People jaded by 'Green' issues

KhanTheMan

bonkey wrote: »

And yet, when ESB rolled their test systems forwards to see what would happen, after they had completed their first round of "readiness" checks, things promptly failed.

Heard that one from a friend in ESB International. He told me it wasnt a catastrophic failure at all, and was actually down to bugs in changes introduced by the attempt to be Y2K compliant. The Irony.




On people not knowing good ideas if it hit them in the head i point to the people with the stick attitude to changing peoples behaviour.

Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.

How about giving companies some tax breaks for each person they move to working a 10 hour 4 day week. One day less cars on the road.

Or what about building big free Park and Ride facilities near rural train stations (like in the UK and cities around the USA) instead of charging people who HAVE to drive miles to the station.

What about taxing petrol instead of road tax. The more you use the more you pay. Oh wait, they do both.

What about building 2 - way Bus only roads down the middle of the motorways like in Chicago. They are just like trains but more flexible when they break down and can be moved out of the way or drive around obstructions. Capacity can be increased by adding another bus easily instead of buying new expensive trains.

There are so many things that can be done FOR the general population.

oscarBravo

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Heard that one from a friend in ESB International. He told me it wasnt a catastrophic failure at all, and was actually down to bugs in changes introduced by the attempt to be Y2K compliant. The Irony.

Did he claim that the software would have worked perfectly had they not attempted to fix the bugs? Is his position that there were no y2k bugs to fix? If so, he's full of it.

Macha

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Sorry, i didnt mean to sound like a grouch in the last post.

On the flights.

Go to Europe 4 times a year - About €200 or less for the 4 trips.

Double that price. Europe 4 times a year for €400 or less. Still happy and still going to Europe.

Even Double it again and im still going

Now add on a carbon tax . Look apart from the whole incentive/deterrant thing, there is another logic for carbon, or more generally, pollution taxation.
When carbon is released into the air, this is a form of pollution. There is an actual price on removing that pollution from the atmosphere. At the moment, that cost is externalised to the rest of society (the government, ie taxpayers, having to put aside money to buy credits in order to offset emissions). With a carbon tax, this cost is instead internalised so that the person who emits the carbon pays, ie the "polluter pays" (fundamental EU environmental principle, adopted in the 1970s).

Your cigarette analogy is not the same because this is purely about raising revenue, although it could be argued that people who smoke cigarettes can be very expensive to the state (ie taxpayer) through their medical care. In addition, cigarette butts are the most common form of street sweepings. So why are taxpayers cleaning up after cigarette-smokers? With high taxes on cigarettes, at least they are contributing to the additional costs that they push onto the rest of society.

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Flying is definitely the norm here. Show me someone in Ireland who hasnt been on a plane. Slim Pickings. If i asked that question 20 years ago you could have pointed to most people. So it wasnt the norm 20 years ago.

People fly a lot. Its the norm now. Hell i flew to Gatwick last week to meet my brother for a pint in the Airport and came home. The first round cost me more than the trip. Flights Cost me €10.02 return . And €10 was a credit card charge. He's coming over to me for pint in 2 weeks and paying a similar amount. How is that going to stop. Sure if all our cars run on hydro generated electricity there will be no demand for Oil. Airlines can then buy it for nothing and flying is sooooo cheap then anyway.

A €75 each way fuel charge on a trip to New York at the prices those flights are now is not going to hurt anyone.

There is a thread in Bargain alerts with Flights to NY and LA for less than €350 return all in.

Yes, you keep saying that flying is the norm now. I know that. My point is that it will not be the norm in the future. Those cheap, cheap Ryanair flights? That's grand but Michael O'Leary is hoping, at best, to break even by the end of the year. It's for show, a gimmick. Did you see the recent Aerlingus report? They have lost €22.3 million so far this year and there are 4 months to go. Reason? Fuel costs. They're either going to have to up their prices or go bust. Simple as.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9a3fb24-7502-11dd-ab30-0000779fd18c.html

Wtih other countries trying to achieve the same "quality of life" as the West, there is a huge increase in demand, and supply is not keeping up. Of course, there is the added effect of speculation, but the underlying trend is inevitable.

KhanTheMan

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did he claim that the software would have worked perfectly had they not attempted to fix the bugs? Is his position that there were no y2k bugs to fix? If so, he's full of it.

And you know this the same way you know when i started paying bin charges because you are clairvoyant. I get it.

djpbarry

ytareh wrote: »

Car ownership up ?!Everyone knows the car sales market is on its knees.

Hardly – sales for this year are roughly in line with figures for 2003 and 2004:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0901/breaking69.htm

Besides, the fact that sales are down on last year is irrelevant; if people are still buying cars, does that not open up the possibility that overall car ownership is going up? Car ownership in this country recently hit an all-time high:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/1215/1197543941932.html

KhanTheMan wrote: »

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

No; you made the assertion, you back it up.

ytareh wrote: »

Human CO2 causing catastrophic climate change ?Rubbish !(Science graduate )

Science graduate?!? So why are you wasting your time here?!? The IPCC needs you! Quick – to the bio-eco-solar-windy-hydro-mobile! :rolleyes:

ytareh wrote: »

tacconnol are you actually saying that you expect us to just stop travelling by air as the prices are hiked sky high by eco levies...

Of course fuel costs have nothing to do with it...

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Cheap air travel is actually the norm now, unless you havent noticed that Ryanair arent the only airline and that you can get to New York for a day or two wages. Been like that for a few years now too. I dont see this changeing ever ...

Seriously? Even as the price of oil climbs inexorably upward?

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Kind of like the tax on fags. They bleed people up so the take is higher but its not quite enough to make people give up smoking. If they really wanted people to stop smoking (like they should want) they should put the fags up by €50 or ban them altogether.

Yeah, the smokers would love that, wouldn’t they?

ytareh wrote: »

Its as simple as this the government allowed a situation to arise (they could lock down the market in the space of 3-6 months when they wanted) whereby I as a Dubliner with a good job could not afford a house in my home county let alone near the original community I grew up in.I consider myself lucky that I managed to get one in Kildare ,many ended up in Laois ,Westmeath etc .They then tax the buggery out of motorists who have to drive hours daily back to Dublin ...

