Rational Greens Debate.

dunsandin

Ok, we have had a lot of Green bashing lately(quite rightly IMO), and quite a lot of Green support(mostly from Scoff). Given the recent performance of John Gormley, who I feel has debased himself greatly since he became entangled with FF, Eamon Ryan who appears to have a default setting of"smile patronisingly", and Trevor Sargent, who strikes me as being a thoroughly decent man forced from office for a trivial transgression that any minister in cabinet today has no doubt exceeded, what place for the greens in Irish politics?
Are we foolishly implementing Green Policies at a time when National competitivness is at an all time low, thus imparing both our cost base and our ability to best compete with our economic rivals. Or, are Green policies in all our best interests, will they ultimatly prove to be more crucial than any short term economic gain or advantage?
Personally, as a businessman and a father, I am conflicted. I dislike the burden imposed by the likes of the carbon Tax. I resent being preached to when I am struggling for market share like most businesess. On the other hand, I appreciate the need to conserve the worlds rescources and protect the environment for future generations. But are we foolish to be to the fore in these matters? If our competitors do not choose to implement similar Green policies, how do we compete when the pitch is not level? Or do you feel that the Greens are a disaster on all levels? Or the best thing since sliced bread? Recession and Green politics : poor bedfellows?

Welease

Personally without a great deal of analysis or thought, i feel they lack any initiative to solve the problems we face..

We have gone through be biggest building boom in the history of this country, and yet there were no regulations imposing rain collected toilet flushing systems, and no regulations or efforts to stem the losses in delivery, now we will have a water tax.. There was a massive boom in road building, yet no coherent transport policy and structure to planning of housing and the movement of traffic. We threw money around, but we have minimal renewable energy..

All we got was more taxes. Are we actually more green? (apart from the economic driven carbon reduction)

Edit - Actually I should clarify.. I don't think they were a disaster by any stretch... I just feel that a party who's primary purpose is the green agenda hasn't really done anything to push our green situation.. We are neither leaders in green technology, nor do we have a greener environment, nor do I feel that we have made one step towards saving the planet.. I feel all we got was higher taxes to bail out the banks.. They are essentially a normal party.. who garnered votes on a popular topic and failed to deliver on that topic.. It seems that will cost them in the next election.

ei.sdraob

dunsandin wrote: »

Are we foolishly implementing Green Policies at a time when National competitivness is at an all time low, thus imparing both our cost base and our ability to best compete with our economic rivals. Or, are Green policies in all our best interests, will they ultimatly prove to be more crucial than any short term economic gain or advantage?

Yes we are foolishly implementing some of the Green policies, things like carbon taxes will only work <in theory> if implemented globally at the same time (or as Krugman calls for, placing tariffs on countries that haven't...)
So yes they are hitting our groin at the worst possible time, Eamon R. pointed out that other EU countries have high petrol prices, but hes failing to notice that the EU is handing over a competitive advantage on a silver plate to US and China who will only ever pay lip-service to carbon taxes

Now on other hand there are some good Green policies such as the insulation scheme, but even that was ****ed up, instead of extending it to ALL homes (there are various exemptions) they decided to waste money on white elephant projects such as electric vehicles

They are artificially trying to create demand by changing the behaviour of people via taxation, a project of which i am highly sceptical of considering that 88% of our electricity comes from fuel burning co2 producing sources and we are many decades (if ever) away from completely renewable grid

The greens have good intentions but their implementation are half arsed and not very scientific/systematic (despite them waving the science flag when it suits)

Liam Byrne

It's funny - given some recent discussions I was considering starting a similar thread - separating criticisms of the Green Party from the actual green agenda, and so far the OP and the 2 contributors have hit the nail firmly on the head.

There are LOTS of things that could and should be done. to actually encourage people to be green-ish (as with all things, some extremists are scarily OTT and impractical) but the bottom line is that there's no thought going into it, and there is a risk of the tax more method backfiring and pissing people off.

I mean, I never knew I was eating "inorganic" food (I still don't think I was, since "organic" is a word that describes once-living matter), and having that seen as elitist and significantly more expensive certainly isn't going to make it sell more, no matter how much "better" it is for you.

Likewise, adding extra taxes to petrol and lightbulbs and septic tanks and existing cars and heating systems isn't going to make people walk in the rain or - hopefully - go cold due to lack of funds for heating.

The old phrase was "if you build it, they will come".

Not "if you want them to come, tax the bollox out of them so that they'll grudgingly arrive broke but won't have the money to pay for the materials that you were hoping to use - along with their labour - to build it".

Whenever I can afford to update the car, and can justify it (I do about 150 miles max in a week) I'll change it, but it probably won't be a new one, so their electric cars will still be out of reach.

Taxing me extra on the current car will do nothing for the environment and will just piss me off toward the Greens because there is no alternative for me.

Build the windfarms with the money that was going to Anglo
Supply the electricity at a very cheap rate to all businesses and homes
Everyone then goes - "hang on, the car might be €20K but it costs €300 a year to run"
And some of Ireland's competitiveness comes back too

In addition, if we actually developed an industry to build green cars or technology or electric car breakdown services or whatever, we might actually be able to manufacture and export stuff, rather than giving OUR grants indirectly to France or wherever.

dunsandin

Would broadly agree with the above. Windfarms appear to be a Green love affair. Apart from the fact that when it dont blow, they dont go. As a nation with enormous volumes of waste timber, I have yet to hear a single green advocate the use of this vast energy store as biomass to fuel power stations. Carbon neutral, currently rotting, yet not a positive word on this from our Green representatives. Far easier to launch an electric car push, which is a long way from being the definitive vehicle of the future, or slap out taxes and bans. Where are the positive, industrious measures that would really bring benefit to peoples lives? Taxing and fiddling around the edges-ie meddling, appear to be the order of the day.

Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

Personally without a great deal of analysis or thought, i feel they lack any initiative to solve the problems we face..

We have gone through be biggest building boom in the history of this country, and yet there were no regulations imposing rain collected toilet flushing systems, and no regulations or efforts to stem the losses in delivery, now we will have a water tax.. There was a massive boom in road building, yet no coherent transport policy and structure to planning of housing and the movement of traffic. We threw money around, but we have minimal renewable energy..

All we got was more taxes. Are we actually more green? (apart from the economic driven carbon reduction)

Edit - Actually I should clarify.. I don't think they were a disaster by any stretch... I just feel that a party who's primary purpose is the green agenda hasn't really done anything to push our green situation.. We are neither leaders in green technology, nor do we have a greener environment, nor do I feel that we have made one step towards saving the planet.. I feel all we got was higher taxes to bail out the banks.. They are essentially a normal party.. who garnered votes on a popular topic and failed to deliver on that topic.. It seems that will cost them in the next election.

This is the sort of criticism of the Green Party I admit I find bizarre. The Green Party wasn't in government during "the biggest building boom in the history of this country". That building boom essentially ended in 2007, which was when the current government took office - how are the Green Party responsible for a lack of regulation and planning that happened while they were in opposition?

The Fianna Fáil/PD coalition in government from 1997-2007 didn't advance the green or environmental agenda at all - didn't want to, didn't try to, resisted the implementation of European environmental directives, had to be repeatedly taken to court over failure to implement the directives. The previous Rainbow government didn't have any better a track record. All of that means we have a huge hangover of bad environmental legislation and bad planning practices, the result of an attitude in mainstream politics that the environment is somewhere to throw your rubbish.

Bertie took the Greens on board even though they weren't needed to make up numbers because "environmentally friendly" had become part of the zeitgeist of the international business community, and that's what Fianna Fáil is about. Not being needed to make up numbers meant that they spent the first while in government not really being allowed to do anything but fiddle about at the edges, because they were only there to provide greenwash for Ireland's business environment. Recently (and I promise not to go over this again with Liam!) they've become necessary, and somewhat more green things are happening. But you cannot change the built up legislation, habits, and standard practices of generations overnight, particularly given that the vast majority of the Irish political class have all the environmental and planning consciousness of drunk Greek resort owners.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oilibhear

I should first clear the air and say that I am a Green Party voter and member (but I don't want to become an apologist for the Green Party).

To address Welease comment first:

We have gone through be biggest building boom in the history of this country, and yet there were no regulations ... There was a massive boom in road building, yet no coherent transport policy ... We threw money around, ...

With respect, we cannot be held responsible for the failings of others. Those problems are the result of successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael administrations (equally) at national and local level. As soon as we entered government in 2007, we moved to address those problems ASAP.

With regards to the broader criticism, there are two problems as I see it facing the Greens in government: a) perceptions and b) expectation.

The problem of perceptions relates to the popular belief that the Green Party is concerned mainly (even only!) with the environment. In reality, the environment is only one policy area for the Green Party, just as it is with every other party. However, as a consequence of this perception, most policy areas, which are not immediately seen as being "green", are not attributed to Green Party or the Green Party ministers are not judged on them. For the main part, the work of our two ministers is only remembered for protecting snails in Clare or rolling out plug-in points for cars that no-one owns and can only run for half an hour. In reality, they have done far more than that - only not in the area of the environment.

