Labour & IFA fight the carbon tax

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What do they do currently when fuel prices rise? What happened in respect of the 37.6% rise in fuel prices that had nothing to do with any carbon tax?

cordially,
Scofflaw

johnnyjb

Can any one tell me what do the greens actually do and is it any bit beneficial to our country??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anymore

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with doing away with green tax on home fuel but have to laugh at poor mouth from farmers.
The agricultural sector is the biggest generator of green house gases in ireland, generating more than double that of airlines. Am I correct in saying that farmers diesel ( Green diesel) has a reduced rate of execise ?
If so then is it not abouit time they paid same rates of excise as other industrial users of diesel ?

Macha

If you want market forces to successfully deal with carbon emissions, you have to put a price on carbon.

The 2010 budget included features to offset the regressive elements of the carbon tax, namely the hypothecation of €50 million from carbon tax revenue to be spent on retrofitting schemes that target those most at risk of fuel poverty.

Research by ESRI indicated an overall impact of the carbon tax of €2-€3 per week per household.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As a economic liberalist, I'm not sure if your comments are genuine. And you must know very little about the SEAI schemes if you think houses have to be new to be energy efficient - I'm referring to the Warmer Homes Scheme that retrofits existing housing stock of low-income families.

As just mentioned, the ESRI estimated the cost per household at €2-€3 per week. As also just mentioned, funds from the carbon tax will be injected into SEAI programmes that target residential homes that have poor energy efficiency performances. Moreover, households can qualify for the following three welfare schemes that relate to fuel allowances:
- Fuel Allowance
- Smokeless Fuel Allowance
- allowances towards electricity, natural gas or bottled gas refills as contained within the Household Benefits Package

Scofflaw

What of it? The relevant point is that the government is only making matters worse by slapping on a regressive carbon tax that will increase the retail price of home heating oil by a further 8.7 percent.

That assumes that the government does nothing when fuel prices rise - the first part of the question, which I note you've dodged.

donegalfella wrote: »

Oh, woe betide those who don't live in nice, new, energy-efficient homes! How dare they burn fuel to keep warm! Is the Green Party planning to hand out blankets for all of us to huddle beneath next winter?

Like taconnol, I find it hard to believe that you're serious here, particularly since you appear to be ignoring the fact that the government doesn't ignore the effects of rises in fuel prices on the poor - although perhaps that's because you (presumably) believe they should ignore it? Isn't it market intervention?

More generally, are you opposed to doing something about climate change?

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

If you want market forces to successfully deal with carbon emissions, you have to put a price on carbon. Put in place EVERYWHERE across the world at same time.

Let me fix that for you

All the carbon taxes in the West will accomplish (im not just talking about farmers here) is to ensure that more production, capital and jobs moves East where they care little for the environment

Good luck convincing the East and of course the USofA of benefits of carbon taxation, the might even go along pay lip service while they hoover up more jobs and production capacity from us suckers here in Europe

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

What do they do currently when fuel prices rise? What happened in respect of the 37.6% rise in fuel prices that had nothing to do with any carbon tax?

Interesting you should mention that, since the Government's take has gone from about 40c to 70c per litre based on the fact that it's a "percentage" rate.

So people are ALREADY being penalised way more than the Green's extra tax.

If they've doubled their income from it and people are using less because it's gone up in price, what's the sense in penalising people further and stifling growth by increasing costs of production and therefore costs to end-users ?

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting you should mention that, since the Government's take has gone from about 40c to 70c per litre based on the fact that it's a "percentage" rate.

So people are ALREADY being penalised way more than the Green's extra tax.

If they've doubled their income from it and people are using less because it's gone up in price, what's the sense in penalising people further and stifling growth by increasing costs of production and therefore costs to end-users ?

Unfortunately, that wouldn't make sense, since market fluctuations in fuel price aren't stable, which would mean that a fall would eradicate any disincentive.

I say "wouldn't make sense", though, because the carbon tax is a straight tax per tonne (€15/tonne - heating oil 4.3c/litre including VAT) - indeed, as far as I'm aware, all the various charges on fuel are levied on a quantity basis. Where are you getting the "percentage rate" from?

slightly puzzled,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Raiser

From ~2000-2005 I lived in a 20 year old rented House with single glazing etc, fairly typical of a lot of our current housing....

