Greens: The Biggest threat Ireland faces today

slagger

BroomBurner wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0113/politics.html

Short story, I know, but at least it's showing the Greens have their heads screwed on. After all, didn't Bertie "create" three new junior ministership positions while in power during the time he was made aware of the worsening economic crisis?

Thats nothing new. How many times have the general public mooted for reduction in the number of sitting td's by at least half. Think of those savings on salaries/pensions/expenses etc etc. There are far too many politicians for the size of population in the country.

Blazer

I hate the green party.
Introducing polices with no clue about the alternatives.
This carbon tax is another joke and it only a way of increasing budget revenue for the government.
It should be added onto petrol/diesel so those that travel more pay more.
But no..they want to penalize everyone with a car regardless of distance travelled. Same for households.
The recent policy on houses though for sale or rent "heating rate" is however a good idea. It will be very important to know that the house you're buying doesn't cost a fortune to run.
The thing is they've introduced loads of stupid policies and only one good policy I can think of at the moment.
At least after the next election the GP will be definitely screwed.
Gormley just comes across as a anorak wearing treehugger who looks way out of his depth.

BroomBurner

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

I hate the green party.
Introducing polices with no clue about the alternatives.
This carbon tax is another joke and it only a way of increasing budget revenue for the government.
It should be added onto petrol/diesel so those that travel more pay more.
But no..they want to penalize everyone with a car regardless of distance travelled. Same for households.
The recent policy on houses though for sale or rent "heating rate" is however a good idea. It will be very important to know that the house you're buying doesn't cost a fortune to run.
The thing is they've introduced loads of stupid policies and only one good policy I can think of at the moment.
At least after the next election the GP will be definitely screwed.
Gormley just comes across as a anorak wearing treehugger who looks way out of his depth.

What about Eamonn Ryan's decision to change the FF policy of giving away all of our natural resources? At least now we'll get something back. Is that not a good policy?

As for what car you drive versus the length of time you drive it, I don't think the Greens have anything to do with how much petrol/deisel costs, do they? If YOU decide to buy a gas-guzzling car, then how much YOU spend on filling YOUR tank is YOUR problem. Buy a car with a smaller engine if you're so p!ssed off. Do your bit for future generations while you're saving yourself some money.

Gormley's policy on having an elected Mayors isn't bad either. It will stop certain factions who have people in line to be mayor in their (financial) pockets.

Another one of Ryan's is that of opening up the tv stations a bit more and stopping the RTE quango going on, but I'm not sure how far that one is, or the specific details.

If you hate the greens, you must DETEST FF, seeing as they have made far worse decisions over their terms in power.

Blazer

BroomBurner wrote: »

What about Eamonn Ryan's decision to change the FF policy of giving away all of our natural resources? At least now we'll get something back. Is that not a good policy?

As for what car you drive versus the length of time you drive it, I don't think the Greens have anything to do with how much petrol/deisel costs, do they? If YOU decide to buy a gas-guzzling car, then how much YOU spend on filling YOUR tank is YOUR problem. Buy a car with a smaller engine if you're so p!ssed off. Do your bit for future generations while you're saving yourself some money.

Gormley's policy on having an elected Mayors isn't bad either. It will stop certain factions who have people in line to be mayor in their (financial) pockets.

Another one of Ryan's is that of opening up the tv stations a bit more and stopping the RTE quango going on, but I'm not sure how far that one is, or the specific details.

If you hate the greens, you must DETEST FF, seeing as they have made far worse decisions over their terms in power.

I couldn't even describe in words how I feel about FF.
So back to cars? If I have a 1.6L and drive 40,000 miles a year and pay a nominal fee, is it fair say if instead I have a 2.6L car and only drove 10,000 miles a year which would yield the higher emissions over the course of a year?

djpbarry

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And whatever about the pros and cons of private transport, most of the pollution in this country is because cars are stuck in crazy traffic in cities most of the time! Removing the traffic jams and letting people actually drive from A to B would actually IMPROVE matters!

Would reducing the number of cars on the roads not be a good way to do that?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Of course, so would actually building housing estates and business parks near each other, rather than putting massive retail parks on roads that were designed as ring roads, to alleviate traffic, rather than opportunities for landowners and builders and the rest of FF's buddies to make another killing and thereby INCREASE traffic jams!

