want the right to demand others lose their comforts then we should be willing to lose all of ours.

If we arent then we should just shut up and leave others alone.

Seth Brundle · 13-09-2008 11:52pm

djpbarry wrote: »

No, that's a disposal charge, not a tax.

If you are not disposing of anything then what kind of charge is it?

Húrin · 14-09-2008 1:42am

KhanTheMan wrote: »

If you want to do something environmentally friendly then go live beside your job and walk to work. Dont even waste the carbon it costs to make the bike you're cycling now. Dont tell others they cant live outside the city and have a garden unless you are prepared to go all the way and not just some of the way that suits yourself.

If people tried to do this it would be pointless. We're all hooked on oil here. Individuals can't just easily break that unless all of society changes.

If you want to ask people not to fly, then go the whole way yourself and dont even get any transport that uses carbon. Walk to your holidays.

Hold on mate, how is it hypocritical to ask people not to fly, if you're not flying yourself?

KhanTheMan · 14-09-2008 9:13am

BigglesMcGee wrote: »

And yet there you are. An opportunity to reduce your carbon footprint by walking instead of biking it, but its too hard for you to take it.

You could probably also get rid of the TV and move to the country and live off the land to reduce it more if you felt that strongly about the environment.

But yet its ok to tell others what to do.

And you want your bike and your apartment. Millions live without either. A step too far for you though.

Just pointing out that you are not going as far as you could to reduce your carbon footprint. You are however, expecting others to go as far as YOU want them to though.

Nobody asked for pity, they just want less bleeding heart bull form those who arent willing to go the extra mile from where they are at, when its entirely doable if it was really about reducing ones impact on the planet. Looking like its more about being able to tell others what to do though and take the perceived moral high ground.

Exactly. Things that you do yourself. But if someone who does more than you called for you to go further you're having none of it. You dont want your toys taken away from you either but are happy for those with more toys than you to lose theirs.

Dont get me wrong. Im not singling you out, and i believe everybody should do what they can. But I dont think its anyones place to be judge and jury on everyone else. We all facilitate emmissions of carbon into the atmosphere by watching TV, buying a bike, car. Using washing machines, fridges, freezers, heating our houses. Even taking public transport. If we really want the right to demand others lose their comforts then we should be willing to lose all of ours.

If we arent then we should just shut up and leave others alone.

Not exactly the point i was making Biggles, but close enough.

There are times when we should have to pay extra for something. But its easier to take advice from someone when you give an incentive, rather than a punishment for doing things that you are asked to do its a much easier pill to swallow from the person who is asking, especially if they are only asking as far as suiting themselves.

professore · 14-09-2008 9:23am

KhanTheMan wrote: »

When exactly were you paying for rubbish collection when i wasnt?

Don't know about him but we have had bin charges in Cork for years before ye had them up there in "De Big Smooke"

professore · 14-09-2008 9:30am

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Plastic bags, bin charges, soon to be water charges, motor tax, WEEE ............

Listen to the Green party. All they do now is suggest more taxation.

I'm not a Green freak, but I think we need some balance and fairness here as the vast majority of the problems we have are due to Fianna Fail. I agree that reducing the speed limit on motorways is probably their stupidest suggestion though.

Plastic bags was Micheal Martin (FF)
Motor Tax is now much lower for more environmentally friendly models thanks to the Greens.
WEEE is an EU directive
Water charges for water use above a certain amount would make sense and stop things like people using 540 litres of drinking water to water their garden.
http://www.uswitch.com/Water/How-Much-Water-Use.html

professore · 14-09-2008 9:38am

KhanTheMan wrote: »

No, its not because car ownership is up. Look it up.

OP is right, Im jaded about green issues already.

So why is the tax take higher then? It must be because people are a.) buying gas guzzlers or b.) there are more cars on the road, or both. Plus the tax for secondhand cars went up last budget too, nothing to do with the Greens.

By the way the new motor tax system is a tax on idiots ... if you are stupid enough to buy a high emissions vehicle then you'll pay for it!

professore · 14-09-2008 9:40am

ytareh wrote: »

And yes Im TOTALLY sick of all the Green pontificating too despite being generally pro recycling etc ...Human CO2 causing catastrophic climate change ?Rubbish !(Science graduate )We are within a decade of the nightmarish pay per mile (£1.43 propsed by the UK Govt just recently).Cars and plane travel will soon be for the wealthy only.