I will never forget trying to keep it warm, the heating had to be on for hours to raise the temperature by a degree or two and even a blazing fire in the Sitting room struggled to heat the room.

My current house gets uncomfortably warm after turning on the heat for an hour and stays warm for the night once its switched off.

- Raising the price of home heating fuel is going to be a cruel and thoughtless blow for a lot of Families living in certain types of housing this coming Winter. Raising the price of home heating fuel for no good reason at all is ludicrous, callous, unfair, daft and wholly unnecessary farce of a situation.

Every year Pensioners die during our cold snaps, this Winter there are going to be People worrying needlessly about their Senior Citizens, as well as watching their Families freeze - all because the Green Party wants to impress their progressively minded Idiot Friends in the Norwegian or some other branch of their Looney Fringe movement with tales of how they snuck into power in Ireland on a wave of false promises and then clung to it shamelessly in a show of defiant hypocrisy, self-promotion, profiteering and deceit.

The Green Party will be lucky not to have been publicly lynched by this time next year...... And its going to take days to throw out all of their stupid, nonsensical ideas after they are run out of power.

I guarantee you that whoever replaces them will make a big show of reversing all of The Green Party's dumb provisions and silly changes in an effort to win the undying respect and love of the People of Ireland.

- Of course they will - Such a move would be overwhelmingly popular; Like PR gold.......

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again - sorry - which of the government's taxes (bar VAT) is based on a percentage of the fuel price?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah, well I can see that if you "remain to be convinced" that climate change is an issue, you might not feel that government intervention could ever be required. Those of us who are convinced by the science, and who note that voluntary efforts have so far amounted to nearly sod-all of what's required, feel differently. To be fair, government efforts have so far amounted to next to sod-all, at least in Ireland.

regards,
Scofflaw

Time Magazine

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Carbon is a potentially-disastrous pollutant. Let's not get into a debate on whether climate change is real or not because it's off-topic: for the purposes of government policy, it is real.

Pollution is the textbook example of an externalities problem. The market will not solve it in almost any case. The existence of pollution people is prima facie evidence that the market is not solving it. Imposing a tax that offsets the "social cost" per quantity (e.g. €15 per tonne, not an arbitrary percentage of an arbitrary price) is the best way to curtail consumption and incentivise less socially damaging ways of living.

Unless you think people have the right to pollute as much as they want, of course.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, that wouldn't make sense, since market fluctuations in fuel price aren't stable, which would mean that a fall would eradicate any disincentive.

Then set all tax on fuel at the same fixed rate that we had back when it was between 80 & 90c per litre, and even then add the 4.3c.

No fluctuation, green tax, no loss to government coffers compared to back then, and cheaper petrol.....lower transport & delivery costs, better economic choice.....that's basically a win all round.

I say "wouldn't make sense", though, because the carbon tax is a straight tax per tonne (€15/tonne - heating oil 4.3c/litre including VAT) - indeed, as far as I'm aware, all the various charges on fuel are levied on a quantity basis. Where are you getting the "percentage rate" from?

VAT & excise duty are charged at a percentage rate.

Macha

Raiser wrote: »

- Raising the price of home heating fuel is going to be a cruel and thoughtless blow for a lot of Families living in certain types of housing this coming Winter. Raising the price of home heating fuel for no good reason at all is ludicrous, callous, unfair, daft and wholly unnecessary farce of a situation.

I'm guessing you also do not believe the science of climate change. If you did, would you also consider it "for not good reason at all"?

Raiser wrote: »

The Green Party will be lucky not to have been publicly lynched by this time next year...... And its going to take days to throw out all of their stupid, nonsensical ideas after they are run out of power.

Nice.

Raiser wrote: »

I guarantee you that whoever replaces them will make a big show of reversing all of The Green Party's dumb provisions and silly changes in an effort to win the undying respect and love of the People of Ireland.

- Of course they will - Such a move would be overwhelmingly popular; Like PR gold.......

Well, at least we're not under any illusions as to what drives such a stance.

Time Magazine

Liam Byrne wrote: »

VAT

Well, obviously. But that applies to every good.

excise duty are charged at a percentage rate.

Are you sure it's not a flat rate?