The problem of expectation is the (relatively) unreasonable level to which the Green Party in government is held up to. Maybe because we are seen a pious and "middle class" and preachy, it seems to me that Green initiatives are held up to a higher standard than other parties. Even among our supporters, the expectation sometimes feel unreasonable. We've only been in government for three years. Don't expect the world to change overnight. And as with any party in any government, some initiates will fail, be half-arsed or could have been done better in hindsight (for any number of reasons, both practical and ideological).

With that in mind, and bearing in mind also that the two portfolios held by the Green Party are Environment/Local Government and Transport/Communications, here's a lost of some initiatives done mid-way through a single term of government by the Green Party:

• LOTS and LOTS (!!) of new planning regulations, measures and acts
• Civil partnership bill and same-sex unions
• Single all-Ireland electricity market(* see comment below)
• Smart meters (electricity, not water)
• Water metering
• Committee to investigate (major) reform of Oireachtas and electoral system
• Stag hunting ban
• Free return of batteries to shops
• Ban on incandescent bulbs
• Carbon tax
• Reform of motor tax
• Exports Bill (see elements relating to arms trade)
• Limerick City boundary
• Dublin Transport Authority
• Elected Dublin mayor with executive powers
• Broadcasting Authority of Ireland
• Continued terrestrial (free-to-air) broadcasting of RTÉ and TG4 to Northern Ireland and terrestrial (free-to-air) broadcasting of BBC and C4 to Republic of Ireland with DTT in 2012
• Electricity inter-connector to Britain and 'super grid' in the North Sea
• BER and new building regulations
• On-the-spot fines for nuisance noise
• On-the-spot fines for littering
• Election spending curtailed
• Diplomatic efforts on extra-ordinary rendition
• Home insulation scheme
• Regulations for farmers' markets
• Financial regulation of charities
• Clampdown on phone and text premium-rate scams and refunds for over-charging
• E-voting machines scrapped
• Tenant-purchase scheme
• National broadband scheme and high-speed national network
• Post codes system
• Puppy farming regulations
• Limits on junkets by local councillors
• Home-improvements scheme for elderly and disabled
• Risk-sharing element for banks taking part in NAMA and caps on salaries for banks receiving state funding

On the single question of whether carbon taxes work: yes they do. In simple terms, it is the elasticity of demand. For example, the SEI has reported that the change to the motor tax regime has led to a 12% reduction in CO2 from cars already. Yes, some things have a very low elasticity of demand, especially necessities where there are no alternatives. However, the market works both ways. Raising the price of goods currently without alternatives *can* (in *some* cases) led to supply answering demand with alternatives that hithertofore did not exist or were underdeveloped.

ei.sdraob

oilibhear wrote: »

[*]Single all-Ireland electricity market

I cant believe the Greens are trying to get credit for this :rolleyes:

how cheeky

the plans and work for the single market was occurring in 2006 (and before), hell I even got to work on the web-services aspect of it during my time with a certain power generator...

I am amused that the Greens are trying to take credit for something that was planned and well underway before their time

I didnt bother reading the rest of the list, most likely its fud along the same lines

The greens have learned to lie, well done and welcome to politics :rolleyes:

oilibhear

I cant believe the Greens are trying to get credit for this

Not "the Greens", just me. It's only a list compiled in a rush by one person at 1 am on a Sunday night/Monday morning in May 2010 before they went to bed. You are quite right that the work of the all-island electricity market pre-dates the 2007 election. I listed it only because it was completed under the aegis of a Green minister. That was probably going too far.

If there is a problem with the list I made up, address me, not "the Greens".

Fat_Fingers

Yep, nothing wrong with perception here... lots of Green "initiatives" on that list is just additional taxes or borrowed initiatives from opposition parties but not implemented even after 3 years in the power.
As someone who voted Green in the past its like shooting myself in the foot! Embarrassing and costly mistake which will not be repeated again.

oilibhear

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

... lots of Green "initiatives" on that list is just additional taxes or borrowed initiatives from opposition parties but not implemented even after 3 years in the power...

Examples? Which do you think should have been implemented already? What time-scale is reasonable in your view? What is wrong with "borrowing" initiative from other parties? Is that not the essence of a parliamentary system (the absence of which has been a blight on our parliament)? Is it not even democracy itself from the green point of view? When you say "opposition parties", do you not include the Greens before 2007?

When you say "expensive", expensive in comparison to what or who? Fianna Fáil who near ruined the country through their policies at national level? Or Fine Gael who conspired with them through their policies at local level? Or Labour whose policies are to increase spending (even through the height of the boom, akin to both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael)? Or do you think that the two Green ministers have spent more in their respective portfolios than previous ministers with those responsibilities? Do you have figures to back up your claim?

Welease

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is the sort of criticism of the Green Party I admit I find bizarre. The Green Party wasn't in government during "the biggest building boom in the history of this country". That building boom essentially ended in 2007, which was when the current government took office - how are the Green Party responsible for a lack of regulation and planning that happened while they were in opposition?

The Fianna Fáil/PD coalition in government from 1997-2007 didn't advance the green or environmental agenda at all - didn't want to, didn't try to, resisted the implementation of European environmental directives, had to be repeatedly taken to court over failure to implement the directives. The previous Rainbow government didn't have any better a track record. All of that means we have a huge hangover of bad environmental legislation and bad planning practices, the result of an attitude in mainstream politics that the environment is somewhere to throw your rubbish.

Bertie took the Greens on board even though they weren't needed to make up numbers because "environmentally friendly" had become part of the zeitgeist of the international business community, and that's what Fianna Fáil is about. Not being needed to make up numbers meant that they spent the first while in government not really being allowed to do anything but fiddle about at the edges, because they were only there to provide greenwash for Ireland's business environment. Recently (and I promise not to go over this again with Liam!) they've become necessary, and somewhat more green things are happening. But you cannot change the built up legislation, habits, and standard practices of generations overnight, particularly given that the vast majority of the Irish political class have all the environmental and planning consciousness of drunk Greek resort owners.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I never stated the green's were in power during the boom.. I am just questioning where the value was in voting for them. I have not seen a noticeable difference in the "green" credentials of this country pre or post 2007.. I do however seem to be getting extra taxes..

The UK hasn't had a green MP until last week, yet we hear massive wind farms etc. being funded in Scotland..

Liam Byrne

oilibhear wrote: »

With regards to the broader criticism, there are two problems as I see it facing the Greens in government: a) perceptions and b) expectation.

I was under the impression that the whole point of this thread was to discuss green issues without getting bogged down in the politics of the Green Party ?

And please don't talk to me about "expectatations", considering one of the expectations was that they'd live up to 3 key promises.

oilibhear wrote: »

The problem of expectation is the (relatively) unreasonable level to which the Green Party in government is held up to. Maybe because we are seen a pious and "middle class" and preachy, it seems to me that Green initiatives are held up to a higher standard than other parties.

Not true. They're held to the same standards, but they chose to get into bed with FF. They are judged like every other party that did likewise would be.

Re your list, there are many that I disagree with and many that I have no opinion on (e.g. why a national party wants an elected mayor in Dublin is beyond me) and there are many, many others that have hit my pocket.

So going back on topic, the Greens have basically ensured that people associate environmental issues with being charged and taxed extra.

oilibhear wrote: »

On the single question of whether carbon taxes work: yes they do. In simple terms, it is the elasticity of demand. For example, the SEI has reported that the change to the motor tax regime has led to a 12% reduction in CO2 from cars already.

Bull.

A carbon tax won't improve the MPG of my current car
A carbon tax won't change the fact that I have to drive to work
A carbon tax won't improve my prospects of buying a newer car any sooner

oilibhear wrote: »

However, the market works both ways. Raising the price of goods currently without alternatives *can* (in *some* cases) led to supply answering demand with alternatives that hithertofore did not exist or were underdeveloped.

Ah yes......like the fact that we all had to pay extra for electricity for years so that other companies could come in and undercut the government-enforced overpriced ESB ?

Give me a break! :rolleyes:

oilibhear

I am always infuriated by the constant link between the Greens and purely environmental policy as if that is the only thing that matters, but ...

Welease wrote: »

I have not seen a noticeable difference in the "green" credentials of this country pre or post 2007 ... The UK hasn't had a green MP until last week, yet we hear massive wind farms etc. being funded in Scotland..

My understanding is that UK is comparatively further behind on its carbon targets - but I may be wrong.

The massive wind farms off Scotland's coast (the North Sea) are the "super grid" that we are a part of as well together with Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden. They are planned for the Irish Sea too. There is also the tidal generator in the Carlingford Lough. These things are heavy infrastructure and, although the Greens have put though measures to fast-track "green planning", it still takes to plan, approve, build, ship and put in place. Seriously, three years? Be realistic.

