Why do the Green party seem to have it in for country people?

lucernarian

Victor wrote: »

No, they are targetting unsustainable livestyles that have been ably assisted by (mostly) rural planning corruption.

Just look at the problems in Galway over the last few years - you can't drink the water because there is too much sewage in it.

What relevance had the cryptosporidium outbreak to licensing septic tanks, let alone giving the Green party something to shout but do nothing about?? Firstly, the source of cryptosporidium was never found. Secondly, it's extremely ignorant to say there's "too much sewerage" or any fecal matter in the mains water of Galway in recent years. Thirdly, that was a matter of exchequer funding not being provided in time for needed improvements. Funding that would have been provided if there was a sustainable funding model for urban living!!

Once again, I ask why people with legally compliant private waste treatment, must pay for a license which they built with no State help while those with exchequer funded sewerage systems may not have any sort of levy charged for this.

This is just another example of Green party naivete that forces its agenda like it were "scientifically proven" doctrine. Thankfully the polls reflect the fact that not many will listen to a politically incoherent and hypocritical and sanctimonius party.

nesf

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

What relevance had the cryptosporidium outbreak to licensing septic tanks, let alone giving the Green party something to shout but do nothing about?? Firstly, the source of cryptosporidium was never found. Secondly, it's extremely ignorant to say there's "too much sewerage" or any fecal matter in the mains water of Galway in recent years. Thirdly, that was a matter of exchequer funding not being provided in time for needed improvements. Funding that would have been provided if there was a sustainable funding model for urban living!!

Once again, I ask why people with legally compliant private waste treatment, must pay for a license which they built with no State help while those with exchequer funded sewerage systems may not have any sort of levy charged for this.

This is just another example of Green party naivete that forces its agenda like it were "scientifically proven" doctrine. Thankfully the polls reflect the fact that not many will listen to a politically incoherent and hypocritical and sanctimonius party.

Well I can vouch for some small scale private water schemes in rural areas (local wells feeding directly off the near local watertable) having serious E.Coli problems. This wasn't made public, since it was a private system so I'm not going to name the place and area but it's sheep country not cattle land and the farming wasn't very intensive so septic tanks would be close to top of the list of suspects.

Nothing on the scale of the Galway problem, but a serious issue for the local residents, even though it didn't affect that many.

Scofflaw

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I'm quite sure you are confident in what the answer is. I was aware too at the time that it was quite anecdotal and not likely to prove a specific argument. Nonetheless, my observations were honest and I felt it prudent to put them out there to explain my feelings on the subject. Also, I felt that there was no need to argue that agriculture had higher pollution risks against any one household.


That's a rather facetious comment. There's nothing aspirational in what I said. It's obvious that slurry pits are not built to allow filtration by separation/decay/percolation and therefore have a fundamentally different design. Slurry storage is a far greater threat to watercourses than a septic tank that is far smaller and is meant to allow clean water to seep out, not keep contaminated waste in. It's inherently obvious too that the authorities see farming as a bigger threat to water quality, as per the regulations and standards that exist around farming and waste/fertiliser use.

The only point that can be made is that there are a whole lot more septic tanks out there. But this still doesn't add up, as 400,000 odd septic tanks spread across Ireland will have a pretty dispersed pollution risk. Any one septic tank leaking per sq km will not jeapordise the environment, the dilution factors are so massive if nothing else.

Unfortunately, that argument doesn't really hold water. First off, the fact that septic tanks are a less serious pollution source than agricultural runoff doesn't mean they're not a pollution source at all. Second, the dispersed nature of septic tanks is a problem, not a mitigating factor.

The majority of group schemes use groundwater, and overall about 26% of the country's drinking water comes from groundwater sources. Unlike the situation in other countries (for example England), virtually all Irish aquifers (98%) are fissure-permeability, not intergranular-permeability. In other words, the flow through the rock is flow through cracks, not flow between grains. That means that Irish aquifers have very little attenuating effect on pollutants entering them - virtually no filtration. Worse, the big Irish aquifers are in karst, which means that they have no filtration whatsoever.