Pretty old, but from here

Dept of Finance wrote:

MINERAL OILS

17. The current rates of excise duty on petrol and diesel are as follows:

unleaded petrol £ 294.44 per 1,000 litres

super unleaded petrol £ 357.22 per 1,000 litres

leaded petrol £ 361.36 per 1,000 litres

auto diesel £ 256.14 per 1,000 litres.

Heating Mineral Oils

20. The excise duty on home heating kerosene is £ 37.30 per 1,000 litres;

ei.sdraob

Time Magazine wrote: »

Carbon is a potentially-disastrous pollutant. Let's not get into a debate on whether climate change is real or not because it's off-topic: for the purposes of government policy, it is real.

Pollution is the textbook example of an externalities problem. The market will not solve it in almost any case. The existence of pollution people is prima facie evidence that the market is not solving it. Imposing a tax that offsets the "social cost" per quantity (e.g. €15 per tonne, not an arbitrary percentage of an arbitrary price) is the best way to curtail consumption and incentivise less socially damaging ways of living.

Unless you think people have the right to pollute as much as they want, of course.

Methane is 40 times worse than CO2

Do we also put a tax on the cows "negative externalities"

That would surely go down well with our farmers and our competitiveness


And since no one answered yet,
what will happen when a party (lets say China or India) decides not to partake in this new "market" and enforce any carbon/methane/whatever ban?

Environmentalism like communist ideology before it suffers from the same fatal flaw, it works great in theory but in practice the whole world needs to "convert"

Time Magazine

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Methane is 40 times worse than CO2

Do we also put a tax on the cows "negative externalities"

Yup.

That would surely go down well with our farmers and our competitiveness

Tough sh*t!

what will happen when a party (lets say China or India) decides not to partake in this new "market" and enforce any carbon/methane/whatever ban?

It remains to be seen. We could impose tariffs on their goods.

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, well I can see that if you "remain to be convinced" that climate change is an issue, you might not feel that government intervention could ever be required. Those of us who are convinced by the science, and who note that voluntary efforts have so far amounted to nearly sod-all of what's required, feel differently. To be fair, government efforts have so far amounted to next to sod-all, at least in Ireland.

regards,
Scofflaw

Firstly I am fairly convinced that climate change is happening (i better not regret saying this ) BUT i am not convinced by the Green Environmentalist hippy wishy washy nonsense and their approach to solving the issues being laid out

And yes I am doing my bit (tho mostly because it makes sense in the long-term) like investing in extra insulation and solar heating.

Anyways since you are so willing to accept a scientific evidence for climate change (I like they way its not called global warming anymore, eh?)
Will you accept an engineering solution(s) to climate change, after all thats what engineering is, Applying solutions based on scientific knowledge to problems. Solutions such as nuclear power or geo-engineering (example: 1 million dollars a year to lower world temperature by couple of degrees) or genetically modified algae to collect carbon from air into fuel?


Or are you just all talk about "science" only because it suits your ideological position *now* and are willing to ignore solutions based on science, when it doesnt fit the environmentalist agenda of seeing the world revert to a pre industrialised agrarian society


What will it be?

Raiser

taconnol wrote: »

I'm guessing you also do not believe the science of climate change. If you did, would you also consider it "for not good reason at all"?

The theory of Climate Change as touted by the Greens is something that warrants a proportional, measured reaction in an effort to effectively deal with it.

To respond so severely and so suddenly to the Spectre of Climate change by punishing the ordinary Citizens of this State in this manner is a hugely misguided, unwarranted, unmeasured, disproportional reaction. This is bearing in mind that Ireland does not contribute any meaningful amount to the problem of Climate Change on a Planetary scale when considered in light of our population, population density and the simple facts concerning the figures involved.

Our entire Country is the size of a large British City in terms of population - Yet we have a The Green Party out legislating on a platform of utter nonsense everywhere you look. For this reason I believe that their responses to the horrors of Climate Change have been totally unwarranted, a bad idea, out of all proportion and well off target - akin to trying to kill a fly with a Bazooka and killing an innocent Passer-by instead.

~400,000 unemployed an The Greens are running around Dail Eireann with Folders full of ideas on emptying the pockets of all of us; But most worryingly their actions are magnified for the poorest sector of our Society who are going to be hit harder and suffer more.

Raiser

Time Magazine wrote: »

Yup.

Tough sh*t!

It remains to be seen. We could impose tariffs on their goods.