Welease wrote: »

I do however seem to be getting extra taxes.

Expect more of them. Half our tax base blew away with the housing market as tends to happens when we put all of your eggs in one bubble basket - or were never gathered to begin with owing to tax incentives that did nothing more than pump prime the boom. You may recall, the Greens were anti all of this at the time in contrast to FF/FG/Lab (though most people thought we were backwards to be even thinking it).

In the main, the new taxes are at least progressive (I mean in the taxation sense) and attuned more towards the "polluter pays" policy where appropriate. When talking taxes too you need to also think about things being done to bring the price of materials down, such as the smart meters, home insulation and (yes even this) the water meters (which also takes in measures to prevent waste on the supply side).

Welease

oilibhear wrote: »

I am always infuriated by the constant link between the Greens and purely environmental policy as if that is the only thing that matters, but ...

Then maybe they should consider rebranding, because to the average lay person, this is exactly the market that have been aiming for, and the type of policies they have been happy to gain votes from.

As I said, I am neither for not against the Green, the question was posed by the OP.. and for me (a voter) I would see a green vote from me being a wasted vote for me.

oilibhear wrote: »

My understanding is that UK is comparatively further behind on its carbon targets - but I may be wrong.

The massive wind farms off Scotland's coast (the North Sea) are the "super grid" that we are a part of as well together with Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and Sweden. They are planned for the Irish Sea too. There is also the tidal generator in the Carlingford Lough. These things are heavy infrastructure and, although the Greens have put though measures to fast-track "green planning", it still takes to plan, approve, build, ship and put in place. Seriously, three years? Be realistic.

I am realistic.. the UK have these plans and funding in place with no green MP's.. We have had green TD's.. a FF/Green coalition since 2007, and yet I don't see any major Green environmentally sound/job creation schemes. If we have them in the works great.. but I am not see the extra benefit so far.

If the UK can do it with 0 green MP's.. why can't we?

oilibhear wrote: »

Expect more of them. Half our tax base blew away with the housing market as tends to happens when we put all of your eggs in one bubble basket - or were never gathered to begin with owing to tax incentives that did nothing more than pump prime the boom. You may recall, the Greens were anti all of this at the time in contrast to FF/FG/Lab (though most people thought we were backwards to be even thinking it).

In the main, the new taxes are at least progressive (I mean in the taxation sense) and attuned more towards the "polluter pays" policy where appropriate. When talking taxes too you need to also think about things being done to bring the price of materials down, such as the smart meters, home insulation and (yes even this) the water meters (which also takes in measures to prevent waste on the supply side).

I remain to be convinced.. In the 40 years I have walked this planet, I have seen taxes added for many many things.. In general the money is funnelled away into other schemes and administration (paying our defecit), and as per my initial point noting innovative done at source to actually remedy the issue.

In short, an extra carbon tax on my journey does nothing to protect the environment, when no alternatives are being made for me to use another form of transport.

If I want to pay extra taxes, I can vote for anyone.. I (and many others) would have assumed a vote in the green direction would have at least put some focus on the environment.

Fat_Fingers

oilibhear wrote: »

When you say "expensive", expensive in comparison to what or who? Fianna Fáil who near ruined the country through their policies at national level? Or Fine Gael who conspired with them through their policies at local level? Or Labour whose policies are to increase spending (even through the height of the boom, akin to both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael)? Or do you think that the two Green ministers have spent more in their respective portfolios than previous ministers with those responsibilities? Do you have figures to back up your claim?

Expensive in comparison with what I voted for. I Didn’t vote for FF so it’s irrelevant to me. On the night when Irish economy collapsed when banks came to government begging for help Green Party leader John Gormley could not be contacted. He was enjoying a deep sleep at his home with his mobile turned off. John Gormley and his all-out ban on the old-style lightbulb.... Anyway. All that is really just a wrong man in a wrong position. Can’t blame Greens for incompetence and nativity of John Gormley. However, Greens agenda to punish everyone with carbon tax and sneak it in May hoping we will forget about it the time cold weather returns is a move FF would be very proud.

oilibhear

Welease wrote: »

... the UK have these plans and funding in place with no green MP's ... If the UK can do it with 0 green MP's.. why can't we?

Green parties do not have a monopoly on environmentalism. I do still think you are being too hasty. For the kinds of changes you seem to mean, three years is too short a time to see them happen - but they have been set in motion.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I was under the impression that the whole point of this thread was to discuss green issues without getting bogged down in the politics of the Green Party?

I was under the impression that it was the Green Party policies in government that was being discussed owing to the consistent capitalisation of 'G' in the opening post ("Green" vs. "green").

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And please don't talk to me about "expectatations", considering one of the expectations was that they'd live up to 3 key promises.

What were those? (Seriously don't know.)

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Re your list, there are many that I disagree with and many that I have no opinion on (e.g. why a national party wants an elected mayor in Dublin is beyond me) and there are many, many others that have hit my pocket. So going back on topic, ...

We are entitled to disagree on whether it is a good idea or not but it is definitely on-topic. Local government is a key aspect not only of the Green Party in Ireland but of green politics in general. Local government is as much of a "green thing" as snails in County Clare.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

... the Greens have basically ensured that people associate environmental issues with being charged and taxed extra.

Good. Another fundamentally aspect of green politics: bearing responsibility and being aware of our actions.

Waste (of all kinds, environmental and otherwise) has a cost. If that can be instilled in people's minds by the time we leave government then it will have been worth the never securing a vote again.

Welease wrote: »

In short, an extra carbon tax on my journey does nothing to protect the environment, when no alternatives are being made for me to use another form of transport.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bull.

Not bull, Liam, and it does do something to protect the environment. See summary of the SEI report.

The changes in motor tax significantly (in every sense of the word) affected buying patterns. To quote: "Average CO2 emissions of new cars purchased in the twelve months between July 2008 and 2009 have fallen by 12%."

Carbon taxes work. Plain and simply. If you kind yourself doubting this, just remember the plastic page charge.

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

Expensive in comparison with what I voted for.

I can't imagine who you voted for in that case. Was it an Irish election you voted in?

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

On the night when Irish economy collapsed when banks came to government begging for help Green Party leader John Gormley could not be contacted.

John Gormley is the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Surely, the banks would have been better off phoning Brian Lenihan (i.e. the Minister for Finance) whom, I understand, they eventually got in touch with?

I don't get the hate factor towards John Gormley - but clearly it's out there. I hear it everywhere.

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

However, Greens agenda to punish everyone with carbon tax...

Like I posted above, you can expect taxes to continue to rise. Owing to the policies of Fianna Fáil, endorsed by Fine Gael and Labour (who even at times blasted them for not going far enough), nearly half our tax income was tied to a property bubble. When that went belly up so too did our tax take. So thanks to the policies of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour, you can expect more and more taxes for many more budgets to come. That's just the sad truth.

With respect to the carbon tax, you do at least have a get out clause: cut your CO2 use and pay less. What's more in the same breath that the carbon tax was introduced so too were bountiful grants to to escape it through on way or another. As far as new taxes go (which you can expect in spades), there's not many that will allow you wriggle room to get out of paying them?

Liam Byrne

oilibhear wrote: »

I was under the impression that it was the Green Party policies in government that was being discussed owing to the consistent capitalisation of 'G' in the opening post ("Green" vs. "green").

I think the distinction was made in order to get away from the criticisms of Green Party decisions.

All three words in the thread title are capitalised.

oilibhear wrote: »

What were those? (Seriously don't know.)

They're in plenty of other threads. Like I said, I was sure this thread was about actual green issues, rather than promises made by the Greens.

oilibhear wrote: »

Good. Another fundamentally aspect of green politics: bearing responsibility and being aware of our actions.

Waste (of all kinds, environmental and otherwise) has a cost. If that can be instilled in people's minds by the time we leave government then it will have been worth the never securing a vote again.

This is precisely the criticism I have; the Greens are doing this backwards. If waste costs, then being responsible and recycling should cost less, not more.

What the Green Party have instilled in people's minds is that they're going to charge us extra regardless (e.g. charging for inspecting septic tanks, instead of fining those who pollute; charging extra tax for petrol and home heating instead of charging less for green fuels).

oilibhear wrote: »

The changes in motor tax significantly (in every sense of the word) affected buying patterns. To quote: "Average CO2 emissions of new cars purchased in the twelve months between July 2008 and 2009 have fallen by 12%."

The car market fell apart in those two years, so the number of new cars cannot be used for a meaningful statistic.

If this government hadn't ensured that most people couldn't afford new cars, then I'd agree with you, but the motor taxes have no effect on the rest of us other than making it harder to make ends meet.

oilibhear wrote: »

Carbon taxes work. Plain and simply. If you kind yourself doubting this, just remember the plastic page charge.