LOL ... I think you accidentally typed !( between "Rubbish" and "Science graduate".

professore · 14-09-2008 9:54am

taconnol wrote: »

Yes I'm aware of the benefits of Dublin's gardens but my issue with them is this: they are private gardens, totally dependent on the whim of the owner as to whether they will languish in weeds, be paved over, keep as an ornate interest or actually put to some good use.

What we fail to understand with high density urban design in Ireland, is that if people are to live in apartments, they need outdoor space as well. We have not provided sufficient leisure, park and outdoor facilities for apartment residents (never mind the fact that they are boxy little things). In Sweden, sufficient public outdoor spaces are provided, which can easily be converted into food-producing spaces if the need arises in the future.

As usual, there is a way of doing things & Ireland gets it wrong practically at every turn.

Having lived in Belgium, I totally agree with your sentiments. The big problem is that apartments are built here for single transient people who will 'get on the property ladder' rather than for families renting long term.

14-09-2008 10:40am

with a straight face and being serious I want to ask this to those who suggest apartment living for most V the current situation:

What about alcohol? Should it be banned for human consumption? It is ALOT of fuel we drink every weekend and literally p*** away when with small modifications we could be churning out a bio fuel....

Remember when talking about cars and how bad they alot of why they are so bad is because we buy a new one every few years. Cars can last decades and can be modified to run on bio fuels.
Im all for better public transport but at the moment if I want to take my dog with me anywhere I MUST drive. Also apartment living means you cant have a dog. And whether or not people grow their own food now or not the garden is there for the future...
I had a half acre before I went back to college and I didnt grow vegetables (although I was planning on trying it out) and I agree that most people dont but I was growing apples, pears, gooseberries, strawberries, blackcurrants to name but a few! I also had two composters. Upon my return back to Dublin I learnt that doing the above is hard even with an average garden in an estate.
Also there was no recycling bins until recently!!!
To tannocol - while you dont trust people to do things for the environment I dont trust the govt to do it. We are similiar but different!

johnpauls · 14-09-2008 10:58am

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5717/

Ethan has his finger on the green issues.Please read.:D

KhanTheMan · 14-09-2008 11:40am

Deleted User wrote: »

with a straight face and being serious I want to ask this to those who suggest apartment living for most V the current situation:

What about alcohol? Should it be banned for human consumption? It is ALOT of fuel we drink every weekend and literally p*** away when with small modifications we could be churning out a bio fuel....

Excellent

I actually know a lot of people who dont have cars but drink more than i put in my car every week

Macha · 14-09-2008 1:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

with a straight face and being serious I want to ask this to those who suggest apartment living for most V the current situation:

What about alcohol? Should it be banned for human consumption? It is ALOT of fuel we drink every weekend and literally p*** away when with small modifications we could be churning out a bio fuel....

Biofuel is not the whole solution. Besides the 3rd generation biofuels will be based on plants that are not suitable for human consumption. It will be a combination of measures such as biofuel, better public transport, better planned cities, better cycling facilties, more integrated transport (ie one day I will feckin well be allowed to bring my bike onto a train or luas in this country), e-commuting, etc. Putting it all down to biofuels is over-simplifying matters.

In general, I don't like the idea of diverting food away from human mouths and into cars but clearly alcohol isn't quite the same thing..

[QUOTE=Deleted User;57248371
To tannocol - while you dont trust people to do things for the environment I dont trust the govt to do it. We are similiar but different![/QUOTE]
Well I'm with you on this government - even starting to lose a bit of faith in the Green Party. In my opinion, the EU will be the only ones to force us to do what we must do.

Húrin · 14-09-2008 6:46pm

It is also important that we recognise that the continuing crowding of people into Dublin is unsustainable and must stop. The population should be spread more evenly around the country.

It is this sort of overcrowding that is necessitating this debate about apartments vs houses.

Macha · 14-09-2008 7:41pm

Húrin wrote: »

It is also important that we recognise that the continuing crowding of people into Dublin is unsustainable and must stop. The population should be spread more evenly around the country.

It is this sort of overcrowding that is necessitating this debate about apartments vs houses.

Well...you could hardly call Ireland overcrowded and Dublin with a population of under 2 million is nothing compared to metropolises like London or Los Angeles.