Who forced you to buy a house (in Kildare)? Commuting distances are a common complaint on boards.ie, but at the end of the day, people choose to live wherever it is they commute from. Yes, there are some appalling examples of planning in this country, but people were still happy to pay extortionate amounts of money for crap houses – nobody forced them.

KhanTheMan wrote: »

The biggest con in History.

Was it? So no bugs needed to be fixed at all? All media hype, eh?

KhanTheMan wrote: »

People fly a lot. Its the norm now. Hell i flew to Gatwick last week to meet my brother for a pint in the Airport and came home.

You’re seriously deluded if you think that’s normal behaviour.

KhanTheMan wrote: »

What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.

Are there not tax incentives for buying/driving more fuel-efficient cars? Is there not a financial incentive more being more energy-efficient in general?

KhanTheMan

djpbarry wrote: »

Hardly – sales for this year are roughly in line with figures for 2003 and 2004:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0901/breaking69.htm

Besides, the fact that sales are down on last year is irrelevant; if people are still buying cars, does that not open up the possibility that overall car ownership is going up? Car ownership in this country recently hit an all-time high:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/1215/1197543941932.html
No; you made the assertion, you back it up.
Science graduate?!? So why are you wasting your time here?!? The IPCC needs you! Quick – to the bio-eco-solar-windy-hydro-mobile! :rolleyes:
Of course fuel costs have nothing to do with it...
Seriously? Even as the price of oil climbs inexorably upward?
Yeah, the smokers would love that, wouldn’t they?
Who forced you to buy a house (in Kildare)? Commuting distances are a common complaint on boards.ie, but at the end of the day, people choose to live wherever it is they commute from. Yes, there are some appalling examples of planning in this country, but people were still happy to pay extortionate amounts of money for crap houses – nobody forced them.
Was it? So no bugs needed to be fixed at all? All media hype, eh?
You’re seriously deluded if you think that’s normal behaviour. Are there not tax incentives for buying/driving more fuel-efficient cars? Is there not a financial incentive more being more energy-efficient in general?

You see that's the problem. People won't do their own research. You would rather links etc were put on front of you instead of you actually doing the research yourself. Do some research and don't be so lazy. You may find some info that others won't post here. It's nor hard to find all sorts of info on car tax, whose flying, why, and how much it's costing them etc. Laziness won't get you anywhere.

Macha

KhanTheMan wrote: »

You see that's the problem. People won't do their own research. You would rather links etc were put on front of you instead of you actually doing the research yourself. Do some research and don't be so lazy. You may find some info that others won't post here. It's nor hard to find all sorts of info on car tax, whose flying, why, and how much it's costing them etc. Laziness won't get you anywhere.

KhanTheMan it's no one else's job to back up their claims but the person making the claims. What sort of reaction do you think I would get if I handed in my dissertation with no references & told my tutor to "do some research and don't be so lazy"?

Obviously this forum is not on the same level but the same general rule applies. If you want people to think that you're credible, prove it - and don't YOU be so lazy as to fob it off onto other people.

KhanTheMan

actually people believe what they read on the web too easily. They also dismiss links posted by others just because they don't fit with their viewpoint. It's in your own interest to locate the figures you want for yourself. That way you know how you got to them and what is valid. Instead of me giving you what could be a link to anything. The only way you can be sure is to find out for yourself. And it's not hard to find the figures you are looking for I'd you just look for a few mind.

Macha

You give me the link and I will judge the credibility of that link myself.

Link to Wikipedia? Err..not so good
Link to the EPA? Credible.

Just because its online doesn't mean it's trash. It's still your job to back-up your view point.

djpbarry

KhanTheMan wrote: »

You see that's the problem. People won't do their own research. You would rather links etc were put on front of you instead of you actually doing the research yourself.

No, I would rather people back up their claims with some evidence. I’m still not entirely sure what your initial claim was (regarding motor tax) so how am I supposed to know what figures to look for? Am I a clairvoyant too?

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Do some research and don't be so lazy.

<looks at own sig>

Oh, the irony.

KhanTheMan wrote: »

actually people believe what they read on the web too easily. They also dismiss links posted by others just because they don't fit with their viewpoint.

That’s a complete cop-out; “what’s the point in backing up my argument – nobody will believe me.”

KhanTheMan wrote: »

It's in your own interest to locate the figures you want for yourself. That way you know how you got to them and what is valid. Instead of me giving you what could be a link to anything.

As taconnol has already said, you provide the source and it’s then up to others to deem whether said source is credible.

The only thing I can take from all of this is that you are unable to support your argument.

oscarBravo

KhanTheMan wrote: »

And you know this the same way you know when i started paying bin charges because you are clairvoyant. I get it.

I note you haven't answered my bin charges question yet.

How do I know there were serious y2k bugs that needed fixing? Because I spent several months of my life supervising a team of programmers who fixed them. How do I know that ESB had y2k bugs to fix? Because they attempted to fix them.

There's a certain amount of deductive reasoning going on here. If I'm wrong about something, show me to be wrong.

KhanTheMan

djpbarry wrote: »

No, I would rather people back up their claims with some evidence. I’m still not entirely sure what your initial claim was (regarding motor tax) so how am I supposed to know what figures to look for? Am I a clairvoyant too?
<looks at own sig>

Oh, the irony.
That’s a complete cop-out; “what’s the point in backing up my argument – nobody will believe me.”
As taconnol has already said, you provide the source and it’s then up to others to deem whether said source is credible.

The only thing I can take from all of this is that you are unable to support your argument.

Wait aminute here haven't a few of the people preaching about backing up claims here not backed their own claims. Didn't people say the motor tax take was higher only because car ownership was up since the new tax system was brought in or about flying not being the norm etc. And look at that. They haven't even checked the figures for themselves never mind back it up. These are the ones making life hard for true environmentalists.

KhanTheMan

oscarBravo wrote: »

I note you haven't answered my bin charges question yet.

How do I know there were serious y2k bugs that needed fixing? Because I spent several months of my life supervising a team of programmers who fixed them. How do I know that ESB had y2k bugs to fix? Because they attempted to fix them.

There's a certain amount of deductive reasoning going on here. If I'm wrong about something, show me to be wrong.

You assume you know things about people when you don't.
Looks like you're famous for it on boards too.

djpbarry

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Wait aminute here haven't a few of the people preaching about backing up claims here not backed their own claims. Didn't people say the motor tax take was higher only because car ownership was up since the new tax system was brought in...