I have never heard of a "plastic page charge".

I presume you mean the plastic bag charge, and I'll ask you one question:

Why charge ? Why not outlaw plastic bags and get retailers to offer paper bags ? Many do, and it works, without impacting on people's lives.

Welease

oilibhear wrote: »

Green parties do not have a monopoly on environmentalism. I do still think you are being too hasty. For the kinds of changes you seem to mean, three years is too short a time to see them happen - but they have been set in motion.

Oh come on.. 3 years is plenty of time to get something underway. If a coalition government can't get simple projects up and running in 3 years they have no business running this country.. they were able to bail out their mates to the tune of billions in a matter of months

So what plans do we have, and what stages are we at on funding, infrastructure etc for renewable energies around Ireland? (honest question)..

We've managed to get the legislation changes for tax increases in the last 3 years.. but I don't see the same proactive changes for renewable energies (hence my original comments).

oilibhear wrote: »

With respect to the carbon tax, you do at least have a get out clause: cut your CO2 use and pay less. What's more in the same breath that the carbon tax was introduced so too were bountiful grants to to escape it through on way or another. As far as new taxes go (which you can expect in spades), there's not many that will allow you wriggle room to get out of paying them?

What wiggle room do I have if I already own my vehicle, and there is minimal public transport where I live? Will the tax I pay be used to build a better public transport infrastructure to allow me to reduce my footprint? (we both know the answer is no).. Will the money be used to help offset my carbon footprint via other technologies or means (we both know the answer is no).. It's just an extra tax...

As I said I dont believe they are any better of worse than the other parties, but I do believe the a party with an environmental agenda at the heart of what they do (along with better planning and protection of our natural environment) would have attempted more than just whacking up taxes without any realistic way of allowing many people a better way.
I would rather have seen carbon footprints driven down by an investment in clean renewable electicity with the associated jobs (and exports of technology), and realistic public transport planning.

Just my 2c.

oilibhear

Liam and Welease, very fair comments. Thank you both.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is precisely the criticism I have; the Greens are doing this backwards. If waste costs, then being responsible and recycling should cost less, not more.

It does/will. To take the extreme example, sell your big-engined car and buy a smaller-engined one. If you car consumes less petrol, you will pay less tax. (See further down where I reply to a similar question from Welease.)

An unfortunate truth is that our default setting right now is as irresponsible. Adopting a "polluter pays" (or "waster pays") approach to the daily cost of things does mean that right now everyone pays since we are all polluters right now. Moving to the position of not being a polluter is not difficult but does take a change in personal habits.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What the Green Party have instilled in people's minds is that they're going to charge us extra regardless...

I can accept that. It is not being presented in a good light and not being sold right. This is something that is constantly raised by party members. It is a question of optics IMHO: if you look at what you pay then the glass is half empty, if you look at what you save then the glass is half full.

The unfortunate thing is that we now, like it or now, in a time when taxes are going to rise - so even the most responsible person is probably going to be probably going to be paying more anyway - and we are all coming to carbon taxes etc. initially as polluters.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The car market fell apart in those two years, so the number of new cars cannot be used for a meaningful statistic.

I agree that it is not a good time to do comparisons of this kind but the figures are for the average CO2 emissions of new cars, not the total. The lowest emission cars made up 43% of new car sales in July 2008. A year later they made for 73% of sales. That is a dramatic effect.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

... the motor taxes have no effect on the rest of us other than making it harder to make ends meet.

Bear in mind that I am one of those "rest of us".

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why charge? Why not outlaw plastic bags and get retailers to offer paper bags?

Before the levy, the average person used 328 bags annually. Immediately afterwards, the average person used 21 per year. Why not ban them altogether? Why not indeed. I notice most shops have simply stopped stocking them.

The point I was making with the comparison was that carbon taxes affect people use habits (if you will imagine the plastic bag tax as a carbon tax).

Welease wrote: »

3 years is plenty of time to get something underway.

Yes it is. And there are things underway, as I understand it. Renewable energy is not an area of interest for me. I'll do some digging tomorrow evening and see what details I can find for you.

Welease wrote: »

What wiggle room do I have if I already own my vehicle, and there is minimal public transport where I live?

Lose the gas guzzler, if you have one, buy a leaner car or a diesel. Car pool. Cycle. Move closer to your work. Hitch hike. Work form home one day a week if your job allows. Work two hours longer each day and take the fifth day off each week (again if your job provides).

If there is an ideological element at work here that most will not recognise as being green it is that necessity is the mother of invention. A green principle is to allow people and communities to solve their own problems. So how you get around the "problem" of carbon taxes is up to you (just as you solved the "problem" of the plastic bag levy). I remember people used to always give each other lifts to work when I was a kid. Its a skill we lost like being able to shop without a plastic bag that can very easily be picked up again.

Welease wrote: »

Will the tax I pay be used to build a better public transport infrastructure to allow me to reduce my footprint? (we both know the answer is no).. Will the money be used to help offset my carbon footprint via other technologies or means (we both know the answer is no).. It's just an extra tax...

A green principle is the ring fencing of taxes in the way you say. And yes, we both know the answer is no. That is not a principle shared by other parties.

As for it being "just an extra tax". Yes (unfortunately) - nearly half our tax base blew away with the property bubble. Expect to be taxed the f*ck out of it no matter who is in government over the next five years.

Liam Byrne

oilibhear wrote: »

To take the extreme example, sell your big-engined car and buy a smaller-engined one. If you car consumes less petrol, you will pay less tax. (See further down where I reply to a similar question from Welease.)

Untrue. Firstly, I have a 1.4, so I don't have a big-engined car.

But instead of taking those emissions into account (or even doing real-time checks during the NCT) the new tax regime ignores "older" cars.

oilibhear wrote: »

An unfortunate truth is that our default setting right now is as irresponsible. Adopting a "polluter pays" (or "waster pays") approach to the daily cost of things does mean that right now everyone pays since we are all polluters right now.

Again untrue. How do the Greens know if my septic tank is polluting ? But I will still be charged for inspections ?

Genuinely adopting a "polluter pays" in this regard would be fair, but it's not what's going to be implemented.

oilibhear wrote: »

I can accept that. It is not being presented in a good light and not being sold right. This is something that is constantly raised by party members. It is a question of optics IMHO: if you look at what you pay then the glass is half empty, if you look at what you save then the glass is half full.

Save ????? Where ????? From the new increased price ?

That's not good enough.

oilibhear wrote: »

we are all coming to carbon taxes etc. initially as polluters.

Again, says who. Why should I be taxed €330 when no-one has bothered to check how much my car does or doesn't pollute ?

oilibhear wrote: »

Before the levy, the average person used 328 bags annually. Immediately afterwards, the average person used 21 per year. Why not ban them altogether? Why not indeed. I notice most shops have simply stopped stocking them.

Before the levy, most shops didn't offer alternatives. If they had, I would have used them.

There was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to tax the plastic version. Just ban the plastic ones. But - as with everything else - they opted to tax instead, as a revenue stream.

If they'd banned the plastic ones and enforced paper ones, there would be EVEN LESS plastic bags than there currently are, regardless of how successful the scheme has been.

oilibhear wrote: »

Lose the gas guzzler, if you have one, buy a leaner car or a diesel. Car pool. Cycle. Move closer to your work. Hitch hike. Work form home one day a week if your job allows. Work two hours longer each day and take the fifth day off each week (again if your job provides).

Don't have a gas guzzler. Can't car pool. Use a bike on occasion. Definitely won't move closer to my weekend work given the current climate and the housing market.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that someone hitch-hike to work ? I'd love to see what time you'd get in every morning!

I already work from home a lot, and work long hours.

oilibhear wrote: »

So how you get around the "problem" of carbon taxes is up to you

Sorry, but that's quite frankly rubbish, because there are feck-all options available.

Explain to me how someone can "get around" an increase in home heating oil, and don't do your "new car" style avoidance and claim "replumbing the entire house for a new heating system", because last time I looked very few in this country had a spare €10,000 or €20,000.

Walloping people with UNAVOIDABLE extra taxes is WRONG.

Now, on the other hand, if you want to give me back the VRT on my EXISTING car then I'll gladly upgrade to a new, more efficient car.

And if you can convince the banks that your party is helping bail out to stall my loan repayments, I'll gladly re-insulate the house and upgrade the heating.

And if you want to pay the septic tank inspectors from the fines imposed on those who are actually polluting, then fire away!

Scofflaw

Explain to me how someone can "get around" an increase in home heating oil, and don't do your "new car" style avoidance and claim "replumbing the entire house for a new heating system", because last time I looked very few in this country had a spare €10,000 or €20,000.

You use less heating. It's the same logic as cigarettes - make them more expensive and people cut down.