Even if our population was evenly spread out across the country, it still would be a disaster to have everyone in a house, instead of an apartment. You need a certain density of population to make public transport and other services viable. In addition, spread out housing estates are ugly and encroach on agricultural land and areas of biodiversity. Do you want the country blanketed in housing estates, rather than more densely populated with urban areas of higher density but well sized, properly serviced apartments?

In relation to the spatial unbalance in Ireland's demographics...I don't know if it is possible or even advisible to try and change this. Firstly, lets look at if its possible. How to you move resources, facilities and people from one location to another? You can either encourage growth in these areas or you can transfer it from an existing area. I'm all for encouraging growth in areas outside Dublin, such as Limerick, Waterford, Cork & Galway, but I don't agree with transferring people and resources from Dublin to these places. Basically, the government's decentralisation plan is a half-arsed, pathetic , hair-brained attempt at balancing out the imbalance and is nothing more than a total capitulation to local politics to the detriment of the country as a whole.

Now, in terms of wanting the population to be more evenly spread. Why? What are the benefits (genuine questions as I haven't really thought about this too much

)?

15-09-2008 7:33pm

taconnol wrote: »

Of course, but I'm afraid I don't have as much faith in human nature as you do. Even today, people don't do things that are in their own interest because its too much hassle, costs too much money, any reason you can think of.

These days I get more of shock when the government actually shows some long-term joined up thinking, rather than kowtowing to private interests and only being able to think as far ahead as the next election.

just something about this, and something Ive come to realise when reading up on economics and the property market. The government represent the people.
If the people want to keep on polluting and burning fossil fuels for whatever reason once thats what they choose the govt will take that route, (unless the EU or other international agreements over rule), then thats the route we will take. Whether we like it or not.

Its quite possible that the world may choose to fight this defensively when its too late rather than preemptively.

To those who are cynical about climate change, we need to move away from pollution for other reasons such as growing respiratory illness and to create energy independence from renewable sources.

Rowley Birkin QC · 15-09-2008 9:30pm

I haven't read the whole thread so I'm answering directly to the OP.

Yes, I am bloody sick of green issues/global warming/climate change/carbon neutrality/etc. etc. etc. being in the news and on your doorstep 24/7.:mad:

I will not be influenced in what car I buy by how many carbon dioxides it produces, I will make my decision on the performance etc. Even the GAA is getting in on this lately, extremely tiresome.

Life is far too short and far too much fun to be had without getting worried about your neighbour driving a Range Rover Sport

Macha · 15-09-2008 9:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

just something about this, and something Ive come to realise when reading up on economics and the property market. The government represent the people.
If the people want to keep on polluting and burning fossil fuels for whatever reason once thats what they choose the govt will take that route, (unless the EU or other international agreements over rule), then thats the route we will take. Whether we like it or not.

Its quite possible that the world may choose to fight this defensively when its too late rather than preemptively.

True, I read a study on environmental issues that showed government officials saying that they were only doing what the people wanted.

But the other point of view is that if you ask the average person, they don't want to pay taxes but we have to do it. The government has to have the balls to take unpopular decisions.

Having heard officials in some of the most sustainable societies, their decisions aren't always widely welcomed. But unpopular decisions need to be made, we can't party all night & expect to wake up the next morning without a hangover.

bigkev49 wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread so I'm answering directly to the OP.

Life is far too short and far too much fun to be had without getting worried about your neighbour driving a Range Rover Sport

If you can't even be arsed to read the thread, why would anyone have any respect for your post? Life is to short? and what about future generations? You're displaying the typical, selfish tendencies that have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Newsflash: you are not the centre of the universe.

Rowley Birkin QC · 15-09-2008 9:57pm

taconnol wrote: »

. Newsflash: you are not the centre of the universe.

Well aware of this but I have gotten over a big trial or two of my own in the last few years. Consequently I live for today and I am seriously fed up of listening to the incessant attempts to make me feel guilty for living my life in the way I choose.

I'm studying Planning and Env. Management, from a farming background and I am concerned about the environment but the loonies out there and the guilt-trip mentality that they try to impose on people will never, ever have a positive effect.

Macha · 15-09-2008 10:05pm

Yes, guilt tripping is not going to work but people need to be aware of the consequences of their actions. If this leads them to feel guilty, so be it.