I think you’ll find that I did back up my claims about car ownership here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57129350&postcount=58

Here’s some more figures for you; car sales in July 2008 (after the new tax system came into force) were up 25% on sales in July 2007:

Irish Times wrote:

New car sales surged in July as motorists took advantage of the introduction of lower taxes for more environmentally friendly vehicles.
New figures released today by the Society of the Irish Motor Industry (Simi) show 16,386 new cars were sold last month, compared to 13,150 in July 2007. The figures represent an increase of 24.61 per cent.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0805/breaking37.htm

Now, are you going to back up your claim that the new motor tax system is effectively a “stick in the name of the environment”? Sounds like opinion to me.

Flyer1

Khan, the majority of the population are with you .

oscarBravo

KhanTheMan wrote: »

You assume you know things about people when you don't.

If I'm wrong about something, show me to be wrong.

Looks like you're famous for it on boards too.

Really?

EyeOnTheBall

Flyer1 wrote: »

The greens always have to have some silly thing to nark on about. It's generally a great way for the Governments to rake in revenue for doing nothing really.

In general the people are really fed up to the bones of listening to the tree hugging tail wagging nonsense that comes out of the mouths of the so called " green side ".

I know some people here will slate me for my comments but sorry guys, everyone really is fed up of the crap. We're not going to give up our daily comforts or our holidays to Spain. Around me there are 15 or 20 people, all of which feel the whole " going green " thing is absolute waffle. If there was a reasonable arguement then people would listen, weather records have been kept for a very short time, for anyone to judge climate change based on just over 100 years data is just stone mad.

'....It's generally a great way for the Governments to rake in revenue for doing nothing really...'

The opposite is in fact true. There are very real environmenal issues which need to be urgently addressed in Ireland, ranging from energy, pollution, quality water availability and availability of quality food produce.

The main problem is actually getting backing from the government to implement the critical changes. Generally, these changes come too late if and when they come at all. So, you may forget the idea that it is a politically driven money spinner.

I find many people share your mistrust and apathy for 'green' issues. I think it's because you assosiate it with 'tree-hugging hippies'. Perhaps, if you understood the very real effects it will have on your near future, then you will feel less inclined to dismiss it as a 'fad'.

djpbarry

Flyer1 wrote: »

Khan, the majority of the population are with you.

In that they refuse to accept change is necessary, I agree.

Flyer1

Tell me this, what " change " do -you- feel is necessary ? I'm a reasonable guy, i'm so fed up of all these green taxes I have lost any interest I have had in going green.

djpbarry

Flyer1 wrote: »

Tell me this, what " change " do -you- feel is necessary ? I'm a reasonable guy, i'm so fed up of all these green taxes I have lost any interest I have had in going green.

I'll come back to your question after you tell me what "green taxes" you're referring to?

shoegirl

I think we've drifted away from the point here. I do think people are jaded and partially because some previous issues lacked credibility.

For example - the incinerator issue in Ringaskiddy in Cork neatly ignored (or was unaware of) the fact that several local pharmas already have their own incinerators operational in the region. However this raises an additional question of what damage these are doing or who is monitoring their output?

Another one is the suggestion that we were going to run out of fossil fuels before the millenium. For me, that really put the credibility of a lot of environmental groups on the line. If the information is inaccurate, why should we take them seriously? Likewise Brent Spar - it turned out that Greenpeace's estimates were way out of kilter with the real amount of oil remaining - but at the same time it didn't clash with the fundamental issue of the most appropriate way to deal with disused platforms etc.

The problem now is that its inconvenient and impinges on our quality of life. Back in the days when bin collections were free and fuel not too expensive it was easy to not think of consequences. Likewise its hard to get people to think about water when it appears to be a free and unlimited commodity.

I was surprised a while ago when an OU classmate told me he had driven from close to Banbridge to a tutorial in north Dublin at 50mph to conserve fuel. For a lot of gombeen ovrgrown boy and girl racers in Ireland a couple of years ago this would've been unthinkable. Yet people are starting to think about it and do it. When it hits them in the pocket it gets real.

Likewise bottle banks - few people bothered with these a few years back and often they were extremely inconveniently placed, especially for non-car owners. Now they are seriously overflowing as people try to limit waste due to pay-by-weight charging.

Part of the problem is that people don't want to change their lifestyles and sacrifice conveniences. The reality is that we don't really know where we are going, who is giving the most accurate information and what will happen if we don't.

EyeOnTheBall

Flyer1 wrote: »

Tell me this, what " change " do -you- feel is necessary ? I'm a reasonable guy, i'm so fed up of all these green taxes I have lost any interest I have had in going green.

Which green taxes are you talking about? At present, the benefits of going green far outweigh the 'head-in-the-sand' alternative.

For example, you can actually pay less road tax on a vehicle with low emissions and run it on low priced and low taxed Bio fuel. You can obtain grants which will allow you insulate your home (with natural products) so you save on heating bills and fuel consumption. An A1 BER rated home will reduce fuel ingestion. All these measures actually help you save money. What's tiring about that?

Also, despite the Kyoto Protocol adding immense pressure for countries like ours to reduce our carbon footprint, NO carbon tax will be imposed in the governments Budget, despite worsening emissions rates in this country.

maniac101

shoegirl wrote: »

I think we've drifted away from the point here. I do think people are jaded and partially because some previous issues lacked credibility.

For example - the incinerator issue in Ringaskiddy in Cork neatly ignored (or was unaware of) the fact that several local pharmas already have their own incinerators operational in the region. However this raises an additional question of what damage these are doing or who is monitoring their output?

To be fair, I think that most activists around Ringaskiddy who oppose the incinerators are only too aware of the existing incinerators in their area, not to mention the environmental hazard of the steel plant. The two new incinerators will of course have a capacity far greater than all the others in the area combined. This is perhaps not the right thread to argue for or against this, but I would challenge your assertion that the presence of other incinerators implies that the issue "lacked credibility", as you put it.

EyeOnTheBall wrote: »

Also, despite the Kyoto Protocol adding immense pressure for countries like ours to reduce our carbon footprint, NO carbon tax will be imposed in the governments Budget, despite worsening emissions rates in this country.