The traditional card to play here is the "but poor people will die of the cold". Assuming that there are genuine hardship cases where turning down the heating will really result in an increased risk of death, the problem is usually solved by subsidising those people's fuel bills. It's not complex, and the net result is that people who can turn down the heating without hardship tend to do so to save money, while those that cannot turn down the heating without hardship do not have to.

The result overall is that the amount of heating oil used is decreased, but the people who already use the minimum they can get away with do not decrease their usage - only optional usage declines.

Where in that is the difficulty? Genuine question! Is it that you don't want to turn down your heating and object to the additional amount you're paying as a result?

cordially,
Scofflaw

mikom

Scofflaw wrote: »

You use less heating. It's the same logic as cigarettes - make them more expensive and people cut down.

Yeah, because we all know central heating gives you cancer.

Scofflaw

mikom wrote: »

Yeah, because we all know central heating gives you cancer.

No, it gives you climate change. You can consider that planetary cancer if you like - it's a serious, long-term condition everyone will have to live with as a result of overuse of fossil fuels.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Euro_Kraut

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to tax the plastic version. Just ban the plastic ones. But - as with everything else - they opted to tax instead, as a revenue stream.

The Greens did not introduce the plastics bag tax so I am not sure who you are referring to when you say 'they'. In any event I see little problem in the State raising taxes in this way. If they didn't do this way we would simply have to make up the difference in some other part of our taxation system.

I would see this as economically preferable to an increase in income tax, for example.

If they'd banned the plastic ones and enforced paper ones, there would be EVEN LESS plastic bags than there currently are, regardless of how successful the scheme has been.

Well I occasionally have to use plastics bags for my shopping. I don't mid having to pay 40c for it though. It is important that I have the right to take certain actions as I see fit. However it is crucial that I pay accordingly for that. My actions cause a negative externality and its a good idea that the cost is off set somehow.

I feel the same about cigarettes. Prehaps you share the same view? I believe people should be allowed to smoke as an adult if that is their wish. However as their subsequent illness will inevitably lead to higher health care costs for society I believe it is entirely appropriate that they are taxed at a very high rate.

Scofflaw

Well I occasionally have to use plastics bags for my shopping.

Such as when it rains, for example. Also, I have to point out that Liam is simultaneously complaining about not being given an option about some things (on which there are taxes), and complaining about other things (on which there are taxes) not being banned outright instead of being taxed.

The common thread seems to me to be "complaining about things...on which there are taxes"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

mikom

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it gives you climate change.

Oh, so that's what they are calling it this month.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You can consider that planetary cancer if you like - it's a serious, long-term condition everyone will have to live with as a result of overuse of fossil fuels.

Ok so, cool cool, I'll run with that.

So to extend this further, I would see it like this......

Ireland being small, we would be the equivalent of the earlobe on a body.
So we have cancer of the earlobe.

The green party are treating this.
But because green taxes are not being ringfenced and used specifically for treating environmental problems, it appears our little ear is just getting a touch of aromatherapy rather than the chemo treatments to banish the cancer.

Meanwhile in China (the lungs) and the U.S.A (the bowel) a real cancer is spreading unabated, making the little earlobe seem insignificant.

Scofflaw

mikom wrote: »

Oh, so that's what they are calling it this month.



Ok so, cool cool, I'll run with that.

So to extend this further, I would see it like this......

Ireland being small, we would be the equivalent of the earlobe on a body.
So we have cancer of the earlobe.

The green party are treating this.
But because green taxes are not being ringfenced and used specifically for treating environmental problems, it appears our little ear is just getting a touch of aromatherapy rather than the chemo treatments to banish the cancer.

Meanwhile in China (the lungs) and the U.S.A (the bowel) a real cancer is spreading unabated, making the little earlobe seem insignificant.

Feel free to feel as little personal responsibility as you deem to be your lot. That's why things get taxed, after all.

regards,
Scofflaw

mikom

Scofflaw wrote: »

Feel free to feel as little personal responsibility as you deem to be your lot.

I learned from the best....... and both of those leaders are still in power.
That's why things get taxed, after all.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

You use less heating. It's the same logic as cigarettes - make them more expensive and people cut down.

Excuse me ? How do you know what my heating is set at, or how often it's on every day ?

This mindset is precisely the same as the "tax the cars and septic tanks regardless of the level of emissions"......it has no basis in the reality of what someone is doing to minimise their current bills; and bills can only be minimised - anything less is not allowing people to have a life!

I also went to the climate change calculator, just to see, and it was worse than useless.......it told me that I was slightly above average, and then "suggested" stuff like "fitting a lagging jacket" and other stuff that I have already done, and that it hadn't asked me about when compiling its original total.

I laughed when I read that, because if those make a difference they should be in the calculator......and if they're not then it's not much of a calculator and is only a way of scaremongering and justifying unreasonable taxes.

oilibhear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Save ????? Where ????? From the new increased price ?

That's not good enough.

...

Walloping people with UNAVOIDABLE extra taxes is WRONG.

Let's just hit this one head on first. Liam, the issue of a carbon tax and of the reality of paying more tax is separate (in theory at least).

As a state, right now, we are f*cked for cash. We put all of our tax eggs into a property boom basket. Now that's all gone now and, as a consequence, our tax take is nearly halved. There will be more taxes year-in-year-out for the foreseeable future.

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and I'm surprised you haven't heard this before, but it's just the way things are. You can vote FF, FG, Labour, Green, Sinn Féin or Socialist, it will all go the same way: walloping people with UNAVIODABLE extra taxes for years to come. You can even leave NAMA and the bank bail-outs out of it: we're still taking in little more than half of what we spend every year. That's just how it is.

If you can pull 25 billion a year out of your arse and save the rest of us from this miserable truth, I'd more than welcome it. If you can't then I'm afriad more taxes is the only route we can go.

The widening of the tax base is due to now utterly discredited polcies of Fianna Fáil, in cahoots with Fine Gael and urged on by Labour, during the period 2002 to 2008. Don't put blame at my feet or at the feet of the Green Pary. We warned about this and were told we were a laughing stock. However, since 80% of the country voted for these parties and their policies, as much as it gales me to say it, we need to address this crisis as being a national failure not only the failure of individual parties or their voters.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Firstly, I have a 1.4, so I don't have a big-engined car. But instead of taking those emissions into account (or even doing real-time checks during the NCT) the new tax regime ignores "older" cars. ... Genuinely adopting a "polluter pays" in this regard would be fair, but it's not what's going to be implemented. ... Why should I be taxed €330 when no-one has bothered to check how much my car does or doesn't pollute ?

Well, the quick answer is that you can't really blame the Greens for charging you tax on the same terms you were being charged all along, can you? Another answer is that the carbon tax is placed on petrol/diesel, so it placed on all cars and levied against those who use the most CO2.

However, I don't know why the older tax regime remains in place for pre-July 2008 cars. Maybe it is to maintain stability in the market place since those are the terms you the car was bought under. I know many do complain about it. There was a lot of resistance to the new regime from the car dealers so I maybe it was a fudge/compromise.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that someone hitch-hike to work ? I'd love to see what time you'd get in every morning!

No. That was tongue in cheek. Hitch-hiking is dangerous. I wouldn't like you to come to harm, Liam.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I already work from home a lot...

Well then you're already saving ... comparatively ... bearing in mind that everyone's tax burden will rise unavoidably to fill in the hole left by the property bubble.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Now, on the other hand, if you want to give me back the VRT on my EXISTING car then I'll gladly upgrade to a new, more efficient car.

You can get €1,500 of the VRT of a new car until the end of this year. But, are you serious about expecting VRT back on your old car? Really, Laim, we've got a hole in our balance of payments deficit the size of a small planet - our tax take just fell through the floor!

Get with reality: FF, FG, Labour, Green, Sinn Féin - you will be paying more taxes for the foreseeable future.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Explain to me how someone can "get around" an increase in home heating oil, and don't do your "new car" style avoidance and claim "replumbing the entire house for a new heating system", because last time I looked very few in this country had a spare €10,000 or €20,000. ... And if you can convince the banks that your party is helping bail out to stall my loan repayments, I'll gladly re-insulate the house and upgrade the heating.

First, about the banks - that's not only my party. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael too. I forget Labour's exact stance on the bail-outs but (whatever the hot air) I don't believe it is too different.

About getting around your home heating, there's €10,000 odd of a grants available for you to re-insulate your house (assuming it is pre-2006), you'll be getting your "smart meter" for free in the coming months (about 5% off our electricity), knocking your heating down by a few degrees saves exponentially on your bill and turn it off in room that are not being used, etc.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Before the levy, most shops didn't offer alternatives. If they had, I would have used them.

