Why Do The Green Party Attract Such Animosity?

simonj

Agent_47 wrote: »

Probably coming into this debate too late but how and ever, I am an advocate of the Polluter (user) pays principle however I do not see Green policy following this through as much as previous Ministers for the Environment have done.

Greens are contentious for their flawed ideals translating into flawed policies.
I have to site the recent end of life tyres fiasco aired on Pr*** Time recently. The polluter paid in this case alright.

In the water charges debate it is currently too cheap for commericial premises to waste thousands of litres of water through leaking pipes and un-metered systems. However Green policy will see residential households metered before tackling commericial entities where large proportions of water are being wasted (for obvious work reasons I cannot elaborate further). DLR Co Co charge as little as 1 euro per 1,000 litres of water approx. There is no incentive to save water at that cost.

Don't get me started on waste policy and planning. I have seen nothing on waste policy since the Greens came in, in fact policy in this area has gone backwards. So much so I am seating on the edge of my seat woundering if the waste company we use will appear on Pr*** Time for illegal dumping (of recyclables).

Planning is a farce, would dearly love to see the national stats on housing estates to be taken into charge, ticking bomb for county councils who gave the go ahead to build build build. See a application nearby for 700 houses lodged with planning, also see an estate nearby with empty first fix houses built 5 years.

Where has the Green focus on jobs for Green economy gone? This is what the man on the street is interested in, not bicycles for inner city commute or stag hunting.

Agent, you are so right - seriously, Gormley as minister for local government where, here in Galway it is a farce how waste, illegal quarries, dumping and unenforced planning regs are unreal

People will be stopped cutting turf in raised bogs, whereas SHA's in Mayo are being destroyed by Shell.

Scofflaw

Pushing through the turf ban while Shell is alowed to destroy SHAs and other areas of the Mayo environement has been a disaster.

It's not a case of "pushing through the turf ban", though - it's a case of finally implementing something that should have been implemented 11 years ago. No pushing about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

simonj

OK, how about allowing a corporaton to override peoples rights and concerns, allow a corporation to damage an SHA and treat planning laws with contempt, stand by while FF and Dr Woods bail out the church that covered up for child rapists.

With regards to the bog, I know Mayor Flannigan in passing, like me he would be an environmentalist.
But the NPWS tell us the bog is OK, it is over-ridden by over zealous people

Here in Galway the CoCo allowed a quarry - that was subsequently found to be in trespass in the entire area, to claim ownership of several families turbary rights.

Let Minister Gormly sort out corruptin in local government, enforce the law that exists, and then start new projects

Liam Byrne

astrofool wrote: »

The state of the majority of septic tanks in Ireland is absolutely shocking

I'll give it another day for this statement to be backed up with proof.

simonj

If mines anything to go by at the moment its true

But seriously, because of clientism the amount of people here who have shore front property where the grey water goes straight into the sea is shocking.

I am not talking a short drain, I am talking a the grey water pipe straight into the sea

Liam Byrne

simonj wrote: »

But seriously, because of clientism the amount of people here who have shore front property where the grey water goes straight into the sea is shocking.

I am not talking a short drain, I am talking a the grey water pipe straight into the sea

Then - as I said - I've no objection to the book being thrown at them in a genuine "polluter pays" way.....fine the bo**ox off them.

Mind you, that scenario doesn't appear to even have a septic tank that needs to be "inspected", so they'll probably get off scot-free! :mad:

By all means - as I said - inspect the tank and fine those (ir)responsible......paying the cost of the inspections from the fines.

The Greens sicken me at this stage with their stick-and-no-carrot approaches to everything.....except, of course, there's no stick for corrupt and incompetent politicians, bankers and developers; oh no, they get votes of confidence from our earthy rulers...... :mad:

Scofflaw

simonj wrote: »

OK, how about allowing a corporaton to override peoples rights and concerns, allow a corporation to damage an SHA and treat planning laws with contempt, stand by while FF and Dr Woods bail out the church that covered up for child rapists.

With regards to the bog, I know Mayor Flannigan in passing, like me he would be an environmentalist.
But the NPWS tell us the bog is OK, it is over-ridden by over zealous people

Here in Galway the CoCo allowed a quarry - that was subsequently found to be in trespass in the entire area, to claim ownership of several families turbary rights.

Let Minister Gormly sort out corruptin in local government, enforce the law that exists, and then start new projects

That's more than a little unfocused - do you want the Ministry of the Environment to make all planning decisions, or just reverse the ones you disagree with? Do you think we should allow the existence of one problem to mean doing nothing about any other problems? Who should dictate the priorities? You? Me? John Gormley? If local councillors are bad at making planning decisions, why should we trust Mayor Ming more than conservation experts? Does the Church's child abuse mean that the Ministry of the Environment shouldn't implement an environmental law set up 11 years ago? How does that follow, in your mind?

wonderingly,
Scofflaw

simonj

Ach Scoff, we are almost always at loggerheads, but yeah, that was a scattered approach.