It's like people not wanting to know where their meat comes from so they can kid themselves that its perfectly fine to eat battery eggs. So many of the environmental impacts of our behaviour have never been revealed or shown to the general public. There has been a recent flood of awareness recently.

Where are you doing your course?

Rowley Birkin QC · 15-09-2008 10:24pm

Bolton St.

Obviously any views expressed here are my own opinion and do not reflect teaching in the college.

Rowley Birkin QC · 15-09-2008 10:50pm

Nope, you 14?

You asked how could my post be respected?!

What are you studying?

Rowley Birkin QC · 15-09-2008 11:11pm

Ah ok, misunderstanding on my part. Sorry about that, long day:o:o

I thought you were asking did I work for 3 weeks and study 1 week, i.e. miss all the environmental themed lectures. I'm an 4th year in the full time Spatial Planning course.

I think one of our lecturers is over the masters you are studying, P. Lawlor?

Rowley Birkin QC · 15-09-2008 11:23pm

taconnol wrote: »

LOL sorry boards makes me really defensive. I think I need to stop hanging around AH.

Ah it's grand, I'm seriously considering giving up boards for the same reason.

Don't miss the env. lectures but it's the constant barrage from the media having heard it all day in college too that really gets my blood boiling.

As I mentioned I'm from a farming background and listening to some people lecture me about ramblers rights and how evil farmers are gets old very quickly. Eanna ni Leamhna lectured us for a while and she was very interesting, learned loads from her without it being rammed down my throats.

djpbarry · 16-09-2008 9:53am

bigkev49 wrote: »

Don't miss the env. lectures but it's the constant barrage from the media having heard it all day in college too that really gets my blood boiling.

There are plenty of other things that the media bombards us with; not sure why people single out climate change as being annoying. If I had to pick one, it would be the English Premiership. Can't go into a pub these days without some random match being beamed at you.

Húrin · 19-09-2008 12:15pm

taconnol wrote: »

Well...you could hardly call Ireland overcrowded and Dublin with a population of under 2 million is nothing compared to metropolises like London or Los Angeles.

Ah yes, LA, they'll really be up the creek when peak oil hits hardest.

Even if our population was evenly spread out across the country, it still would be a disaster to have everyone in a house, instead of an apartment. You need a certain density of population to make public transport and other services viable.

If the population was evenly spread out in the country, it would a disaster whether they were living in apartments or houses. Agriculture would become difficult. People are best off living in towns, I agree. But greater equality between the populations of towns would be good.

In addition, spread out housing estates are ugly and encroach on agricultural land and areas of biodiversity.

This is a symptom of very large towns radiating from a central point, with life fixed upon that point and suburbs existing merely as dormitories. That's not what suburbs should be like.

Do you want the country blanketed in housing estates, rather than more densely populated with urban areas of higher density but well sized, properly serviced apartments?

Apartments certainly have a place in Ireland, but not for everyone. Towns should not be so populous as to require either tower blocks or sprawling estates.

In relation to the spatial unbalance in Ireland's demographics...I don't know if it is possible or even advisible to try and change this.

Of course it is. Fianna Fáil's economic policy has for too long been Dublin-centric. That's where they put the money. That's why the country has converged on Dublin.

Firstly, lets look at if its possible. How do you move resources, facilities and people from one location to another? You can either encourage growth in these areas or you can transfer it from an existing area.

I'm all for encouraging growth in areas outside Dublin, such as Limerick, Waterford, Cork & Galway, but I don't agree with transferring people and resources from Dublin to these places.

There are a lot of people living in Dublin that would rather live somewhere else, but can't find work anywhere else. Move the jobs and these people will follow.

Basically, the government's decentralisation plan is a half-arsed, pathetic , hair-brained attempt at balancing out the imbalance and is nothing more than a total capitulation to local politics to the detriment of the country as a whole.

Why shouldn't the government decentralise?

Now, in terms of wanting the population to be more evenly spread. Why? What are the benefits (genuine questions as I haven't really thought about this too much )?

1. Reversing the decline of rural life and culture.
2. Less vehicles and people crowding one city.
3. More reliance on locally produced stuff.
4. Less long-distance commuting.
5. If any more people crowd into Dublin, significant amounts of water will have to be brought in from the Shannon. That is obviously unsustainable.

Ireland used to be like this. With the passing of the oil age it may end up being like this again.