We had hands, did we not? Yet we did not carry our shopping? We cuold have bought re-usable bags, could we not? Yet we used 328 disposable bags per person annually. We had alternatives. It was not until the levy came into place that we considered using them. Then suddenly we realised that all we really needed as 21 disposable bags per person per year.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Just as you suddenly rediscovered your arms subsequent to the plastic bag levy, so too will you rediscover that you don't need the heating to be baking in that back room no-one ever uses in order to be snug in your living room.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How do the Greens know if my septic tank is polluting? But I will still be charged for inspections? ... And if you want to pay the septic tank inspectors from the fines imposed on those who are actually polluting, then fire away!

Presumably the department (not "the Greens") will know after the inspection, but I do greatly like the idea of the cost coming from fines. I don't know why it was not implemented like that. My gut reaction is that that would be the Green approach. I suspect it was done the other way around to guarantee a revenue stream (i.e. extra taxes - refer to the top of the comment).

oilibhear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Excuse me ? How do you know what my heating is set at, or how often it's on every day ?

No one here knows what your heating is set at, Liam, but on average our (the people of this state) heating is set too high. Wastefully high.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I also went to the climate change calculator, just to see, and it was worse than useless...

Yeah, I got the same thing. (I'm hardly a saint when it comes to these things, by the way, from the sounds of it you're much better than me, Liam). It's a rough guess done by a website - hardly the Oracle of Delphi.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Excuse me ? How do you know what my heating is set at, or how often it's on every day ?

I don't know what your heating is set at, and I've no idea why you think you should get offended over it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This mindset is precisely the same as the "tax the cars and septic tanks regardless of the level of emissions"......it has no basis in the reality of what someone is doing to minimise their current bills; and bills can only be minimised - anything less is not allowing people to have a life!

I also went to the climate change calculator, just to see, and it was worse than useless.......it told me that I was slightly above average, and then "suggested" stuff like "fitting a lagging jacket" and other stuff that I have already done, and that it hadn't asked me about when compiling its original total.

I laughed when I read that, because if those make a difference they should be in the calculator......and if they're not then it's not much of a calculator and is only a way of scaremongering and justifying unreasonable taxes.

If what you're arguing for here is that you should have, in essence, a personal carbon allowance, and that if you're inside that allowance you should not be paying any extra in taxes, then I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, as you may have seen from the 'carbon calculators' available, we apparently don't have the sophistication of information required to make such a thing a reality - and I don't doubt there would be a lot of resistance to doing so on the basis of how intrusive such a level of detail would be.

As far as I can see, you object to the taxes on the basis that you're already doing what you can, and require no further discouragement through taxation. If that's true - and I have no reason to doubt it - then you are paying for the bad habits of others, much as you do in insurance, banking, policing, and virtually every other field. That's an unfortunate side-effect of being part of a community (and may go some way to explaining the current apparent popularity of libertarian views).

It's not necessarily possible, without far more sophisticated knowledge of our habits on the part of government than most of us would be comfortable with, to separate the sheep from the goats to the extent necessary. In some cases where it is possible, the systems involved may not be sufficiently flexible (for example, in suggesting that the ESB or Bord Gais only start carbon taxation above a certain threshold), or that the necessary control mechanisms would be considered draconian (for example, in suggesting that you apply for and receive a 'ration card' for home heating oil that entitles you to a carbon-tax free minimum amount).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Valmont

One can still hunt deer, but not with dogs. A ban on stag hunting implies that it is now illegal to kill a male deer in any way. Which is madness, obviously.

Persiancowboy

oilibhear wrote: »

I should first clear the air and say that I am a Green Party voter and member (but I don't want to become an apologist for the Green Party).





With that in mind, and bearing in mind also that the two portfolios held by the Green Party are Environment/Local Government and Transport/Communications, here's a lost of some initiatives done mid-way through a single term of government by the Green Party:

• LOTS and LOTS (!!) of new planning regulations, measures and acts
• Civil partnership bill and same-sex unions
• Single all-Ireland electricity market(* see comment below)
• Smart meters (electricity, not water)
• Water metering
• Committee to investigate (major) reform of Oireachtas and electoral system
• Stag hunting ban
• Free return of batteries to shops
• Ban on incandescent bulbs
• Carbon tax
• Reform of motor tax
• Exports Bill (see elements relating to arms trade)
• Limerick City boundary
• Dublin Transport Authority
• Elected Dublin mayor with executive powers
• Broadcasting Authority of Ireland
• Continued terrestrial (free-to-air) broadcasting of RTÉ and TG4 to Northern Ireland and terrestrial (free-to-air) broadcasting of BBC and C4 to Republic of Ireland with DTT in 2012
• Electricity inter-connector to Britain and 'super grid' in the North Sea
• BER and new building regulations
• On-the-spot fines for nuisance noise
• On-the-spot fines for littering
• Election spending curtailed
• Diplomatic efforts on extra-ordinary rendition
• Home insulation scheme
• Regulations for farmers' markets
• Financial regulation of charities
• Clampdown on phone and text premium-rate scams and refunds for over-charging
• E-voting machines scrapped
• Tenant-purchase scheme
• National broadband scheme and high-speed national network
• Post codes system
• Puppy farming regulations
• Limits on junkets by local councillors
• Home-improvements scheme for elderly and disabled
• Risk-sharing element for banks taking part in NAMA and caps on salaries for banks receiving state funding

I can't speak for all of the bullets above but the ones I have highlighted were ALL in train long before the Greens washed up in government. Taking credit for these is both disingenuous and dishonest. In addition, nothing has yet happened on stag hunting, nor in realtion to changing Limerick City's boundary. you really are scraping the bottom of the barrell here.

As for Green principles...don't make me laugh. The only Green principle being pursued at present is the age-old Fianna Fail one of hanging onto power at any cost.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't know what your heating is set at, and I've no idea why you think you should get offended over it.

Not offended....just pointing out that you can't dismissively / glibly tell someone to turn it down/off if you don't know what it's currently set at.

Scofflaw wrote: »

If what you're arguing for here is that you should have, in essence, a personal carbon allowance, and that if you're inside that allowance you should not be paying any extra in taxes, then I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, as you may have seen from the 'carbon calculators' available, we apparently don't have the sophistication of information required to make such a thing a reality.

We have it in relation to NCT car tests, and it's not being used there.

As a result, I don't believe that the mindset is there to ensure that these things are implemented fairly. Fair enough on ones that can't be done, but the ones that can should be done, so that at least it comes across that if you're doing your best then you won't be punished.

The reason I mentioned earlier regarding the VRT is that if we are going to pay based on usage, this is unfair in relation to people who have already paid VRT....they're being taxed twice now that the petrol costs are rising, while those who can afford to change their car are getting reductions in VRT and a scrappage scheme and reductions in road tax......is that fair ?

Similarly - as I said before - on the "polluter pays" idea not being extended to the septic tank charge.....it seems that's a catchphrase that's trotted out to justify some stuff, but not being applied to others.

Scofflaw wrote: »

As far as I can see, you object to the taxes on the basis that you're already doing what you can, and require no further discouragement through taxation. If that's true - and I have no reason to doubt it - then you are paying for the bad habits of others, much as you do in insurance, banking, policing, and virtually every other field. That's an unfortunate side-effect of being part of a community (and may go some way to explaining the current apparent popularity of libertarian views).

Fair point, and well put. But you can see why this stick-instead-of-carrot approach would then make me think "sod this" ? Rather than insurance, etc, it's more like paying the speeding fine even though you don't speed.

And - as I've said before - I'm hardly unique, so this approach is going to annoy a lot of people and put them off voting for an unimaginative Green party who make one-size-fit-all, while ensuring that that size doesn't fit those doing their best on a tight budget.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not necessarily possible, without far more sophisticated knowledge of our habits on the part of government than most of us would be comfortable with, to separate the sheep from the goats to the extent necessary. In some cases where it is possible, the systems involved may not be sufficiently flexible (for example, in suggesting that the ESB or Bord Gais only start carbon taxation above a certain threshold), or that the necessary control mechanisms would be considered draconian (for example, in suggesting that you apply for and receive a 'ration card' for home heating oil that entitles you to a carbon-tax free minimum amount).

As I said, even attempting those on some issues - car tax and septic tanks - would at least show that this approach would be taken where possible.

The fact that it's not even implemented where possible and feasible is the biggest problem that I have.

As I said, outlawing plastic bags and ensuring stores offered paper ones (even if there were a 10c charge) would have a better result than even the "successful" tax, because it would reduce these down to zero.

oilibhear

Persiancowboy wrote: »

oilibhear wrote: »

I can't speak for all of the bullets above but the ones I have highlighted were ALL in train long before the Greens washed up in government. Taking credit for these is both disingenuous and dishonest.

Of course! What did you expect? That Green ministers would drop everything and only work on their own unique hobby horse? Strange and weird things, totally removed from the on-going governance of the country? No minister does that. (No minister worth keeping anyway!)