We could impose, levy, carbon tax, punish, plant, renew, harvest, have big conferences in Hotels

- You don't seem to get it, its the final act in the Panto, the show is very nearly over - In 6 months time you're more likely to see an indigo Dinosaur cycling though the Gates of Dail Eireann than one of your Green Party Heroes my Friend......

ei.sdraob

Time Magazine wrote: »

Tough sh*t!.

Touche!

Time Magazine wrote: »

Yup.

People produce CO2, should we tax people? Progressively taxing more families with more "CO2 Generators"

Or why not follow Environmentalism to its grim conclusion and perform a mass population cull??

Time Magazine wrote: »

It remains to be seen. We could impose tariffs on their goods.

A Krugmanite I see Ok Good luck imposing anything along the lines of carbon tariffs on China, or US for that matter
Anyways tariffs and protectionism are great things, they have usually led to wars in the past, we could use with an odd war now to clear the "house" no?

Macha

Raiser wrote: »

The theory of Climate Change as touted by the Greens is something that warrants a proportional, measured reaction in an effort to effectively deal with it.

Not according to the scientists. The IPCC and the IEA (not known for their particular interest in environmental issues) agree that carbon emissions will have to be halved by 2050 in order to keep the global temperature increase to 2 degrees.

Raiser wrote: »

To respond so severely and so suddenly to the Spectre of Climate change by punishing the ordinary Citizens of this State in this manner is a hugely misguided, unwarranted, unmeasured, disproportional reaction. This is bearing in mind that Ireland does not contribute any meaningful amount to the problem of Climate Change on a Planetary scale when considered in light of our population, population density and the simple facts concerning the figures involved.

The global climate does not really give a hoot about our population density. The fact is, Ireland has the highest per capita carbon emissions in the EU, bar Luxembourg (statistical anomaly). Not only do we need to reduce our own emissions, we also need to develop low carbon technologies and pathways that will allow poorer countries to develop in a less carbon-intensive way. Having the moral authority to encourage developing countries to do so is also imperative and the argument of "do as I say, not as I do" will not get us anywhere.

And besides all that, we have EU and Kyoto targets to meet in terms of renewable energies and carbon emission reductions.

Raiser wrote: »

~400,000 unemployed an The Greens are running around Dail Eireann with Folders full of ideas on emptying the pockets of all of us; But most worryingly their actions are magnified for the poorest sector of our Society who are going to be hit harder and suffer more.

Please go back and read my post that details the measures that mitigate the regressive aspects of the carbon tax and fuel costs in general. Please also read up on the green economy and how many jobs have already been created in this country as a result of investment in green collar jobs. Today alone 87 jobs were announced in the greentech area:

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/16009/green-tech/37-new-jobs-in-15m-energy-research-centre-for-cork

and

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/16012/green-tech/50-new-jobs-at-20m-new-energy-research-centre

Time Magazine

Raiser wrote: »

- You don't seem to get it, its the final act in the Panto, the show is very nearly over - In 6 months time you're more likely to see an indigo Dinosaur cycling though the Gates of Dail Eireann than one of your Green Party Heroes my Friend......

I think the Green Party are a bunch of twunts. I look forward to never giving them a transfer again.

I still think we need a carbon tax.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

People produce CO2, should we tax people? Progressively taxing more families with more "CO2 Generators"

Or why not follow Environmentalism to its grim conclusion and perform a mass population cull??

What I am suggesting is reasonable. What you suggest I am implying is not.

A Krugmanite I see Ok Good luck imposing anything along the lines of carbon tariffs on China, or US for that matter

Agreed it's not easy, so it was unlikely I would come up with a perfect solution in one sentence on a bulletin board.

However your argument is a bit nonsensical. There will always be fraudulent politicians and there will also be litterbugs. Doing our best to stop these things is not a bad idea simply because we will never completely stop them.

Anyways tariffs and protectionism are great things, they have usually led to wars in the past, we could use with an odd war now to clear the "house" no?

Tariffs do not "usually" lead to wars. Do not be ridiculous.

In general, I think we should lower tariffs and quotas. I think things should be charged at the "right" price and the quota and tariff system we have institutionalised typically increase prices. Equivalently I think that prices that are too low should be increased.

Eliot Rosewater

Time Magazine wrote: »

Imposing a tax that offsets the "social cost" per quantity (e.g. €15 per tonne, not an arbitrary percentage of an arbitrary price) is the best way to curtail consumption and incentivise less socially damaging ways of living.