Further, the majority of Irish aquifers are very small, because the country's geology is small-scale and repeatedly chopped up by old faults, and also shallow, because fissure permeability is almost entirely at surface - about 65% of Irish aquifers are like this. The input to a septic tank is about 180 litres per person per day - assuming an average household size of 3 people, that's about 200,000 litres of contaminated water per year per septic tank. Across the country, that's 100 billion litres of contaminated water per year entering septic tanks. Leakage of 1% means a billion litres of contaminated water per year.

So the dispersed nature of septic tanks, taken together with the nature of Irish aquifers, and the nature of the resulting pollution (biological, not chemical), simply means that most Irish 'local' aquifers are at risk from septic tank contamination - nearly every Irish aquifer has a good chance of having a leaky septic tank on it somewhere. Whether the contamination from that septic tank turns up in a nearby group water scheme depends on the vagaries of fissure connections.

Septic tanks aren't a non-issue in groundwater pollution by any means. They weren't twenty years ago when I worked a couple of years in the Groundwater Division of the Geological Survey either. Only the reluctance of Irish politicians to challenge the sanctity of the rural "way of life" has prevented appropriate action before now, just as it prevented implementation of the Nitrates Directive and the Habitats Directive - but if people want drinkable water, they're going to have to accept that pollution sources have to be regulated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Forgive the pun, but we're "muddying the waters" here.

Let's assume that there's sufficient pollution to force the issue; that something needs to be done.

Then, let's look at the fairest way of doing that.

My suggestion is to make the inspection scheme self-financing via the fines imposed. After all, if it's not a money-making scheme, higher fines are a bigger deterrent and those whose tanks are not polluting don't get hit with yet another stealth tax.

Plus the scheme is more acceptable to everyone, so I would imagine there would be better general acceptance, with no-one feeling hard-done by or bitching about how they've been screwed for their hard-earned cash yet again and couldn't wait to the this Government out.

So that's THREE plusses for my approach.

Anyone have ANY plusses for the proposed version ?

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Forgive the pun, but we're "muddying the waters" here.

Let's assume that there's sufficient pollution to force the issue; that something needs to be done.

Then, let's look at the fairest way of doing that.

My suggestion is to make the inspection scheme self-financing via the fines imposed. After all, if it's not a money-making scheme, higher fines are a bigger deterrent and those whose tanks are not polluting don't get hit with yet another stealth tax.

Plus the scheme is more acceptable to everyone, so I would imagine there would be better general acceptance, with no-one feeling hard-done by or bitching about how they've been screwed for their hard-earned cash yet again and couldn't wait to the this Government out.

So that's THREE plusses for my approach.

Anyone have ANY plusses for the proposed version ?

Your scheme would require a large chunk of money to provide surveillance and to enforce fines. Adding workload to our courts among other things. Which would all have to be created from scratch. You're talking about massive fines needed to make that self-funded and even then that's a stupid way to do it because depending on people not doing something you want to pay for making people do something you want isn't a very good way to fund things.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

Your scheme would require a large chunk of money to provide surveillance and to enforce fines. Adding workload to our courts among other things.

Who mentioned courts ? On-the-spot fines would work.

Plus, I'd ASSUME that there are fines going to be imposed on those who are currently polluting, so even if that were via the courts, it wouldn't be any extra work over and above the proposed version.

So no net gain or loss for EITHER version on that point of yours, as far as I can see.

nesf wrote: »

Which would all have to be created from scratch.

Not sure what this means.

nesf wrote: »

You're talking about massive fines needed to make that self-funded and even then that's a stupid way to do it because depending on people not doing something you want to pay for making people do something you want isn't a very good way to fund things.

The aim is to protect the planet, right ? Not to "make money". So yes, as people got the message the potential income would go down. But likewise (as I said) massive fines would act as a better deterrent and incentive to get things in order.

BTW, whatever about any potential pitfalls, I'd suggest that it's less "stupid" than pissing off thousands upon thousands of law-abiding citizens with yet another tax.

nesf

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The aim is to protect the planet, right ? Not to "make money".

Whatever gave you that idea? Of course revenue generation is a genuine reason to impose a tax to alter behaviour. That it alters behaviour in a socially good way is an added bonus.

Liam Byrne

nesf wrote: »

Whatever gave you that idea? Of course revenue generation is a genuine reason to impose a tax to alter behaviour. That it alters behaviour in a socially good way is an added bonus.