I find it especially funny that you highlighted the smart meters, carbon tax and post codes system (given the resistance to introducing them and the degree to which people have associated them with the Green ministers in government) as something that the Green party in government would wrongfully taking credit for. It exposes the shallowness of saying that anything belongs to one party or minister or another. Things are worked on by the minister of the day, in cabinet and with the civil service. Every minister adds their own flavour to on-going works, begins a few new things, puts and end to other things, resurrects something here and there, and finishes near-completed things.

The above list contains things the two Green ministers have worked on while in government. If a minister from another party came in in the morning they would continue the work on these things and doing so would not be "taking the credit" for them. It would be doing the work of a minister in government. That's what we pay them for.

Welease

oilibhear wrote: »

Yes it is. And there are things underway, as I understand it. Renewable energy is not an area of interest for me. I'll do some digging tomorrow evening and see what details I can find for you.

Sorry been snowed under for a few days.. Don't want to derail the thread by coming back so late.. but just a few comments

It would be interesting to find out.. I personally feel we will make our international commitments by imposition of tax changing behaviour but once again due to our lack of imagination miss a golden opportunity to do some much more by better environmental planning..
I still to this day cannot fathom why this country is is using any fossil fuels for electricity given we could easily harness the power of the Atlantic and wind energy (not to mention the jobs created).. Our solution is to put up taxes which we won't even spend on reneweable energy..

oilibhear wrote: »

Lose the gas guzzler, if you have one, buy a leaner car or a diesel. Car pool. Cycle. Move closer to your work. Hitch hike. Work form home one day a week if your job allows. Work two hours longer each day and take the fifth day off each week (again if your job provides).

But thats my problem.. I drive a pickup truck (for various reasons).. I would now need to sell that at a considerable loss and buy a new (overpriced) car which has been shipped half way around the world because the limit of our green credentials are taxation. We build houses all over the place, we have no worthwhile planning or transportation systems. I live in Kildare (so not the arse end of the world).. 20 miles from work in Leixlip.. to far to cycle.. i dont live near anyone who works with me.. I am not going to sell up and move there (in a depressed market).. I work long hours already (and work from home), and no company is in the position to let people take days off each week..

In short (and I know you are just throwing suggestions out).. even though I live close to work and not in the middle of nowhere, we simply don't have an environmental transport policy (linked to planning) that makes even basic environmental sense.. In this day and age that it simply staggering.

I would use an enviromentally sound method tomorrow if there was one.. The option the Greens have given me is... pay more taxes which will be used elsewhere.

oilibhear wrote: »

If there is an ideological element at work here that most will not recognise as being green it is that necessity is the mother of invention. A green principle is to allow people and communities to solve their own problems. So how you get around the "problem" of carbon taxes is up to you (just as you solved the "problem" of the plastic bag levy). I remember people used to always give each other lifts to work when I was a kid. Its a skill we lost like being able to shop without a plastic bag that can very easily be picked up again.

Sorry but that simply passing the buck because of lack of invention on the part of FF/Greens.. People voted Green because of a genuine belief that it's time for someone to stand up and do something about the way we plan our towns and cities and how we look to reduce our carbon footprint. The Green even basically state those aims in the manifesto.. If it's up to communities to solve their own issues, then the Greens need to jump off the bandwagon and let people solve the issue. They voted Green so those in power would do something. Adding taxes does not allow me or my community to solve the issue.. it's an added burden.

oilibhear wrote: »

A green principle is the ring fencing of taxes in the way you say. And yes, we both know the answer is no. That is not a principle shared by other parties.

As for it being "just an extra tax". Yes (unfortunately) - nearly half our tax base blew away with the property bubble. Expect to be taxed the f*ck out of it no matter who is in government over the next five years.

Sorry to be an arse.. but you can't list all the nice things as being Green.. (with just 2 ministers), but all the bad things as being "the other parties"..

I would be less irritated (not by you obviously ) if the taxes were being used to fund renewable energy.. but this is akin to the PS Pension Levy.. it's a tax on people which makes no attempt to solve the actual problem.. and in fact just leaves the initial problem festering and growing in the background..

Edit - For clarity the reason I am annoyed with the Greens, is due to their recent behaviour with FF it looks as though they will suffer badly at the next general election (then again maybe not.. who knows).. If they do, then the average punter will be very wary of a Green agenda in the future and a golden opportunity will have been lost by a) lack of ideas b) lack of action and c) the view that holding onto power with FF was more important than anything (it seems that this will hurt the Greens far more than FF).. It's a shame and akin to the view that only the militant unions look after workers rights.. when the reality is they are far more destructive.

oilibhear

Very insightful, Welease. Thanks.

(p.s. Won't have time time to look stuff up tonight but will do tomorrow or later in the week and post back here.)

Welease

oilibhear wrote: »

Very insightful, Welease. Thanks.

(p.s. Won't have time time to look stuff up tonight but will do tomorrow or later in the week and post back here.)

lol thanks.. not sure if it's insightful or the just me rambling.. but correct or not, it's my honest opinion.. thats all i have to offer

Yeah I would be interested in what is happening behind the scenes.. my post on this topic are not a point scoring exercise, merely an effort to understand why with a golden opportunity of the Greens in power we havent done more on the environment and job creation in environmental schemes. (and yes the economy at present is a limitation, but they have managed to put in carbon taxes so they are getting heard) than the UK which only recently got its first Green MP. I appreciate your insights and opinion

Thanks.

Scofflaw

This is not a thread about John Gormley and his Satanic ways. The Green Party are on-topic here only in so far as they are the political proponents of the green agenda - party personalities, on the other hand, are not relevant, however keen anyone may be to have a go at them.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Likewise, adding extra taxes to petrol and lightbulbs and septic tanks and existing cars and heating systems isn't going to make people walk in the rain or - hopefully - go cold due to lack of funds for heating.

I am currently unemployed. I don't drive. I walk in the rain most days in winter either to exercise my dogs or to get to where I want to go - I wouldn't take a bus or a Luas, the fares are too high. I live in Corporation Housing which has a gas central heating system installed. During the snowy spell in January the dogs and I spent most of our time in (the one) bed as a) we couldn't walk down our road in Dublin due to the fact that the Corporation hadn't gritted the paths and b) I was afraid that, being on Unemployment Assistance, if I put the heat on for more than two hours a day I couldn't pay the bill. So, contrary to your hope, adding extra taxes to current heating sytems will result in people going cold due to lack of funds

Banned Account

From reading this thread, my personal suspicions have been confirmed. It is not possible to have a rational debate with Green supporters. I think some of this is due to the fact that the original movement was based on a purely hypothetical situation.

When people point out that the dinosaurs did not emit large amounts of carbon, so the ice age just might imply that climate change may be a natural cycle you are simply told that you haven't an iota what you are on about and are referred to a number of scientific articles which support the theory.

Should you reply with a equal amount of evidence to disprove the theory you will be exposed to some degree of emotional blackmail.

I found it extremely annoying that on a recent front line debate with Eddie Hobbs and ****** **** (no names here), ****** ****, refused to answer a large number of questions including the one posed by the farmer who asked how a carbon tax would prevent him with an alternative method of tillage farming.

I also found it disappointing that Kenny did not push him for an answer.

Liam Byrne

ghost_ie wrote: »

So, contrary to your hope, adding extra taxes to current heating sytems will result in people going cold due to lack of funds

I'm sorry to hear that.

Maybe some of the green supporters would care to comment on this ? I mean, it is achieving the objective of less carbon*.

* I want to exclude Scofflaw from this comment, because to be fair he has said that everyone should have a minimum "carbon allowance" so that this shouldn't happen.

mikom

ghost_ie wrote: »

During the snowy spell in January the dogs and I spent most of our time in (the one) bed

The greens are getting closer to their dream one person (and animal) at a time it seems.

No offense intended ghost_ie.

oilibhear

In response to ghost_ie and Liam -

There are two things we need to separate: the rise in taxes (or in reality the broadening of the tax base) and the carbon tax etc.

Like what I think Liam is getting at, I agree that a carbon tax should not place additional burden on people who are acting responsibly. It shouldn't impoverish people from their basic needs. In parallel to this, however, is the reality that we are taking in 32 billion and spending 54 billion (from memory).

We can scrap the carbon tax in the morning but that will not alter the reality of our situation: taxes will rise (or actually, the base will be broadened) and benefits will fall. Carbon tax or no carbon tax, that's just the situation we are in right now. To to top this off, the price of oil is rising and the value of our currency is falling. Though at least the good news for ghost_ie is that gas prices have fallen.

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

I found it extremely annoying that on a recent front line debate with Eddie Hobbs and ****** **** (no names here), ****** ****, refused to answer a large number of questions including the one posed by the farmer who asked how a carbon tax would prevent him with an alternative method of tillage farming.

This is a fair question and one that separates the idea of a carbon tax from the reality of our current fiscal circumstances.