A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent. Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. Increased government revenue from increased fuel prices could be employed for carbon mitigation programmes, - the other purpose of a carbon tax. However, that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives. Personally, I believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish, for better or worse.

EyeOnTheBall

maniac101 wrote: »

To be fair, I think that most activists around Ringaskiddy who oppose the incinerators are only too aware of the existing incinerators in their area, not to mention the environmental hazard of the steel plant. The two new incinerators will of course have a capacity far greater than all the others in the area combined. This is perhaps not the right thread to argue for or against this, but I would challenge your assertion that the presence of other incinerators implies that the issue "lacked credibility", as you put it.


A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent. Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. Increased government revenue from increased fuel prices could be employed for carbon mitigation programmes, - the other purpose of a carbon tax. However, that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives. Personally, I believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish, for better or worse.

'....A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent...'

That is stating the obvious. No one can accurately determine the effectiveness of any plan until it becomes active. However, as a theoretical model, it provides a starting solution to a problem.

'...Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. ..'

That sentence is apathetic at best. Does it make sense to abandon a pro-active project merely because an economic disaster has made that decision for you. An incentive to use less fuel is still a required agenda.

'....that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives....'

So, you're telling me that the Green Party are no longer part of government and therefore are unable to pitch for green funding?

I personally, do not understand where your argument is going.

SeanW

KhanTheMan wrote: »

On people not knowing good ideas if it hit them in the head i point to the people with the stick attitude to changing peoples behaviour.

Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.

How about giving companies some tax breaks for each person they move to working a 10 hour 4 day week. One day less cars on the road.

Or what about building big free Park and Ride facilities near rural train stations (like in the UK and cities around the USA) instead of charging people who HAVE to drive miles to the station.

What about taxing petrol instead of road tax. The more you use the more you pay. Oh wait, they do both.

There are so many things that can be done FOR the general population.

Quoted For Truth. The current Green policy seesm to amount to "Tax, Ban and Regulate."

EyeOnTheBall

Ref: KhanTheMan
'...Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges...'

This is an inaccurate statement. There are many measures to encourage environmental changes. You mention taxes, yet the government have brought in initiatives to reduce tax on certain eco-compliances ie. reduction of road tax on low emission cars. There are lots of grants available which I would consider to be pro-active ie insulation, heating systems etc which all significantly reduce the carbon footprint. (see www.sei.ie)

Please provide evidence of your statement which supports the idea that the only measures employed are based on a system of taxes and charges.

maniac101

EyeOnTheBall wrote: »

'....A carbon tax is a blunt instrument and its effectiveness in reducing emissions in this country has yet to be proven. It really depends on how it's applied and how the revenue is spent...'

That is stating the obvious.

If it's stating the obvious why challenge it??

No one can accurately determine the effectiveness of any plan until it becomes active. However, as a theoretical model, it provides a starting solution to a problem.

...and it HAS been extensively modelled. CO2 emissions targets set by the EU and commited to by the government are coming under sustained attack from the ESRI, no less, because the models show that they're unrealistic and unachievable. According to the ESRI models, an additional €3 levy on a litre of petrol would be needed to achieve the target. Do you believe that that's a "starting solution"? If so, you belief defies all theoretical models that you refer to.

'...Its primary purpose is to provide a monetary disincentive to waste fuel. In that regard, recent large increases in fuel prices would therefore achieve the same goal. ..'

That sentence is apathetic at best. Does it make sense to abandon a pro-active project merely because an economic disaster has made that decision for you. An incentive to use less fuel is still a required agenda.

But I'm not arguing against the imposition of a carbon tax! You're trying to pigeonhole me here. I do believe however that the incentive to reduce energy consumption, which is one of the goals of a carbon tax, is equally provided to the consumer by energy price rises brought about other effects. The difference with carbon tax that you can decide which sectors of the economy should pay it and you can determine how the revenue is spent, and these are the more contentious issues for economists. But with rising energy prices, the scope for introduction of a carbon tax is reduced, in political and economic terms, and the issue of who should pay it becomes even more contentious.

'....that revenue is controlled by the department of finance, and is not accessible to green party initiatives....'

So, you're telling me that the Green Party are no longer part of government and therefore are unable to pitch for green funding?

It's clear you're on the offensive, but I'm not sure why. At least credit me with knowing who's in government! A programme for government was agreed between FF and the Green party last year. In it, there was a commitment to introduce a carbon tax within the lifetime of the government. Personally, unlike yourself, I believe it will be introduced, (if the government lasts the 5 years), but perhaps not in Budget 09. There was no commitment in the programme for government to redeploy unexpected windfall taxes accrued due to increased fuel prices for "green funding", as you call it. It would be naive to believe that in the current economic climate the Green party could secure funding over and above what was agreed in the programme for government.

BigglesMcGee

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Heard that one from a friend in ESB International. He told me it wasnt a catastrophic failure at all, and was actually down to bugs in changes introduced by the attempt to be Y2K compliant. The Irony.

I worked there at the time. This is the true version of that comical episode

KhanTheMan wrote: »

On people not knowing good ideas if it hit them in the head i point to the people with the stick attitude to changing peoples behaviour.

Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.

How about giving companies some tax breaks for each person they move to working a 10 hour 4 day week. One day less cars on the road.

Or what about building big free Park and Ride facilities near rural train stations (like in the UK and cities around the USA) instead of charging people who HAVE to drive miles to the station.

What about taxing petrol instead of road tax. The more you use the more you pay. Oh wait, they do both.

What about building 2 - way Bus only roads down the middle of the motorways like in Chicago. They are just like trains but more flexible when they break down and can be moved out of the way or drive around obstructions. Capacity can be increased by adding another bus easily instead of buying new expensive trains.

There are so many things that can be done FOR the general population.

Agree with you 100%.

BigglesMcGee

Carbon Taxes will be introduced. No doubt about it, especially on flights. But they will be more in the form of Mandatory carbon offsetting (i have some insider info on the discussions with the airline industry - Dont even ask).

eg a Dublin to Warsaw return flight would cost about a fiver to offset.
Or Dublin - New York return about €15

People, You should be offsetting voluntarily anyway, so no great pain in this and very fair to all involved.

EyeOnTheBall

maniac101 wrote: »

If it's stating the obvious why challenge it??