Ray69 · 20-09-2008 2:22am

I was reading this article the other day:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/big-fines-looming--as-we-fail---kyoto-test-1465367.html

"the opposition has warned that the State may have to pay even more than the €270m that has been set aside to buy the permits, known as "carbon credits", to emit greenhouse gases ."

What does Ireland get for their 270m? Where is this money actually going? Does it come back to Ireland to be invested in renewable energy sources or is it just falling into a black hole?

I hope to god they are not giving it to some under-developed country that isn't producing its share of emissions so that they can maybe build some factories to get their emission levels up to our standards!

Anyone know?

Húrin · 21-09-2008 12:46am

Ray69 wrote: »

I was reading this article the other day:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/big-fines-looming--as-we-fail---kyoto-test-1465367.html

"the opposition has warned that the State may have to pay even more than the €270m that has been set aside to buy the permits, known as "carbon credits", to emit greenhouse gases ."

What does Ireland get for their 270m? Where is this money actually going? Does it come back to Ireland to be invested in renewable energy sources or is it just falling into a black hole?

I hope to god they are not giving it to some under-developed country that isn't producing its share of emissions so that they can maybe build some factories to get their emission levels up to our standards!

Anyone know?

We, the taxpaying public get nothing at all for our 270 million, but presumably the logic is that it's an acceptable price to pay for the billions of cash made by developers and Bertie's other friends by increasing our carbon dioxide emissions over the last few years.

ednwireland · 22-09-2008 10:45am

what i dont get when ireland started out on kyoto (1992 i think) ireland had quite a low gdp and industrial base the uk on the otherhand has seen a huge decrease in heavy manufacturing and a move to service industries, so we are paying for having a succesfull economy. which i guess is the argument china and india use.

maniac101 · 22-09-2008 11:33am

ednwireland wrote: »

what i dont get when ireland started out on kyoto (1992 i think) ireland had quite a low gdp and industrial base the uk on the otherhand has seen a huge decrease in heavy manufacturing and a move to service industries, so we are paying for having a succesfull economy. which i guess is the argument china and india use.

The baseyear for Kyoto is 1990. The agreement allows Ireland to increase CO2 emissions to 13% above the 1990 level up to the end of 2012, compared to an average EU target of an 8% DEcrease. So Kyoto already allows for the increase in emissions expected from a tiger economy. The difficulty is that our CO2 emissions were estimated at 25% above 1990 in 2005. Yesterday Minister Gormley announced that even that estimate was too conservative.

You're right about the UK: they will achieve their Kyoto target, partly because of this move away from manufacturing to services. Of course, UK manufacturing (along with its associated emissions) has simply moved elsewhere, mainly to countries not bound to Kyoto targets. So achieving the target in the UK may result in no net global reduction in CO2 emissions.

I wouldn't agree that we're "paying for having a successful economy". Instead, we're paying for electing a government that didn't take the issue seriously since Kyoto was first adopted in 1997.

Ray69 · 22-09-2008 8:49pm

I can see that some countries might fail to meet targets and for this they get 'fined':

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/koyoto_a_fine_mess

"The Kyoto Protocol reaffirms the fundamental UNFCCC principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to, other countries for climate-related studies and projects."

Who is receiving these billions of euro and what are they doing with it?

I haven't seen one story telling us where this money is going, any successes in the research or anything.

The money may well be ending up in Berties hip pocket for all we have been told.

Ray69 · 22-09-2008 10:08pm

I have been reading up on where the money is going: seems to be a method of moving cash from Ireland etc., to other countries who either didn't have a target imposed on them or who have beaten their target.

So no necessity to actually use the money, we are being asked to pay, for research or deployment of 'renewable' energy sources or anything of that kind.

Kyoto - 100's of million of euro and none of it used to help Ireland break it's dependence on the offending technology. Excellent idea! Surely the government would be better using this money to invest in some research into renewable energy solutions for Ireland rather than paying over money to Hungary or Romania (less the inevitable admin fees and middle men cut).

I have to ask, does anyone think the Governments of the world want to move the population away from fossil fuels? Is this really the best 'solution' they could come up with?

This scheme seems to be 'foreign aid' under a different name.

I think people are 'jaded' with green issues because they usually end up being asked to pay more for something, whilst seeing no tangible benefits from the money paid over.

auerillo · 24-09-2008 1:02pm

Ray69 wrote: »

I think people are 'jaded' with green issues because they usually end up being asked to pay more for something, whilst seeing no tangible benefits from the money paid over.