A carbon tax will do sweet FA to present the farmer with an alternative to tillage farming. What it will do, through simple elasticity of demand, is encourage more efficient and rationale use of fuel in farming - be that diesel, gas, coal or (indirectly) electricity. It does so not only for the the sake of pollution (a better way to think about it if you don't believe in climate change) but also, by accident of our resources, to become more rationale and self-sufficient when it comes to our use of energy.

A carbon tax is a crude mechanism and it does not affect everyone evenly or arguably even fairly, since for some heavy carbon users they are already at their most efficient. But, where alternatives exist (including hithertofore unrecognised alternatives) or where you want to squeeze the greatest efficient out of something, elasticity is the proven man - and please don't bring up addictive substances or luxuries as a counter argument. If not on the supply side, then on the consumption side.

Fitzcaraldo wrote: »

When people point out that the dinosaurs did not emit large amounts of carbon, so the ice age just might imply that climate change may be a natural cycle you are simply told that you haven't an iota what you are on about and are referred to a number of scientific articles which support the theory.

I'm not surprised. The Ice Age started about 2.5 million year ago. Dinosaurs had been dead for 62.5 million years before then

***

I've mentioned this before but I'll keep bringing it up: carbon taxes and so on are not the only thing for Greens.

From this discussion, it seems that it is the only thing that people associate with green politics. I'm not entirely surprised by this since green politics is not widely understood and is nearly always confused with environmentalism. Can I ask others to look at the policy section of the Green party website and come back with comments about where we have succeeded or failed in government?

Triangle

Oilibhear/Scofflaw,
I read the first 2 1/2 pages but had to ask a question before i could finish the other pages..

Would it not be better to change attitudes and not force people to change?

i.e.
Bring in strict building guildlines so that houses are built to a great spec from now on. therefore getting them to reduce usage, in the future
Instead of taxing petrol so much - incentivise all new cars to be more planet friendly - And not punish people who own cars and now can't shift them.

It just seems that the environmental people (aka greens) don't seem to think about consequences, just results. The best way to bring about change is over time - give people/lifestyles time to change and not be forced to. There are economic repercussions to taxing people to force them to change - and the possibility that you will alienate the people and therefore end up shooting yourself in the foot.



And to answer your question on where I think the greens Failed in goverment is in selling out morality/ethics and voting to keep Bertie during the no confidence vote. *Note this is my own personal view.

Liam Byrne

oilibhear wrote: »

There are two things we need to separate: the rise in taxes (or in reality the broadening of the tax base) and the carbon tax etc.

OK - so let's keep them separate.

oilibhear wrote: »

Like what I think Liam is getting at, I agree that a carbon tax should not place additional burden on people who are acting responsibly. It shouldn't impoverish people from their basic needs.

In parallel to this, however, is the reality that we are taking in 32 billion and spending 54 billion (from memory).

We can scrap the carbon tax in the morning but that will not alter the reality of our situation: taxes will rise (or actually, the base will be broadened) and benefits will fall. Carbon tax or no carbon tax, that's just the situation we are in right now.

So then scrap the carbon tax so that (a) people aren't being completely crippled and (b) Ireland doesn't get even more uncompetitive via transport costs and the costs of doing business.

If we "keep them separate" as you suggest, then we can see which ones might be unpalatable-yet-required-because-of-FF and which ones are just added in there in order to try and enforce "changed behaviour".

Of course, if the alternatives were available and cheaper, then it would be a no-brainer, and the current recession would actually be an incentive for people to switch to cleaner options in order to claw back some of the cash that this government is stealing from us in order to pay the corrupt bankers.

As I said earlier, that would be win-win; but obviously that doesn't sit well with the Greens as they would need to ensure that viable, cheaper options were in place, rather than simply penalising people.

oilibhear

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So then scrap the carbon tax so that (a) people aren't being completely crippled and (b) Ireland doesn't get even more uncompetitive via transport costs and the costs of doing business.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If we "keep them separate" as you suggest, then we can see which ones might be unpalatable-yet-required-because-of-FF and which ones are just added in there in order to try and enforce "changed behaviour".

Liam Byrne wrote: »

...this government is stealing from us in order to pay the corrupt bankers.

I thought you said you were going to keep them separate? Yet here we are again talking about rising taxes.

They are all required. End of. And more to boot! We can remove the carbon tax - but it will only have to be replaced with something else. Ideally, yes, the carbon tax would not additionally burden those of use who act responsibly (they would even ideally be paying less). The reality of our current situation is that everyone has to be burdened with more taxes - whether they behave responsibly or not.

Forget the bankers. Forget Anglo. Forget NAMA. Forget the carbon tax. Forget all of that. There is still that small matter of 20 billion euro a year that we are short to pay for our run-of-the-mill day-to-day expenses as a state.

20 billion. That 2,000,000,000. There's 4,422,100 people in the state. That 452.27 extra we need to get form every man, woman and child in the state. No matter whether you work, whether you are young or old, whether you pollute or whether you behave responsibly, you will pay more taxes. You cannot blame the carbon tax for that.

And that's just to make ends meed. No bail out. No NAMA. No carbon tax. Only when we have that collected can think about squeezing another hundred or so more out for the likes of NAMA, the banks and Anglo.

Sure, we can give everyone some "carbon credits". Grand! Take enough for how ever much you use your car in the year. Take some for your neighbour too while you are at it! Taken them? Great. So you now pay zero in your carbon tax for petrol/deisel, yeah? Wonderful. Now cough up an extra 5c per litre on your petrol just 'cos we're f*cked for cash!

This is not how anyone would like to have introduced a carbon tax. This makes it look bad. Very bad. Ideally the incentive would be to pay less tax. The "incentive" now is merely to pay less more tax. But that's just the reality of where we find ourselves.

oilibhear

Just to clarify succinctly what I mean by the above.

The only reasonable criticism about the carbon tax, in my opinion, given our current circumstances, are the likes of:

- a) whether it is reasonable to expect people to be able to lower their carbon use (Liam and Fitzcaraldo make this above)
- or b) whether there is any point in that aim (like Fitzcaraldo makes)
- or c) whether a carbon tax is fit for purpose in achieving that aim (I recall several making this)

Giving out that a carbon tax has increased your or anybody else's tax burden this year is, in my opinion, a nonsense. We are throwing 35 billion into the kitty and taking 55 billion out (from memory). We will be throwing more in this year. We have to. Whether it is a carbon tax or some other form of tax, there are no two ways about it: your tax is going up.

Liam Byrne

oilibhear wrote: »

I thought you said you were going to keep them separate? Yet here we are again talking about rising taxes.

We can remove the carbon tax - but it will only have to be replaced with something else.

Hang on a sec.....you're the one who's not keeping them separate, if you're simply going to replace it with something else.

oilibhear wrote: »

Ideally, yes, the carbon tax would not additionally burden those of use who act responsibly (they would even ideally be paying less). The reality of our current situation is that everyone has to be burdened with more taxes - whether they behave responsibly or not.

How about getting those spending it to behave responsibly ?

oilibhear wrote: »

Forget the bankers. Forget Anglo. Forget NAMA. Forget the carbon tax. Forget all of that. There is still that small matter of 20 billion euro a year that we are short to pay for our run-of-the-mill day-to-day expenses as a state.

Nononononono......don't "forget the bankers", or any other bull that the Greens have condoned. Because the money that's going into all of those, and paying Anglo heads bonuses, and the fact that this Government is more interested in bailing those out and therefore taking its eye off the ball in terms of proper job creation and sustained development, is selling this country down the swanee.

oilibhear wrote: »

20 billion. That 2,000,000,000. There's 4,422,100 people in the state. That 452.27 extra we need to get form every man, woman and child in the state. No matter whether you work, whether you are young or old, whether you pollute or whether you behave responsibly, you will pay more taxes. You cannot blame the carbon tax for that.

You can if the carbon tax is being charged. And it's pretty sick to have it there to make up the shortfall while pretending that it's a green incentive and that you wish everyone was responsible and it wasn't required.

The greens in Government....we hope that you all keep polluting because it'll help us balance the books ?

BTW, they can f**k off if they reckon they're getting 452.27 more off me, because I don't have it. Blood from stone, and all that. The 500,000 for the Anglo heads would pay the bill for 1,000 people, and would be far more productive.

So until your shower stop flushing it down the toilet, hands off! Go after Seanie and the other FF cronies if you want to; cut the TD pay to something reasonable that reflects their abilities.....that will give you my share.......but don't DARE make a complete bollox of the economy and then try and shaft me for the shortfall. :mad:

I'll do my bit for this country, but I will not hand over extra hard-earned cash if FF and the Greens are going to use it as toilet paper, and pay "artist exemptions" to Ahern, and waste every single cent.

oilibhear wrote: »

Now cough up an extra 5c per litre on your petrol just 'cos we're f*cked for cash!

In case you hadn't noticed, your shower did that, too.