...and it HAS been extensively modelled. CO2 emissions targets set by the EU and commited to by the government are coming under sustained attack from the ESRI, no less, because the models show that they're unrealistic and unachievable. According to the ESRI models, an additional €3 levy on a litre of petrol would be needed to achieve the target. Do you believe that that's a "starting solution"? If so, you belief defies all theoretical models that you refer to.


But I'm not arguing against the imposition of a carbon tax! You're trying to pigeonhole me here. I do believe however that the incentive to reduce energy consumption, which is one of the goals of a carbon tax, is equally provided to the consumer by energy price rises brought about other effects. The difference with carbon tax that you can decide which sectors of the economy should pay it and you can determine how the revenue is spent, and these are the more contentious issues for economists. But with rising energy prices, the scope for introduction of a carbon tax is reduced, in political and economic terms, and the issue of who should pay it becomes even more contentious.


It's clear you're on the offensive, but I'm not sure why. At least credit me with knowing who's in government! A programme for government was agreed between FF and the Green party last year. In it, there was a commitment to introduce a carbon tax within the lifetime of the government. Personally, unlike yourself, I believe it will be introduced, (if the government lasts the 5 years), but perhaps not in Budget 09. There was no commitment in the programme for government to redeploy unexpected windfall taxes accrued due to increased fuel prices for "green funding", as you call it. It would be naive to believe that in the current economic climate the Green party could secure funding over and above what was agreed in the programme for government.

Maniac101:
(a) Your opening point was stating the obvious. It worries me that you have a problem with someone challenging that.

(b) The ESRI says carbon tax is cheapest way to cut emissions. The ESRI says an EU-wide tax on CO2 emissions would ensure that Irish industries, like farming, would not be at a disadvantage compared to other European countries. The ESRI are not taking a negative stance on Carbon taxes.
Copy and paste link
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0716/ireland/mhgbsnsncwau/

(c) I never made a point of 'who should pay the taxes'. Why are you using this as a counter point?

(d) I mentioned that there were no carbon taxes within the new budget. You jumped to the conclusion that I don't think this will be initiated at any point. Never said that.

(e) The current economic climate will determine whether or not green funding will be available. This point is correct, however, revenue remains 'potentially' accessible to Green Party initiatives. Do not completely rule it out. Green issues are at the fore of the political agenda, it is not naive to assume that revenue will be geared towards them.

I would be interested in hearing why you believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish?

Flyer1

How does paying money offset any carbon emmissions ?:rolleyes:

The airplane is going to go there anyway, it's going to give off emmissions anyway. Handing some scummy government €15 for the pleasure turns people off all of this.

Macha

Flyer1 wrote: »

How does paying money offset any carbon emmissions ?:rolleyes:

As has already been explained, the logic behind a carbon tax is 2-fold:

1) As a deterrant that is directly proportional, and thus fair, to the amount of pollution, or carbon emitted.
2) To recoup the cost of removing the pollution and dealing with its impacts on the environment.

Flyer1 wrote: »

The airplane is going to go there anyway, it's going to give off emmissions anyway. Handing some scummy government €15 for the pleasure turns people off all of this.

I get really disheartened when I see posts like this. You must have left your thinking cap at home. If people are deterred from flying, the plane won't be going. That is the point. And if people do decide to go anyway, then they will at least be contributing to the mess they're leaving behind.

Why should I pay, through my taxes, for all these carbon credits that the government has had to buy, when I rarely drive my car, etc? Polluter pays.

maniac101

EyeOnTheBall wrote: »

Maniac101:
(a) Your opening point was stating the obvious. It worries me that you have a problem with someone challenging that.

(b) The ESRI says carbon tax is cheapest way to cut emissions. The ESRI says an EU-wide tax on CO2 emissions would ensure that Irish industries, like farming, would not be at a disadvantage compared to other European countries. The ESRI are not taking a negative stance on Carbon taxes.
Copy and paste link
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0716/ireland/mhgbsnsncwau/

(c) I never made a point of 'who should pay the taxes'. Why are you using this as a counter point?

(d) I mentioned that there were no carbon taxes within the new budget. You jumped to the conclusion that I don't think this will be initiated at any point. Never said that.

(e) The current economic climate will determine whether or not green funding will be available. This point is correct, however, revenue remains 'potentially' accessible to Green Party initiatives. Do not completely rule it out. Green issues are at the fore of the political agenda, it is not naive to assume that revenue will be geared towards them.

If these are addressed to me, then I don't know why, since I didn't say that I, or the ESRI for that matter, was against the imposition of a carbon tax. (I also have no idea why you're worried!) You should try a little harder to read what people post before responding to them.

I would be interested in hearing why you believe that carbon tax is the rock on which the Green party will perish?

No you wouldn't. You're clearly interested in arguing only for argument's sake, - which is something that I don't care to entertain.

Flyer1 wrote: »

How does paying money offset any carbon emmissions ?:rolleyes:

The airplane is going to go there anyway, it's going to give off emmissions anyway. Handing some scummy government €15 for the pleasure turns people off all of this.

Do you think it would be acceptable to post in the Parenting forum that you hate kids, or in the Soccer forum that football was only for girls?

EyeOnTheBall

Manic101:

Perhaps your style of writing confuses me into believing you haven't a clue how to make a distinct point. Maybe that's what it is.

Up until now, I was genuinely interested into hearing why you believed carbon taxes will be the rock the Green Party perish on. But let's move on.

Morlar

EyeOnTheBall wrote: »

Up until now, I was genuinely interested into hearing why you believed carbon taxes will be the rock the Green Party perish on. But let's move on.

Judging by your comments here and the disingenous tone of your responses I would agree with manic - that . . . . no you werent.

You were too busy liking the sound of your own voice and trying not very successfully to sound clever at somone elses expense.

oscarBravo

Any danger we could leave the handbags out of it, and actually have a discussion?

Thanks.

EyeOnTheBall

Morlar wrote: »

Judging by your comments here and the disingenous tone of your responses I would agree with manic - that . . . . no you werent.

You were too busy liking the sound of your own voice and trying not very successfully to sound clever at somone elses expense.

Thanks for your interesting reply.

oscarBravo

Allow me to clarify: my last post wasn't a request.

Húrin

KhanTheMan wrote: »

How about we go ahead and install water meters but allow those who use less to claim back some tax as they havent used the resource as much as others. Oh no, not a chance i of that happening.