I'd have to agree. Most people have no problem with recycling etc etc, if it is sensible. But look at the packaging in the stores, where virtually every item now comes in packaging our grandparents would think madness. One example; milk comes in non-reusable tetrapack, whreeras it used to come in reusable glass bottles. Looking at most of our consumer goods, the modern day packaging is much more wasteful and non reusable compared to 25 years ago.

The climate change industry has replaced god as the means for inducing mass guilt, and we should be wary of the finger waggers, like Al Gore etc who flies around the world in his private jet to lecture the rest of us on how wasteful we are.

djpbarry · 24-09-2008 2:05pm

Ray69 wrote: »

Kyoto - 100's of million of euro and none of it used to help Ireland break it's dependence on the offending technology. Excellent idea!

I’m not sure I follow you; you think Ireland should RECEIVE money for not reaching it’s targets?

Ray69 wrote: »

Surely the government would be better using this money to invest in some research into renewable energy solutions for Ireland rather than paying over money to Hungary or Romania (less the inevitable admin fees and middle men cut).

More bang for your buck in countries where the cost of living is lower. For example, R&D costs far less in India than it does here.

Ray69 wrote: »

I have to ask, does anyone think the Governments of the world want to move the population away from fossil fuels? Is this really the best 'solution' they could come up with?

What’s your solution?

Ray69 wrote: »

I think people are 'jaded' with green issues because they usually end up being asked to pay more for something, whilst seeing no tangible benefits from the money paid over.

We signed up to Kyoto (we didn’t have to) so now we have to abide by it.

Can you give an example of a “green issue” that has cost you money without any “tangible benefit”?

auerillo wrote: »

Most people have no problem with recycling etc etc, if it is sensible. But look at the packaging in the stores, where virtually every item now comes in packaging our grandparents would think madness.

No argument there; I try to avoid buying products with excessive packaging. Apart from anything else, the consumer is paying for the extra packaging, so (in theory) you save money by avoiding it.

auerillo wrote: »

One example; milk comes in non-reusable tetrapack, whreeras it used to come in reusable glass bottles.

The reason being people are now obsessed with hygiene. Sterilising the bottles simply won’t do for a lot of people, despite the fact that they will happily use a glass in a pub that has no doubt been used hundreds or even thousands of times.

auerillo wrote: »

The climate change industry has replaced god as the means for inducing mass guilt, and we should be wary of the finger waggers, like Al Gore etc who flies around the world in his private jet to lecture the rest of us on how wasteful we are.

While I agree with you about Gore (he is a bit of a hypocrite), I don’t agree with your first point. People SHOULD feel guilty about being wasteful. Waste of any kind is detrimental to society in some way. For example, wasting energy leads to an increased demand, which will likely raise prices for everyone. Cutting down on waste leads to an increase in efficiency, which I think we all can agree is a good thing.

Ray69 · 24-09-2008 9:24pm

you think Ireland should RECEIVE money for not reaching it’s targets?

I think it is those countries that are not achieving their targets that are in most need of help, so maybe the pool of monies raised should be used to address problems in those countries.

More bang for your buck in countries where the cost of living is lower. For example, R&D costs far less in India than it does here.

Hmm, difficult one here... surely we want to pay experts to do the research, they don't tend to come cheap.

Are you saying that the economies not being penalised by Kyoto and thus receiving the money are meeting there targets because their production methods etc are greener than ours or is it not the case that they either don't have targets to meet, their economies have not grown in excess of the estimated growth or they have 'exported' their pollution to other countries e.g. if you take all heavy industry present in your economy in 1990 and relocate it to another country don't you free up all that allowance for emissions even though the planet is not any better off?

What’s your solution?

I think we need a coherent strategy for obtaining more of our energy from renewable sources. Targets for x% of electricity production to be created by renewables by year y.

Energy and Fuel companies are being allowed to profit to an enormous extent from the very fuel that is doing the most damage. They should be regulated to ensure a percentage of this 'profiteering' is ploughed back into renewable energy sources so that we can reduce our dependence on those fuels.

We need to be looking at being completely free from our dependence when the oil etc runs out, so why not start now? Give us an integrated roadmap for getting there.

Can you give an example of a “green issue” that has cost you money without any “tangible benefit”?