Damn me for being so naive as to think that it might actually be a noble policy.

I take it that you're actually in agreement with the OP's thread title, so ? That it is just another lousy f**king tax that has no real objective other than screw people a little more ? That altering behaviour is just an "added bonus" ?

Pity, coz I'd be all for the whole reducing pollution concept as a primary objective, if done fairly; then again, I'd support that in relation to illegal dumping that goes on in the countryside (normally just on the outskirts of cities) and enforcing that, but of course those scum don't have an easily-trackable name and address.

No easy target = don't bother.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So in order to allay your scepticism and make it clear for anyone else reading, I'll ask these straight out :

Fair enough...I'll give answering them a shot.

1) If this is a "green" agenda, purely for the purposes of improving the planet, do you think it should be self-financing / revenue-neutral ?

I guess that would depend on how you define "self-financing".

The impact of implementing this scheme is of benefit to everyone (in Ireland), therefore there is an element of the cost which should be borne by everyone (i.e. partial government subsidy)

There is also an aspect which is directly linked to the owners of septic tanks...they are the reason that the scheme needs to exist.

Therefore, I think a fair system would be partially subsidised, and partially revenue-generating. How exactly that should be apportioned is, naturally, open to debate.

2) Do you not think it fairer that it be financed by fines from those found to be polluting (i.e. the cause of the issue that apparently needs to be fixed) ?

Not necessarily.

I believe those found to be deliberately polluting should be harshly dealt with.

Those found to be accidentally polluting, however, can be fairly dealt with in either of two ways, as we have been discussing.

I don't believe either of those two ways are inherently unfair...viewing the license fee as a form of "sharing the load" of such costs (analagous to the principles of insurance) would probably be my preferred choice, but if the government were to change their position and say that they'd go with the option of fines on the accidental polluters to generate the same revenue I doubt I'd be up in arms about it. I also doubt that I'd be up in arms if the government decided to absorb the entire costs on the basis that it was regarding the protection of national resources (our water-table, etc.). I honestly don't feel any of the options are inherently unfair...which is where my point about subjectivity comes in. For some people, some options would be preferable. THe urban dweller would see increased funding on their part for the safeguarding their water as less preferable then someone else footing the bill. The same applies for the septic tank owner....they'd naturally prefer to see someone else foot the bill. I don't believe these preferences make the options inherently unfair, though.

I would, however, question whether or not fines can generate the same revenue as licenses.

Lets say that under either system, the deliberate polluter should be harshly dealt with. This leaves the license costs only offset against the accidental polluter. So if 1% of tanks are accidentally causing pollution, that polluter would need to pay the equivalent of 100 years worth of inspection costs (assuming annual inspections) to generate the same revenue. The better the condition of people's tanks, the higher the cost the accidental polluter has to pay...which is almost counter-productive....the more money people collectively spend on keeping their systems in order, the more they individually have to pay if their system fails.

If we don't exclude the deliberate polluter, then the problem shifts. In teh first year or so, there'll be a lot of these guys found...a veritable windfall. After that, though, there's going to be diminshing returns. If, as one would hope, there is a significant decrease in deliberate polluters in the coming years....where do we source the replacement revenue from that they were generating? Again, we end up coming back to the other options that we have.

Regardless of how / whether or not I am personally affected, those questions are 100% non-agenda-based and straightforward and fair. Would you agree ?

I can't comment whether or not your questions are agenda-based. I don't think they're entirely straightforward, in that I don't think they can be simply addressed with yes or no answers. I don't find them unfair or unreasonable as questions.

As I asked already, would you accept / think it fair if your insurance company imposed an additional charge so that they could pay someone to double-check whether you were a drug-dealer ?

I guess it would depend on why they were doing that, and what the alternatives were.

Imagine instead of a drug-dealer, my insurance company asked me to pay charges so that they could determine whether or not I was a law-abiding driver, and not a boy-racer or somesuch.

I would point to trial schemes (at least here in Switzerland) where they offer at a cost a black-box unit to be installed in your car, so that in the event of an accident they can verify that I was a law-abiding driver wrt. speed etc. In effect, I have the option to pay money so that should I incur a claim, I do not need to face any uncertainty as to whether or not I was driving like a lunatic.