Actually I was at a Green party meeting last night to select the candidate for next year's local elections. The guy who won was suggesting just such a system. Not just with water, but also transport, gardens, energy use, etc. I was skeptical in the sense that it sounds a bit like a tool to merely incentivise a kind of aesthetic "green lifestyle", more than a concrete environmental policy. But it probably has some merit to it.

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Cheap air travel is actually the norm now, unless you havent noticed that Ryanair arent the only airline and that you can get to New York for a day or two wages. Been like that for a few years now too. I dont see this changeing ever - just the govts adding taxes now and again in the name of the environment.

You think the rising oil prices that will soon make cheap flights history, are because of taxes?

taconnol wrote: »

The reason you're living in a house in Kildare and not an apartment in Dublin is due to a million human induced factors:

-Irish reluctance to live in apartments ("no, I want a garden! A gaarrdennn"!!")

What is wrong with this? In my garden I can grow most of the vegetables I need, which is pretty green in my book. Ireland is different, culturally, from Scandinavia. It is not a case that we need to be civilised to be more like Scandinavia - as many Danes, Swedes and Norwegians seem to think.

While as a cyclist I would love to see Ireland embrace the bike more, Dublin is not the death trap it's usually made out to be. Besides, Sweden is equally, if not more of a car-dependent country than Ireland.

Húrin

KhanTheMan wrote: »

On people not knowing good ideas if it hit them in the head i point to the people with the stick attitude to changing peoples behaviour.

Nobody is averse to a good idea. What people have a problem with is that the only measures introduced to help people be environmentally friendly are taxes and charges.

I agree, as do many in the green party and even more among non-Green environmentalists. But there's a problem: Fianna Fáil, and they love stealth taxes.

Húrin

Flyer1 wrote: »

Tell me this, what " change " do -you- feel is necessary ? I'm a reasonable guy, i'm so fed up of all these green taxes I have lost any interest I have had in going green.

I don't think that you understand. The ecological crises are going to catch up with us whether we are interested in 'going green' or not. All we can do is make its effects as painless as possible, and the sooner we as a civilisation act, the better.

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

What is wrong with this? In my garden I can grow most of the vegetables I need, which is pretty green in my book. Ireland is different, culturally, from Scandinavia. It is not a case that we need to be civilised to be more like Scandinavia - as many Danes, Swedes and Norwegians seem to think.

While as a cyclist I would love to see Ireland embrace the bike more, Dublin is not the death trap it's usually made out to be. Besides, Sweden is equally, if not more of a car-dependent country than Ireland.

I cannot accept the idea that Sweden is a more car-dependent country than Ireland. The simple fact is that the Irish use their cars more than anyone else in the world, when measured on a per-capita basis. More, even than the Americans.

Why? Because we have failed to implement traffic demand management measures and instead, since the start of the boom in the 1990s, we have instead allowed developers to build sloppy, sprawling housing estates, far from facilities, shops and places of employment. In addition, we have embraced one-off housing in rural areas, thus contributing to spread out development. Lower density development is notoriously difficult to service with public transport as populations are spread out over greater distances and fewer passengers to pick up on each route. Cue: lowered viability and increased private car-based transport.

It is important to note that this does not only impact negatively on the environment, but is also socially exclusive to the young, elderly, infirm and those who simply cannot afford to buy a car. In addition, in this era of increasingly expensive oil (for whatever reason), it is increasingly financially unviable, as well as just plain inefficient, for people to rely so heavily on private car-based transport. It just doesn't make sense. I haven't even started talking about the enormous cost of building roads to the taxpayer or issues surrounding parking! Also, I would point out that it is very expensive to bring services out to these areas. The higher the density, the more cost-effective it is for the local authority to connect residential and other areas to electricity, water, sewage, etc.

I commend you on the use of your garden to grow food. But you must agree that you are in a small minority, although admittedly I have zero stats to back that up. just an opinion. Instead there is actually a trend of people covering over their front or back gardens with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete - a phenomenon that can have serious implications for flooding, and has sparked off John Gormely to the idea of banning this practice.

I agree that Dublin isn't the death trap that people use as their lame excuse not to get on a bike. However, cycling facilities are shockingly bad

-lack of places to park the bike
-zero maintenance of cycling lanes
-the right to park in a cycle lane with a broken line for 30minutes (what is the point??)
-zero enforcement of the ban on parking in cycle lanes
-awful, awful quality of road surfaces
-lack of services to clean up the crap off the roads - in fact, often this mess is swept into the cycle lane.
-cycle lanes that cease to exist at 7pm (along with all the cyclists :rolleyes:)
-combining cycle and bus lanes (whoever thought this was a good idea should be taken out and shot),
-general disregard of other road users for the cycle lane (used by motor cycle & scooter users & generally ignored by many drivers, "what? Oh, you have your blinkers on, sure then its fine to park there")
I could go on and on...

It's nothing to do with being more or less civilised, it's about putting collective interests before individual interests.

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

I cannot accept the idea that Sweden is a more car-dependent country than Ireland. The simple fact is that the Irish use their cars more than anyone else in the world, when measured on a per-capita basis. More, even than the Americans.

Why? Because we have failed to implement traffic demand management measures and instead, since the start of the boom in the 1990s, we have instead allowed developers to build sloppy, sprawling housing estates, far from facilities, shops and places of employment. In addition, we have embraced one-off housing in rural areas, thus contributing to spread out development. Lower density development is notoriously difficult to service with public transport as populations are spread out over greater distances and fewer passengers to pick up on each route. Cue: lowered viability and increased private car-based transport.

It is important to note that this does not only impact negatively on the environment, but is also socially exclusive to the young, elderly, infirm and those who simply cannot afford to buy a car. In addition, in this era of increasingly expensive oil (for whatever reason), it is increasingly financially unviable, as well as just plain inefficient, for people to rely so heavily on private car-based transport. It just doesn't make sense. I haven't even started talking about the enormous cost of building roads to the taxpayer or issues surrounding parking! Also, I would point out that it is very expensive to bring services out to these areas. The higher the density, the more cost-effective it is for the local authority to connect residential and other areas to electricity, water, sewage, etc.