Kyoto - what does the Irish taxpayer get for there money? What breakthroughs have been made? What projects are underway? Haven't heard a thing.
Plastic bags - what has the money raised been used for?
PRF - if your tv breaks down and is beyond economic repair, what are the alternatives? Where is the money raised being spent?

I think we need more feedback about where all this money is going and how because of these levies paid we are getting closer to the goal.

auerillo · 03-10-2008 2:01pm

djpbarry wrote: »

The reason being people are now obsessed with hygiene. Sterilising the bottles simply won’t do for a lot of people, despite the fact that they will happily use a glass in a pub that has no doubt been used hundreds or even thousands of times.
While I agree with you about Gore (he is a bit of a hypocrite), I don’t agree with your first point. People SHOULD feel guilty about being wasteful. Waste of any kind is detrimental to society in some way. For example, wasting energy leads to an increased demand, which will likely raise prices for everyone. Cutting down on waste leads to an increase in efficiency, which I think we all can agree is a good thing.

One of the big benefits about being hygiene obsessed is that the shelf life of Milk has now increased by a marked factor due to increased hygiene from the dairy right up to modern fridges in our homes. ( I say benefits but personally I never drink or even buy milk as I think its ghastly stuff!). I think the tetrapac is more popular nowadays due to convenience and whether or not its in bottles or tetrapak I don't think has much bearing on the shelf life.

Yes, Christians used to say we should feel guilty about pleasure, and dancing, and sex, and many believed that. Some still do but, thankfully, not the majority any more.

Of course we shouldn't waste energy, and more than we should "waste" anything, and I suppose it's how we all define "waste" which is interesting. I imagine my definition of waste, in my life, is quite different from how Al Gore defines it in his life. Yet he is the one wagging his fingers at everyone else, much as the pederast priests were the ones telling people that dancing was sinful and they would go to hell for practicing it.

You'll have recognised that i am something of a sceptic, as we in turn are incredibly wasteful compared to others in the world, just as Al gore is to us. I see around me all sorts of people wagging their fingers at me, all the while flying off for their skiing holidays, turngin up their central heating, ( even leaving it turned on while they are away on their skiing holidays) and so on.

djpbarry · 03-10-2008 2:47pm

Ray69 wrote: »

I think it is those countries that are not achieving their targets that are in most need of help, so maybe the pool of monies raised should be used to address problems in those countries.

If there’s one thing that we’ve learned from Fianna Fáil, it’s that throwing money at a problem is rarely the best solution.

Ray69 wrote: »

Hmm, difficult one here... surely we want to pay experts to do the research, they don't tend to come cheap.

The point is it’s much more expensive to conduct any kind of operation in Ireland than it is in India, for example. There’s much more to it than just paying the researchers; you need to pay for research assistants and technicians, laboratories, laboratory apparatus, laboratory consumables, energy, etc.

Ray69 wrote: »

Are you saying that the economies not being penalised by Kyoto and thus receiving the money are meeting there targets because their production methods etc are greener than ours or is it not the case that they either don't have targets to meet…

All developed nations who ratified the treaty agreed to meet specific targets:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Kyoto36-2005.png

Many developing nations ratified the treaty but do not have specific targets to meet.

Ray69 wrote: »

…their economies have not grown in excess of the estimated growth or they have 'exported' their pollution to other countries…

It’s possible. But it’s important to remember that, ultimately, the buyers of credits are often individual companies that expect their emissions to exceed their quota. Typically, they will purchase credits directly from another party with excess allowances, from a broker, from a JI/CDM developer, or on an exchange.

Ray69 wrote: »

Targets for x% of electricity production to be created by renewables by year y.

Irish Government White Paper; The Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020:

“We will progressively achieve 33% of our electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2020 with 15% the target for 2010.”

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/54C78A1E-4E96-4E28-A77A-3226220DF2FC/27356/EnergyWhitePaper12March2007.pdf

Ray69 wrote: »

Energy and Fuel companies are being allowed to profit to an enormous extent from the very fuel that is doing the most damage. They should be regulated to ensure a percentage of this 'profiteering' is ploughed back into renewable energy sources so that we can reduce our dependence on those fuels.

Any utilities company worth their salt is investing in renewables; it’s just good business sense.

Ray69 wrote: »

Kyoto - what does the Irish taxpayer get for there money? What breakthroughs have been made? What projects are underway? Haven't heard a thing.