These schemes exist, and the initial feedback from them is highly positive...including drivers saying that having spent this money and knowing that they are being checked on, they are less likely to drive irresponsibly.

So...the individual is paying insurance....and is paying a surcharge to establish that they're a law-abiding driver....and the feedback from all concerned (insurance companies and drivers alike) is positive.

Does that answer your question? If not, then I think I need you to explain why it would matter to my insurance company if I was a drug-dealer. I can understand why it would matter to them if I was a racer...and whether or not that was habitual or just a momentary event...but I don't see how I could be an accidental drug dealer, or what difference it would make to my driving insurance either which way.

Those are 100% relevant and fair questions, and I've asked one of them already and gotten no reply, while you seem to be intent on implying that my only reasoning behind my objection in this is protecting my own interests. Without answering the above, that is a relatively poor discussion technique employed only to cast doubt on the fairness and validity of the questions.

I've answered your questions as best I can. Care to reciprocate?

bonkey

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

That's a rather facetious comment. There's nothing aspirational in what I said.

Lets look back at what you said, shall we? I've cut out a sentence fragment for clarity, and underlined an important part.

the leakage ... will not (hopefully) be directly "running off" into a stream etc but will seep through topsoil and subsoil.

You said it would hopefully not be happening.
Now...I said that you hoped bad things wouldn't happen.

How is that facetious of me? How was your statement not aspirational?

lucernarian

bonkey wrote: »

Lets look back at what you said, shall we? I've cut out a sentence fragment for clarity, and underlined an important part.



You said it would hopefully not be happening.
Now...I said that you hoped bad things wouldn't happen.

How is that facetious of me? How was your statement not aspirational?

Fair enough, that's actually what I said. You're not the one to be blamed for spotting a clumsy statement. The spirit of what I meant was essentially a disclaimer, which is why it was in brackets. The word wasn't an integral part of my point. Obviously I could not make a sweeping statement in relation to all septic tanks. My message was simply about the potential pollution risk from being much higher than from any one septic tank. So I accept that the point was not facetious, yet mine also was not aspirational. It was just being pedantically cautious.

jmayo

slimjimmc wrote: »

Mary White is one, lives near Borris, Co. Carlow in the foothills of Mt. Leinster.
You could probably consider Councillors in most county towns as fairly rural too, since very few of those towns have any of the facilities of the cities and their residents face similar problems.

Won't be for long.
She got in because of poor FG vote management between two candiudates in two counties AFAIK.

Ehh how many councillors do they have now ?

NewDubliner wrote: »

Rural isolation is a self-imposed problem.

Stop hijacking this thread to rant as usual about people living in the countryside.
I have known lots of old people who have lived all their lives in the countryside, and due to death are now all alone.
Are they supposed to leave their lifelong home and move to some town, surronded by people they don't know and probably a much greater density of scumbags, so that you are kept happy ?

BTW a lot of urban dwellers mouth off about people in the countryside, but they are more than happy to see their waste go to a dumpsite in the countryside, they are more than happy to see taxes from rural dwellers subsidise city ring roads, tunnels, etc.

We all know polluters should be prosecuted and made pay for the clean up of their messes, (I know of one farmer who has been nailed for his dodgy practices and rightly so), but this whole scheme is just another tax gathering measure.
FF must be laughing their asses off, the greens are coming up with so many ideas for new taxes, all in the name of helping the environment :rolleyes:

How much of all this money will go to inspectors, probably yet more new public sector appointees that we can't afford, and how much will go into paying for the likes of gormless's merc rides from Hollyhead ?

bladespin

NewDubliner wrote: »

People should live near where they work. If you want public transport, go live near a town with enough people liveing there to make it economical, or where you're close enough to walk or cycle.

Unless there's a farm attached to the house, it's better if people live in towns where services can be concentrated & so we can reduce the problems caused by one-off houses in our countryside.

It's time we stopped subsidising other people's lifestyle choices.

It's often impossible for this, not every job can be supported in a city, often workers have no choice but to travel, especially the way the world is today: no such thing as a job for life, how can you expect anyone to just uproot everytime they change their job, that attitude is contemptable.

Lifestyle choice, that's a good joke, many people who live in the countryside were born and raised there, they made no conscious decision to live there, to assume this is derisive and dismissive.