Yes, I can't say I'm against the idea of a carbon tax. Nor an excise duty, for that matter, once both taxes are ringfenced: carbon tax solely towards making up for transport pollutants and the excise duty (plus all other road taxes) solely towards maintaining the national roads network (though that's not really an externallity).

Are there any other major products or services in our economy that you think should be subject to externality charges?

Time Magazine

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes, I can't say I'm against the idea of a carbon tax. Nor an excise duty, for that matter, once both taxes are ringfenced: carbon tax solely towards making up for transport pollutants and the excise duty (plus all other road taxes) solely towards maintaining the national roads network (though that's not really an externallity).

My dad is constantly making the same argument and I disagree entirely.

I don't think a carbon tax has much to do with what we do with it, really. It's mostly about altering people's behaviour, not generating revenue. I'm not going to be too upset if carbon tax is money is spent in primary schools.

Are there any other major products or services in our economy that you think should be subject to externality charges?

Off-topic imho, so I won't go into it

jmayo

johnnyjb wrote: »

Can any one tell me what do the greens actually do and is it any bit beneficial to our country??

SFA. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw wrote: »

What do they do currently when fuel prices rise? What happened in respect of the 37.6% rise in fuel prices that had nothing to do with any carbon tax?

cordially,
Scofflaw

So then it is fair enough to add on even more ?
Jaysus how deluded are some people that they think we will help our economy by slapping on even more taxes on people and industries.

anymore wrote: »

I agree with doing away with green tax on home fuel but have to laugh at poor mouth from farmers.
The agricultural sector is the biggest generator of green house gases in ireland, generating more than double that of airlines. Am I correct in saying that farmers diesel ( Green diesel) has a reduced rate of execise ?
If so then is it not abouit time they paid same rates of excise as other industrial users of diesel ?

In case you hadn't noticed most of our indigenous exports come from that sector. :rolleyes:

Let me guess you don't like farmers and you happen to have lived all your life in a town/city and wouldn't know one end of a cow from a gp spokesman.

Here to satisfy the green numpties and their supporters around here perhaps we should get rid of all cattle who create green house gases and then we can really see how much more our exports drop. :rolleyes:

Time Magazine wrote: »

Yup.

Tough sh*t!

It remains to be seen. We could impose tariffs on their goods.

So it is tough shi** to farmers who are affectively operating on incomes from the 80s and to the old who don't happen to live in duncan stewart designed homes.

The level of arrogance and sheer bloody minded stupidy exhibited by the green party and their die hard supporters is mind boggling.

No wonder the greens can't get elected in rural constituencies.
mary white will be lucky not to end up shoved head first in a slurry pit somewhere in Carlow at the next election.

Scofflaw

jmayo wrote: »

So then it is fair enough to add on even more ?
Jaysus how deluded are some people that they think we will help our economy by slapping on even more taxes on people and industries.

Unluckily, the government has the job of balancing helping the economy with other things - unlike the average Internet poster.

jmayo wrote: »

In case you hadn't noticed most of our indigenous exports come from that sector. :rolleyes:

Let me guess you don't like farmers and you happen to have lived all your life in a town/city and wouldn't know one end of a cow from a gp spokesman.

Here to satisfy the green numpties and their supporters around here perhaps we should get rid of all cattle who create green house gases and then we can really see how much more our exports drop. :rolleyes:

Or you could stop making assumptions. Some of have put in our time in the country, and many green supporters are rural - but rural electorates tend to stick with the parties their parents and grandparents voted for.

jmayo wrote: »

So it is tough shi** to farmers who are affectively operating on incomes from the 80s and to the old who don't happen to live in duncan stewart designed homes.

The level of arrogance and sheer bloody minded stupidy exhibited by the green party and their die hard supporters is mind boggling.

No wonder the greens can't get elected in rural constituencies.
mary white will be lucky not to end up shoved head first in a slurry pit somewhere in Carlow at the next election.

Are you, as a matter of interest, calling me arrogant and bloody-mindedly stupid?

regards,
Scofflaw

CoalBucket

Have the greens seen a map of the world, by adding on a carbon tax to domestic fuel do they think they will have an impressionable impact on the worlds carbon emissions, give me a break we are a dot on the planet.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm afraid it really isn't. If you'd like to discuss the science of climate change in more detail, you're more than welcome to in the Sustainability Forum. We're still waiting for someone to disprove it over there - though it isn't for the want of posters trying.