See above.

Ray69 wrote: »

Plastic bags - what has the money raised been used for?

“Revenue generated from the Plastic Bag Environmental Levy will go into the new Environmental Fund. This fund is used to support waste management, litter and other environmental initiatives.”
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/environment/waste-management-and-recycling/plastic_bag_environmental_levy

Ray69 wrote: »

PRF - if your tv breaks down and is beyond economic repair, what are the alternatives?

I don’t understand what you mean here?

Ray69 wrote: »

Where is the money raised being spent?

Producer Recycling Fund; the clue is in the name.

Beta Ray Bill · 03-10-2008 3:17pm

I completely agree with the OP

The Greens are the clowns who have screwed up everything. they have the right idea. but P*SS poor application of their ideas

Examples
Bin taxes... lets tax everyone on what they dump. instead of lets tax people on what they dump but give some of that tax back for what they recycle.

Water Charges... (not in yet, I accept that) Charge everybody for water. rather than charge everyone for the amount of water they use. Out of spite... I could imagine a lot of people leaving their water running all day if a flat rate water tax charge was brought in.

Road Tax and VRT... these changes have brought the car market to it knees. someone with a non-efficient car car pays €2000 for tax and does 5000 miles Per Year while someone with an efficient car pays €130 and does 22,000 miles per year... who puts out more CO2 and who is being penalized? makes 'GREEN' sense? absolutely not!

Encouraging people to use public transport. if you live outside of Dublin to what public transport are they referring? And even at that CIE are probably one of the most UN-GREEN organizations in Ireland. Buses running all day and only full between 8-9am and 5-6pm running rest of the day empty and at 3 miles per Gallon. And then we have the trains which are left running all day and all night (they cant be turned off).... are they penalized for the amount of pollution they produce? Of course not... that would make far to much sense.

they and anyone that supports them are idiots

auerillo · 05-10-2008 2:41pm

grahambo wrote: »

I completely agree with the OP

The Greens are the clowns who have screwed up everything. they have the right idea. but P*SS poor application of their ideas

Examples
Bin taxes... lets tax everyone on what they dump. instead of lets tax people on what they dump but give some of that tax back for what they recycle.

Water Charges... (not in yet, I accept that) Charge everybody for water. rather than charge everyone for the amount of water they use. Out of spite... I could imagine a lot of people leaving their water running all day if a flat rate water tax charge was brought in.

Road Tax and VRT... these changes have brought the car market to it knees. someone with a non-efficient car car pays €2000 for tax and does 5000 miles Per Year while someone with an efficient car pays €130 and does 22,000 miles per year... who puts out more CO2 and who is being penalized? makes 'GREEN' sense? absolutely not!

Encouraging people to use public transport. if you live outside of Dublin to what public transport are they referring? And even at that CIE are probably one of the most UN-GREEN organizations in Ireland. Buses running all day and only full between 8-9am and 5-6pm running rest of the day empty and at 3 miles per Gallon. And then we have the trains which are left running all day and all night (they cant be turned off).... are they penalized for the amount of pollution they produce? Of course not... that would make far to much sense.

they and anyone that supports them are idiots

I suppose it should be pointed out that the guy travelling 22000 miles per annum is paying much more tax on his petrol.

having said that, I am often bemused by people who talk of water as if it were a resource which is running out. plainly, in Ireland, this is not the case, and any charge we pay should reflect only the cost of storage and getting it to us. A tax would be ludicrous and serve no purpose only to raise yet more revenue for our wasteful and bloated government.

auerillo · 05-10-2008 2:43pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Producer Recycling Fund; the clue is in the name.

I wonder how the producers recycle old tv's, or computers, or broken down transistor radios?

I suspect its just another name for products which are largely dumped in landfill, perhaps with a few bits taken out.

Macha · 05-10-2008 5:02pm

auerillo wrote: »

having said that, I am often bemused by people who talk of water as if it were a resource which is running out. plainly, in Ireland, this is not the case, and any charge we pay should reflect only the cost of storage and getting it to us. A tax would be ludicrous and serve no purpose only to raise yet more revenue for our wasteful and bloated government.

Auerillo, if you knew anything about the water situation in Ireland, you wouldn't be showing your ignorance with comments like this. Please do some research before you inflict your opinions on us.

People jaded by 'Green' issues

Comments