I'm getting a little tired of hearing people complain about the fact that they HAD to buy a house 20-30km from their place of work and now they HAVE to drive to and from work every day. Yes, a lot of homes built in this country in recent years are of a poor standard and yes, the developments at large were often poorly planned. But nobody forced anybody to buy these houses. The owners knew what they were getting themselves into when they bought (or at least they should have known), so there's no point blaming everyone and anyone for your own lifestyle. You made the decision to buy, now you're stuck with it.

20goto10 wrote: »

Is there such thing as a 40 watt (equvilent) energy saving light bulb?

8 - 10 Watt CFL's are readily available:
http://www.1000bulbs.com/9-Watt-Compact-Fluorescents

BroomBurner

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

I couldn't even describe in words how I feel about FF.
So back to cars? If I have a 1.6L and drive 40,000 miles a year and pay a nominal fee, is it fair say if instead I have a 2.6L car and only drove 10,000 miles a year which would yield the higher emissions over the course of a year?

I don't understand your issue. Whether you drive 40,000 or 10,000 miles, if you do it in a 1.6L engine, you will have fewer emissions than if you covered the same mileage in a bigger engine. Your comparison makes no sense in reality.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm getting a little tired of hearing people complain about the fact that they HAD to buy a house 20-30km from their place of work and now they HAVE to drive to and from work every day. Yes, a lot of homes built in this country in recent years are of a poor standard and yes, the developments at large were often poorly planned. But nobody forced anybody to buy these houses. The owners knew what they were getting themselves into when they bought (or at least they should have known), so there's no point blaming everyone and anyone for your own lifestyle. You made the decision to buy, now you're stuck with it.

In fairness, what was the alternative? When the rental market is so unregulated and rents were equal to mortgage payments, I'm sure I would have bought if I had the money. The price for well-serviced locations was even higher than other areas. It's only the better-off that get to live in accessibility-rich areas like along the DART line.

I am all for living in apartments but Irish apartments...? They're a bit of a joke.

But you're right, no one was forced to buy and there are still people who look down on those who rent.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Blazer

BroomBurner wrote: »

I don't understand your issue. Whether you drive 40,000 or 10,000 miles, if you do it in a 1.6L engine, you will have fewer emissions than if you covered the same mileage in a bigger engine. Your comparison makes no sense in reality.

I'm talking about doing 40,000 in a 1.6L whereas only 10,000 in a bigger engine.
Obviously the 1.6 is emitting more emissions due to the distance so hence a carbon tax added onto petrol/diesel makes more sense than adding it as a separate tax based on engine size.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's the same with apartments vs houses, private vs public houses and private vs public transport.

Also, I find that because I cycle, people assume I don't have a car. In other words, the assumption is that if I had a car, I would use it because cycling sucks!

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

I'm talking about doing 40,000 in a 1.6L whereas only 10,000 in a bigger engine.
Obviously the 1.6 is emitting more emissions due to the distance so hence a carbon tax added onto petrol/diesel makes more sense than adding it as a separate tax based on engine size.

But you're not comparing like with like...There are two separate factors, carbon emissions per km and then distance travelled. The VRT tax is designed to encourage prospective car buyers to buy a car with a more environmentally friendly engine and then taxing petrol/diesel discourages using the car for more distance than is necessary. Although, I really think that they are taking the easy way out by taxing people because its infinitely less complicated than implementing proper planning and public transport measures :rolleyes: all stick and no carrot.

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

In fairness, what was the alternative? When the rental market is so unregulated and rents were equal to mortgage payments, I'm sure I would have bought if I had the money.

If I had the money, I would possibly have bought a place too, but there’s no way I’d have spent €400,000 for a cardboard box in Lucan (for example).

I can’t say I agree with you on the rent issue. I’ve been renting in Dublin for nearly 5 years now and I’ve never had too much trouble finding reasonable rents in decent locations, probably because there are so many rental properties out there.

taconnol wrote: »

I am all for living in apartments but Irish apartments...? They're a bit of a joke.