I commend you on the use of your garden to grow food. But you must agree that you are in a small minority, although admittedly I have zero stats to back that up. just an opinion. Instead there is actually a trend of people covering over their front or back gardens with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete - a phenomenon that can have serious implications for flooding, and has sparked off John Gormely to the idea of banning this practice.

I agree that Dublin isn't the death trap that people use as their lame excuse not to get on a bike. However, cycling facilities are shockingly bad

-lack of places to park the bike
-zero maintenance of cycling lanes
-the right to park in a cycle lane with a broken line for 30minutes (what is the point??)
-zero enforcement of the ban on parking in cycle lanes
-awful, awful quality of road surfaces
-lack of services to clean up the crap off the roads - in fact, often this mess is swept into the cycle lane.
-cycle lanes that cease to exist at 7pm (along with all the cyclists :rolleyes:)
-combining cycle and bus lanes (whoever thought this was a good idea should be taken out and shot),
-general disregard of other road users for the cycle lane (used by motor cycle & scooter users & generally ignored by many drivers, "what? Oh, you have your blinkers on, sure then its fine to park there")
I could go on and on...

It's nothing to do with being more or less civilised, it's about putting collective interests before individual interests.

"It all seems a bit contradictory, but this [Sweden] is a country that is even more in thrall to the car than Britain. The local shop is extinct almost everywhere: if you want a litre of milk or a pack of nappies you need to drive to a supermarket. Smaller communities may have a store selling hot dogs and a few daily necessities, but these are always based around the petrol station – seemingly the focal point for modern village life."

Mark Lynas, a man who knows a thing or two about environmental issues. Right, I know he didn't directly compare to Ireland, but with the epic railway closures of the last 40 years, the expansion of motorways and out-of-town superstores in Britain, I think the two islands are comparable in car dependence.

http://www.marklynas.org/2007/10/14/the-environmental-utopia-up-to-a-point

You really shouldn't have assumed that I didn't know all the stuff you wrote about. I know that planning in Dublin barely exists. I have lived here all my life. I am involved in the Dublin Cycling Campaign.

I view car-driving at the levels it has risen to in Dublin as being anti-social, and I particularly despise how dangerous it has become for children here. I welcome high fuel prices for this reason.

I have cycled here for the later half of my life. I only consider Dame St and Westmoreland St as places to avoid at all cost on bike. I know that cycle facilities have been mostly placed for show rather than to be used, furthermore, by people who never cycled in their lives.

I agree that food-growing is a minority practice. While higher density housing has the benefit of being easier to extend services to, has it not occurred to you that when oil becomes prohibitively expensive, and silver bullet technologies inevitably fail to materialise, Dublin's large amount of gardens will be an invaluable tool to save ourselves from food insecurity? How sustainable will the tower blocks of apartments look by then?

badabinbadaboom

taconnol wrote: »

I cannot accept the idea that Sweden is a more car-dependent country than Ireland. The simple fact is that the Irish use their cars more than anyone else in the world, when measured on a per-capita basis. More, even than the Americans.

Why? Because we have failed to implement traffic demand management measures and instead, since the start of the boom in the 1990s, we have instead allowed developers to build sloppy, sprawling housing estates, far from facilities, shops and places of employment. In addition, we have embraced one-off housing in rural areas, thus contributing to spread out development. Lower density development is notoriously difficult to service with public transport as populations are spread out over greater distances and fewer passengers to pick up on each route. Cue: lowered viability and increased private car-based transport.

It is important to note that this does not only impact negatively on the environment, but is also socially exclusive to the young, elderly, infirm and those who simply cannot afford to buy a car. In addition, in this era of increasingly expensive oil (for whatever reason), it is increasingly financially unviable, as well as just plain inefficient, for people to rely so heavily on private car-based transport. It just doesn't make sense. I haven't even started talking about the enormous cost of building roads to the taxpayer or issues surrounding parking! Also, I would point out that it is very expensive to bring services out to these areas. The higher the density, the more cost-effective it is for the local authority to connect residential and other areas to electricity, water, sewage, etc.

I commend you on the use of your garden to grow food. But you must agree that you are in a small minority, although admittedly I have zero stats to back that up. just an opinion. Instead there is actually a trend of people covering over their front or back gardens with impermeable surfaces, such as concrete - a phenomenon that can have serious implications for flooding, and has sparked off John Gormely to the idea of banning this practice.

I agree that Dublin isn't the death trap that people use as their lame excuse not to get on a bike. However, cycling facilities are shockingly bad

-lack of places to park the bike
-zero maintenance of cycling lanes
-the right to park in a cycle lane with a broken line for 30minutes (what is the point??)
-zero enforcement of the ban on parking in cycle lanes
-awful, awful quality of road surfaces
-lack of services to clean up the crap off the roads - in fact, often this mess is swept into the cycle lane.
-cycle lanes that cease to exist at 7pm (along with all the cyclists :rolleyes:)
-combining cycle and bus lanes (whoever thought this was a good idea should be taken out and shot),
-general disregard of other road users for the cycle lane (used by motor cycle & scooter users & generally ignored by many drivers, "what? Oh, you have your blinkers on, sure then its fine to park there")
I could go on and on...

It's nothing to do with being more or less civilised, it's about putting collective interests before individual interests.

I get the impression you want mass housing estates completley self contained?
If thats your idea then I agree it would make life easier, but people should have a right to live wherever they want.

badabinbadaboom

Sorry I only just see what you mean now!! Just appeared very Orwellian there for a minute

Macha

Húrin wrote: »

"It all seems a bit contradictory, but this [Sweden] is a country that is even more in thrall to the car than Britain. The local shop is extinct almost everywhere: if you want a litre of milk or a pack of nappies you need to drive to a supermarket. Smaller communities may have a store selling hot dogs and a few daily necessities, but these are always based around the petrol station – seemingly the focal point for modern village life."

Ok I'm sorry but having lived in Scandinavia the above just isn't true.There is a Kiwi supermarket at every t-bane station, and residential development is focused on these sort of transport hubs. I am not talking about rural areas - it is somewhat inevitable that private-car use will be higher in rural than urban areas. I am talking about urban areas, where we should have the critical mass to guarantee an excellent public tranport system.