Oh and William Happer is chair of the George C. Marshall Institute that has lobbied, among other things, to create public confusion over the impacts of tobacco and second-hand smoke. One of their major funders is Exxon Mobil. Quite frankly, he's a disgrace to the profession of science and the fact that you need to resort to scientists of his calibre to defend your argument says very little about your argument.

Pride Fighter

More sensible policies by Labour. I fully support both Labour and the IFA in fighting an unfair tax on the rural poor.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course. You are more than welcome to open a thread in the Sustainability Forum, as I have already mentioned. But please don't start with the crap like "usual green smear tactics" because funnily enough you wouldn't be the first liberalist to take a conveniently denialist view of AGW.

Oh and Exxon Mobil very publicly funds research bodies like your Marshall Institute to attack the science of AGW. I didn't say they were evil - that was your word - but you'd have to be quite naive not to understand why they choose to spend their money in this way.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I work in environmentalism - of course I'm aware of the report. I'm also aware of its many flaws: a little bit of digging reveals that the list has more than a few holes in it. For a start, they've added the people from Bjorn Lomborg's 'Copenhagen Consenses' - and most of these people aren't actually scientists. They also include the names of a number of scientists who don't identify themselves as AGW sceptics. And then you have those with very little credentials and the few crazies (Avery = case in point)

Anyway, this is getting off topic.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

taconnol wrote:

Of course. You are more than welcome to open a thread in the Sustainability Forum, as I have already mentioned. But please don't start with the crap like "usual green smear tactics" because funnily enough you wouldn't be the first liberalist to take a conveniently denialist view of AGW.

On this forum, unless you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that an entire field of science is a conspiracy, such theories will have to be kept for the Conspiracy Theories forum, where they belong.

Cries of "but it's a mainstream position" will be met with "so is 9/11 truthing or Creationism, if you listen to the right people". You may debate the science at leisure elsewhere.

moderately,
Scofflaw

dynamick

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The state has being paying Carbon tax since signing up to the Kyoto agreement. We have national targets for co2 emissions and we pay fines for the amount by which we breach those targets. Who pays those fines? Taxpayers of course.

So the carbon tax is not new - it is just a means of making those who create the pollution pay for it proportionately. Farmers don't like paying tax - so what else is new?

The ESRI has already criticized this carbon tax as regressive, since it disproportionately affects poorer households. It is now also being used to stifle agricultural productivity.

That's strange because it was the ESRI who produced 7 research papers over the past two decades advocating a carbon tax. And when the carbon tax was announced in the budget, the ESRI was only sorry that it wasn't extended to coal and peat.

Half the 100m raised in taxes on home heating fuels will be given back in grants to people to insulate their houses. A substantial scheme is also underway to grant aid insulation of council houses.

According to the ESRI: "People who have had their homes insulated at the taxpayers’ expense will continue to be entitled to a fuel allowance (which may well go up)."

Eliot Rosewater

Time Magazine wrote: »

I don't think a carbon tax has much to do with what we do with it, really.

One of main reasons I would charge for externalities would be to compensate the third party who were unintentionally affected by the exchange. In the case of fuel emissions, all people, particularly land owners, demonstrably suffer and so putting the money into undoing the damage of emissions would be to negate, in a way, the negative spillover from the sale of fuel.

But as you said, this is a little beyond the scope of this thread.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gizmo555

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On the other hand, the Commission on Taxation, which included the IFA's chief economist Con Lucey, recommended the introduction of a carbon tax and addressed this specific point in its report:

". . . carbon tax revenue should be used, in the first instance, to combat fuel
poverty. The overall effects of the carbon tax on vulnerable households should be appraised to ensure that such households (urban and rural) are cushioned from the effects of the tax."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Respect is something that is distinctly lacking in that statement.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed. First we had littering laws, then plastic bag levies, carbon taxes and next in the pipeline, a tax on chewing gum. Not exactly the most ambitious targets if control of ‘every aspect of people's lives’ is the ultimate goal, are they?

gizmo555

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's only common sense, if you could do with a fill anyway, to order oil before the tax is applied. I doubt many people who are not "vulnerable" are saying to themselves, "I'll wait till May, sure I can afford it!" Most people know about it, certainly my regular oil supplier has been in touch by post to remind me it's imminent.