But again, standards have slipped because people are paying way too much for way too little.

taconnol wrote: »

But you're right, no one was forced to buy and there are still people who look down on those who rent.

You’ve hit the nail on the head there. But the reason (I think) that the rental market is poorly regulated is because nobody is demanding regulation (or at least not enough people). Although at the end of the day, the same argument could be made for renting as is made for buying – if you don’t think a place is worth the rent, then find somewhere else. Renting is seen as a stop-gap in this country between moving out of your parents’ home and buying your own place – it’s not seen as a viable long-term option by many people.

taconnol wrote: »

But you're not comparing like with like...There are two separate factors, carbon emissions per km and then distance travelled. The VRT tax is designed to encourage prospective car buyers to buy a car with a more environmentally friendly engine and then taxing petrol/diesel discourages using the car for more distance than is necessary.

But the problem is that, because people pay so much in tax for the car itself, they feel inclined to use it more to get their money’s worth, in my opinion. Scrapping VRT (or at least reducing it substantially) and taxing fuel instead would mean that you only pay for what you use. Although, I have encountered quite a large number of motorists who are opposed to such a move – not entirely sure why.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

If I had the money, I would possibly have bought a place too, but there’s no way I’d have spent €400,000 for a cardboard box in Lucan (for example).

True but I'm young with no dependents. If I had two kids, I would find it a lot more difficult to stay in the small apartment that I'm in at the moment.

djpbarry wrote: »

I can’t say I agree with you on the rent issue. I’ve been renting in Dublin for nearly 5 years now and I’ve never had too much trouble finding reasonable rents in decent locations, probably because there are so many rental properties out there.

There are far more rental properties now than there were a few years ago. Compared to the continent, renters have very few rights here. Rents aren't indexed: a landlord can put up the rent when s/he decides to.

Fiscally, people are rewarded for taking out mortgages while renters geat a paultry sum every year to go towards their rent. Again, the government does nothing to encourage a stronger rental market (and I don't mean stronger, as in higher rents!). Every time rents are discussed in the media, it's from the point of view of the landlords: rents up=good, rents down=bad. Renters are invisible.

djpbarry wrote: »

You’ve hit the nail on the head there. But the reason (I think) that the rental market is poorly regulated is because nobody is demanding regulation (or at least not enough people). Although at the end of the day, the same argument could be made for renting as is made for buying – if you don’t think a place is worth the rent, then find somewhere else. Renting is seen as a stop-gap in this country between moving out of your parents’ home and buying your own place – it’s not seen as a viable long-term option by many people.

Yes, that attitude certainly prevails but I think the lack of regulation is because this government's philiosphy is that housing is an asset, not a right. In other words, housing is something to make money out of, not something to help people get. Just look at the serious lack of emergency accommodation available to asylum seekers, children in the care of the HSE, etc, the decline in council housing and the selling-off of the public-housing stock. The government's decision to ignore the needs of renters is just an extension of this philosophy.

djpbarry wrote: »

But the problem is that, because people pay so much in tax for the car itself, they feel inclined to use it more to get their money’s worth, in my opinion. Scrapping VRT (or at least reducing it substantially) and taxing fuel instead would mean that you only pay for what you use. Although, I have encountered quite a large number of motorists who are opposed to such a move – not entirely sure why.

Ok, interesting take - I hadn't looked at it that way. Then again, if cars were cheaper, I can only imagine every single person buying one as soon as they could. The problem is our cities are designed for car-users, so people who don't have a car are excluded - socially, from services, from shops, etc.

Grudaire

It's true, if those six TD's weren't in goverment all the policies would be different

Fianna Fáil wouldn't for instance: have a majority or tax you :rolleyes:

Seriously though what do you want from tham, and surely FF is the problem?

Macha

Cliste wrote: »

It's true, if those six TD's weren't in goverment all the policies would be different

Fianna Fáil wouldn't for instance: have a majority or tax you :rolleyes:

Seriously though what do you want from tham, and surely FF is the problem?

Irish constitution, art. 28.1: "The Government shall consist of not less than seven and not more than fifteen members who shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution."