Húrin wrote: »

Mark Lynas, a man who knows a thing or two about environmental issues. Right, I know he didn't directly compare to Ireland, but with the epic railway closures of the last 40 years, the expansion of motorways and out-of-town superstores in Britain, I think the two islands are comparable in car dependence.

http://www.marklynas.org/2007/10/14/the-environmental-utopia-up-to-a-point

There are a lot of people out there who know a thing or two about the environment. I listen to them & then go back to the facts.

The simple fact is that Irish people use their cars more than anyone else in the EU, and the rest of the world. Yes, there has been an expansion of motorways, but Sweden has in no way seen the sort of rail closures that Ireland has since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1920, Ireland had 5,600km of railway, now it is much less. Only 0.5% of our freight goes by rail. Our main port, Dublin port, does not have rail freight facilities. Ironically enought, Gothenberg, the city Lynas refers to actually has the proud title of having the most extensive tram network in Northern Europe.

So while I agree that Ireland is comparable with the UK in terms of transport policy, both of us are nowhere near Sweden.

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. Sweden's use of CHP and district heating is a fantastic way of mazimising the energy gained from energy production. In Ireland, our energy generation is 35% efficient. CHP brings this up close to 100%. I appreciate that fossil fuel energy generation is not ideal and I totally accept his point, but the churlish way that he puts it across as if he's just scored one up against them is really off-putting.

I visited a city in Sweden called Vaxjo. The average annual C02 emissions per resident is below 3 tonnes. Ireland is currently at 17 tonnes. Would I have the audacity to sneer at them that they aren't at zero? No, it's just pathetic.

Húrin wrote: »

You really shouldn't have assumed that I didn't know all the stuff you wrote about. I know that planning in Dublin barely exists. I have lived here all my life. I am involved in the Dublin Cycling Campaign.

I didn't assume anything. I was putting across points, relevant to the argument not just for your personal viewing, but also anyone reading this thread. Boards is for public viewing..

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

Húrin wrote: »

I view car-driving at the levels it has risen to in Dublin as being anti-social, and I particularly despise how dangerous it has become for children here. I welcome high fuel prices for this reason.

I have cycled here for the later half of my life. I only consider Dame St and Westmoreland St as places to avoid at all cost on bike. I know that cycle facilities have been mostly placed for show rather than to be used, furthermore, by people who never cycled in their lives.

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

Húrin wrote: »

I agree that food-growing is a minority practice. While higher density housing has the benefit of being easier to extend services to, has it not occurred to you that when oil becomes prohibitively expensive, and silver bullet technologies inevitably fail to materialise, Dublin's large amount of gardens will be an invaluable tool to save ourselves from food insecurity? How sustainable will the tower blocks of apartments look by then?

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.

I think what turns alot of people away from the worthy green cause are things like mentioned in some posts in this thread like:

remarks against gardens, people like gardens, I like gardens !

Anti private transport, Private transport is freedom. Public transport is shockingly bad here and mismanaged, for day to day commuting we need to shift en masse to public but the private car is freedom lose sight of that fact and you lose support.

Anti short haul cheap flights. In a country that gets feck all sunshine where for nearly 9 months of the year if you work 9-5 indoors you wont see daylight people NEED a holiday. Its like banning comedy because of the co2 emissions from all related things like running a tv shipping dvds etc etc

we can choose the negative tax em to hell approach
or we do be positive:

planes can be run on bio kerosene
cars can run on electricity
and
whats wrong with gardens ffs

Macha

Blindjustice - I like gardens too but I accept the stark reality that it is not advisible that everyone gets their own private garden. I think I've outlined quite clearly why I hold this viewpoint. Reducing it down to a simple "I don't like gardens" is churlish. Again, I like cars and private transport but they have their place. Everyone uses their car and we all get stuck in traffic jams.

The concept that everyone can have exactly what they would like and everything will work fine is a concept that Ireland has put into practice over the past 15 years and we will be dealing with the consequences for a long, long time.

Public transport - I find an efficient, subsidised public transport more in line with my idea of freedom than any car. Yes public transport in Ireland is bad but it didn't have to be like this. But we chose we wanted our private cars and I hope everyone who spends hours in their car commuting every day enjoys their "freedom".

What I'm hearing from you is the usual "don't make me change, can't the men in the white coats just fix it?". It's nothing new.

Húrin

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what turns alot of people away from the worthy green cause are things like mentioned in some posts in this thread like:

remarks against gardens, people like gardens, I like gardens !

I do too and I think they will be a key tool in the oil-starved future, if used right.

Anti private transport, Private transport is freedom. Public transport is shockingly bad here and mismanaged, for day to day commuting we need to shift en masse to public but the private car is freedom lose sight of that fact and you lose support.

Hardly anti-private transport, I'm a cycling fanatic!

Anti short haul cheap flights. In a country that gets feck all sunshine where for nearly 9 months of the year if you work 9-5 indoors you wont see daylight people NEED a holiday.

We got on fine without holidays before. Elevating it to a need is superflouous. However, I accept and agree that holidays are good and desirable and I would hate to take them away. I like holidays. However, aviation is such a dangerous source of GHG emissions that it would be unjust to keep expanding it. Unjust on the billions who never get to fly or take holidays at all.

There are other ways of getting off this island if Connemara isn't good enough for you. You can get a ferry and train ticket to London for €41 for instance. You can get a ferry to France from Rosslare. Without aviation we would not be fecked by any means.

planes can be run on bio kerosene
cars can run on electricity

1. no they can't.
2. true, we will probably see more of this in the future. However, the manufacture of a car causes the emission of 35-50 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Also, I think that Ireland is at breaking point in terms of car use. It's now becoming very difficult because of the sheer volume of them.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

We got on fine without holidays before. Elevating it to a need is superflouous. However, I accept and agree that holidays are good and desirable and I would hate to take them away. I like holidays. However, aviation is such a dangerous source of GHG emissions that it would be unjust to keep expanding it. Unjust on the billions who never get to fly or take holidays at all.

There are other ways of getting off this island if Connemara isn't good enough for you. You can get a ferry and train ticket to London for €41 for instance. You can get a ferry to France from Rosslare. Without aviation we would not be fecked by any means.


1. no they can't.
2. true, we will probably see more of this in the future. However, the manufacture of a car causes the emission of 35-50 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Also, I think that Ireland is at breaking point in terms of car use. It's now becoming very difficult because of the sheer volume of them.

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