As for the "cushioning measures", I'm only speculating, but in the present economic climate, isn't it likely that they can't be implemented until the funding from the carbon tax itself starts to flow?

jmayo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unluckily, the government has the job of balancing helping the economy with other things - unlike the average Internet poster.

At the moment other things, by which I reckon you mean saving the planet, can wait until the first is solved.
If we don't solve the first then the only carbon emissions Irish people will be responsible for are the ones issued by the jets and boats taking them out of this country. :mad:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or you could stop making assumptions. Some of have put in our time in the country, and many green supporters are rural - but rural electorates tend to stick with the parties their parents and grandparents voted for.

You make it sound like a punishment or a sentence ?
Yes some rural voters do indeed sadly vote on long held family loyalties.
That of course does not mean they should change and vote for a bunch of numpties who would destroy rural life and rural economy with their policies.

In my epxerience the green voters you usually find in rural areas happen not be dependent on farming, agri industry, are middle class or upper professionals with good jobs in local towns/cities, and are well heeled enough so that they can afford to make all these sacrifices to save the planet.

Some people aren't in that lucky position.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are you, as a matter of interest, calling me arrogant and bloody-mindedly stupid?

regards,
Scofflaw

Don't be so presumious to think you are the only poster I was referring to in my post. Even though you are a mod here you are not the only poster.
AFAIK I do recall from somewhere that you voted GP at last election.

The only comment you made that might fit the above arrogance description is the one that sees no difference between adding new tax to fuel and fuel increasing due to cost of crude oil.
The above comment was really aimed at others including something that referred to problems this tax will create for farmers and homeowners with the reply "tough sh**".

DarkJager

Hopefully the Greens will be absolutely annihilated in the next election, and we won't have to put with anymore of this bull**** tree hugger nonsense.

djpbarry

DarkJager wrote: »

Hopefully the Greens will be absolutely annihilated in the next election, and we won't have to put with anymore of this bull**** tree hugger nonsense.

You know, the Fianna Fáil PR gurus deserve some kind of medal, because they have an amazing ability to deflect a huge amount of public anger and resentment away from FF and toward their coalition partners; first the PD’s and now the Greens.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you acknowledge that there are certain ecological limits, the logic following from that is that we have to live within those ecological limits. It would be a wonderful, happy place full of unicorns and butterflies where there are limitless resources and nature has a limitless capacity to deal with the waste we produce and exponential growth has no impact on the natural cycles upon which we depend. This is not the case and ignoring these realities will invariably lead us into a brick wall.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're missing my previous post where I already outlined four specific measures that exist to help those at risk of fuel poverty. A recent Bord Gais report showed that over a third of those at risk from fuel poverty are not aware of these benefits. It could be recommended that efforts be made to improve awareness but to suggest that there are no "cushioning" measures is not accurate.

ei.sdraob

djpbarry wrote: »

You know, the Fianna Fáil PR gurus deserve some kind of medal, because they have an amazing ability to deflect a huge amount of public anger and resentment away from FF and toward their coalition partners; first the PD’s and now the Greens.

Well in all honesty now

the Greens dug their own grave

They had the chance to bring down the government and have an election, instead they helped signed away billions over to the banks.
You know if that money was actually invested in an infrastructure such and inter-connectors and even (gasp) windmills, it still be a better use than what was done

---

I was thinking about this a bit, the Green movement is very similar to a religious movement, and that scares the **** out of me.

We are only few pages into the thread and we already had words like "behaviour modification"

Some observations:

* How far are the Greens willing to go in the pursuit of their Agenda? Where does Green fundamentalism lead when followed to its conclusion like taxing cow farts or taxing people for having too many CO2 producing babies? Where do yee draw the line between the rights and liberty of people and the concern for the environment??

* Why ignore pragmatic engineering solutions to many of the problems available today like nuclear power? Especially if these can be used as bridging measure until a renewable grid is in place, instead of continuing to burn mountains of coal??

* Why ban scientific research? What if this research like GM algae can be used to extract fuel out of carbon in air? a streak common to all fundamentalists may i add

* Why the constant scaremongering? the old "you will burn in hell" Catholic mantra replaced by "you will burn by Global Warming" carry on

.