There is a reason why this was put in the consitution: so that we wouldn't have the ridiculous mess of Ministers and junior ministers that we have today, brought about by FF cronyism. I mean, we have 20 Ministers of State!! Each one costs €.5m . Get rid of them all and we could afford the HPV vaccine.

djpbarry

taconnol wrote: »

True but I'm young with no dependents. If I had two kids, I would find it a lot more difficult to stay in the small apartment that I'm in at the moment.

Absolutely – if I had kids I would probably relocate to a house. But that doesn’t mean that I have to buy a house. Of course, if you can't afford to make the necessary changes to your living arrangements, then you shouldn't be having kids (granted, there are exceptions).

taconnol wrote: »

There are far more rental properties now than there were a few years ago.

But there were still a lot of rental properties a few years ago. It was a bit more competitive alright, but there were plenty of places available.

taconnol wrote: »

Compared to the continent, renters have very few rights here. Rents aren't indexed: a landlord can put up the rent when s/he decides to.

Not if a written contract exists between the landlord and tenant. It never ceases to amaze me how many people I know who do not sign a lease when they move into a new place - madness. I have also heard of a number of people who pay their landlord in cash – how does that not set off alarm bells?

taconnol wrote: »

Fiscally, people are rewarded for taking out mortgages while renters geat a paultry sum every year to go towards their rent.

Maybe, but one has to consider the financial burden of a mortgage versus renting, which is something that many people overlook. Rent is seen as ‘dead money’ by many people, but for some reason, the interest portion of their mortgage is seen as an investment?

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, that attitude certainly prevails but I think the lack of regulation is because this government's philiosphy is that housing is an asset, not a right.

But that has a lot to do with the attitude of the general public – owning property is seen as the be-all and end-all by many in this country. It’s only natural that this would be reflected by the government that they elect. I’m not saying I agree with this, I’m just saying that this is the reality. Personally, I will never understand this ‘urge’ that Irish people (and to a lesser extent, British people) have to acquire their own home, even if they know that they cannot possibly afford it.

taconnol wrote: »

Ok, interesting take - I hadn't looked at it that way. Then again, if cars were cheaper, I can only imagine every single person buying one as soon as they could.

Not if the operating cost increases substantially – the car wouldn’t really be any cheaper to own over it’s lifetime, just the upfront payment would be lower. But I suppose the problem with shifting the tax from VRT to fuel is how to manage the transition. What do we do with all the motorists who have already paid their VRT – they can’t be expected to cough up on the massive hike in fuel prices. They’d be hit twice for the same tax euros.

Húrin

CtrlSource wrote: »

Perhaps you might explain why you think every successive Irish government has marginally increased Road Tax since it was introduced? (i.e. it would always go up marginally regardless of the parties in gov). Did you expect the Green Party in government to reduce tax on your mode of transport? Nobody's taxing the sh1t out of you.

There is no such thing as road tax, only motor tax AFAIK.

Húrin

taconnol wrote: »

The problem is our cities are designed for car-users, so people who don't have a car are excluded - socially, from services, from shops, etc.

The problem is that our cities were not designed for cars, at least not the centres, and forcing adaptation to cars doesn't work.

Macha

djpbarry wrote: »

Not if the operating cost increases substantially – the car wouldn’t really be any cheaper to own over it’s lifetime, just the upfront payment would be lower. But I suppose the problem with shifting the tax from VRT to fuel is how to manage the transition. What do we do with all the motorists who have already paid their VRT – they can’t be expected to cough up on the massive hike in fuel prices. They’d be hit twice for the same tax euros.

Thinking more about this and you're absolutely right. Because car owners don't pay out a large amount each time they decide to jump in the car, cost doesn't impede their decision to drive.

Whereas the fixed rate of public transport means that people decide to use their car, because they don't factor in all the actual costs (petrol, wear & tear, NCT, road tax).. Plus again, a huge about of costs are externalised (cost of accidents, pollution)

Húrin wrote: »

The problem is that our cities were not designed for cars, at least not the centres, and forcing adaptation to cars doesn't work.

Yeah that's true about city centres. I was referring moreso to developments like Blanchardstown & Liffey Valley, etc. It's far easier to get there by car than by public transport.