A couple of questions to finish, say a country dweller was to decide to move to the city, how can they do this? Their house value (if any right now) wouldn't match anything in a city, would the Green party help out with the difference? That would be generous.

Say they did, what then for the house they leave behind? Surely it wouldn't be very environmentally friendly to just leave it to rot.

Finally, as city commuters tend to live on the commuter belt, a lot of country dwellers work in the country, how are they to get to work? Public transport for this doesn't even exist (certainly not for my job, I live in town and commute to the countryside, no jams but the diesel doesn't pay for itself).

BTW this thread has gone way off topic, my question was about the numbers of votes being ignored, not septic tanks lads.

Liam Byrne

bonkey wrote: »

I guess that would depend on how you define "self-financing".

The impact of implementing this scheme is of benefit to everyone (in Ireland), therefore there is an element of the cost which should be borne by everyone (i.e. partial government subsidy)

Agreed.

bonkey wrote: »

There is also an aspect which is directly linked to the owners of septic tanks...they are the reason that the scheme needs to exist.

Not completely true; the reason "the scheme needs to exist" is because of badly-maintained / leaking septic tanks.

bonkey wrote: »

Therefore, I think a fair system would be partially subsidised, and partially revenue-generating. How exactly that should be apportioned is, naturally, open to debate.

Agreed. And that's what we're doing.

bonkey wrote: »

I believe those found to be deliberately polluting should be harshly dealt with.

No argument there.

bonkey wrote: »

Those found to be accidentally polluting, however, can be fairly dealt with in either of two ways, as we have been discussing.

And in between those two, I would suggest, is the area equivalent to "criminal negligence".

bonkey wrote: »

I honestly don't feel any of the options are inherently unfair...which is where my point about subjectivity comes in. For some people, some options would be preferable. THe urban dweller would see increased funding on their part for the safeguarding their water as less preferable then someone else footing the bill. The same applies for the septic tank owner....they'd naturally prefer to see someone else foot the bill. I don't believe these preferences make the options inherently unfair, though.

And, believe it or not, I see your point. For example, we all get the benefit of policing, but if the scumbags and white-collar criminals didn't exist, we wouldn't need to pay as much tax.

bonkey wrote: »

I would, however, question whether or not fines can generate the same revenue as licenses.

Firstly, as I said, higher fines = higher incentive to get things right. So if the aim is cleaner water, that alone will improve matters.

Secondly, if there's enough of an issue to impose this, then it needs to be dealt with, however if the scheme works properly (and with the correct intentions and focus) then it would end up solving the problem and eventually not need the revenue (or the same level of implementation) at all.

In addition, the lower level of pollution would reduce the costs of clean-up operations, part of which money which could then be diverted to the inspection scheme, if required.

bonkey wrote: »

Imagine instead of a drug-dealer, my insurance company asked me to pay charges so that they could determine whether or not I was a law-abiding driver, and not a boy-racer or somesuch.

The reason for the "drug-dealer" analogy was due to the use of the word "peer", so let's assume for a moment that someone did suggest that a boy-racer was a "peer" of yours.

bonkey wrote: »

I would point to trial schemes (at least here in Switzerland) where they offer at a cost a black-box unit to be installed in your car, so that in the event of an accident they can verify that I was a law-abiding driver wrt. speed etc. In effect, I have the option to pay money so that should I incur a claim, I do not need to face any uncertainty as to whether or not I was driving like a lunatic.

I've previously proposed that an equivalent black box be installed in cars to limit the maximum speed to the speed limit, and offering an equivalent reduction in insurance premiums. And therein lies the nub of the issue. If the Government actually wanted to reduce accidents (rather than make money) then they would offer a grant to do this, in the knowledge that they would achieve safer roads and have less costs of clean-up.

Alternatively, if it achieves its result, the individual's insurance premium would come down.

So - either way - there's no additional imposition on the responsible individual, and the overall aim (assuming that it's not just revenue-generation) is achieved with minimum grief or expense.

bonkey wrote: »

So...the individual is paying insurance....and is paying a surcharge to establish that they're a law-abiding driver....and the feedback from all concerned (insurance companies and drivers alike) is positive.

.....with a view to their premium and/or cost of claims coming down, which would offset the surcharge.