For one thing the DoE is responsible for local government, I'd like to see them exercise their duty and make sure that local government does its job within the legal framework laid out before introducing new legislation.

It is good that Minister Gormley has announced an investigation, and here in Galway it sems all the senior planners are taking early retirement, as are several environmental staff

Stroke Fahy should not have been elegible to run for office, that was allowed to go ahead.

Here also, quarries have tried to sieze peoples property, i.e. their turbary rights and foreshore rights.
Private individuals have had to go to the highcourt over this.

Having had dealings with the coco and NPWS and DoE in relation to these issues, I have found they pass the ball around so much, none of them want to do anything - so I am frustrated.

A quarry company digs into an NHA despite a court order, nothing is done.
A young local family with 2 kids cannot get plannig permission for a small, green, house and are forced to live in a mobile home.
Permission was denied as they live across the road from an NHA

A developer with grown up kids uilds a 10 bedroom house in an SHA and is gven planning on retention - i.e. retrospectivly.

So, I am tired of the Greens saying one thing and doing another, and it is they - despite all the promises made - who have let FF ride roughshod over the country.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The state of the majority of septic tanks in Ireland is absolutely shocking

I'll give it another day for this statement to be backed up with proof.

Given that the EPA Groundwater monitoring programme found 67% of wells and springs to be contaminated by faecal coliforms in 2007-2008, and that the EPA and the Groundwater Section of the Geological Survey of Ireland find septic tanks - well, on-site wastewater treatment systems (OSWTSs) - to be responsible for roughly half that contamination (see here), for example - the scale of the septic tank problem is obviously pretty large.

On the subject of the evil Minister, this is a Dáil debate from November last year, following the ECJ judgement against Ireland in the matter of septic tank licensing (DoE versus the EU Commission since about 2002):

John Gormley (Minister, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Dublin South East, Green Party)
The European Court of Justice recently ruled that Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 8 of the 1975 waste directive as regards domestic wastewaters disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual wastewater treatment systems. The renewed programme for Government includes a commitment to introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems. My Department which has established a task force to consider the matter will develop proposals to give effect to this commitment and respond in full to the court judgment. The Department’s initial assessment is that compliance with the ruling will require new legislation that will set standards for the performance of all individual wastewater treatment systems, provide for periodic inspection by a competent person, establish penalties for non-compliance and provide for corrective measures where a system is found to be defective. My Department is required to submit to the European Commission by the end of December formal proposals on how it proposes to achieve compliance with the judgment and to set out a timeframe for compliance.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
I am supportive of anything we can do to improve the quality of groundwater which is in a very poor state in many parts of the country. I draw the Minister’s attention to an excellent report by the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It arises from a number of presentations made by interested parties. Deputy Ciarán Lynch and I participated in the process and are supportive of the outcome which is long overdue. Will the Minister indicate how long it will be before the scheme is rolled out?

John Gormley (Minister, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Dublin South East, Green Party)
The task force has approximately two months to produce a set of proposals. It will comprise officials from my Department, the local authorities and the EPA. We must then go through a legislative process. Due to the pressure on us, rightly, because of the severity of the problem, I hope the legislation will be passed within a year. It is absolutely essential. According to the CSO, there are approximately 418,000 septic tanks. I believe that is a conservative estimate because it does not take into account many of the commercial premises and so forth that rely on septic tanks. Many of the septic tanks in place should never have been approved, as the soil conditions were completely wrong. There was a degree of irresponsibility on the part of planners at local authority level. The numbers involved are incredible but we must take this problem in hand. We must have a situation where there is no threat to our groundwater from badly functioning septic tanks.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Deputy Hogan has referred to the work done by the joint committee on this issue. Both he and I were present for a visit to the committee by people involved in the septic tank industry who provided the Department with a report. One of the significant aspects of that report was the call for regulation. We had a bizarre situation where the industry was seeking regulation from the Government. How long has the report been on the Minister’s desk? How long has the industry been seeking regulation? When will it be granted?

John Gormley (Minister, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Dublin South East, Green Party)
There is nothing bizarre about the industry seeking regulation as it stands to benefit from such regulation. I have met industry representatives who have shown me the latest equipment, how it functions and how it can be installed quickly in an existing septic tank. There is much innovation in the industry, members of which are delighted that at long last there is a Minister interested in this subject because it has been a problem over successive Administrations. It did not just arise in the last two years or so but has been present for some time and people have failed to tackle it.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Tell everyone that.

John Gormley (Minister, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Dublin South East, Green Party)
It is a fact. Various Administrations have failed to tackle the problem, although we have known about it for some time. However, this Government will tackle it. There is a real commitment to doing so. I have given that commitment today and gave it previously in the renewed programme for Government. The report of the joint committee on the issue was good. However, it makes a few recommendations which will not be implemented, one of them being the provision of an incentive through a grant to upgrade tanks. Given the scale of the problem and the number of septic tanks involved, that is not possible.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
The Minister has said formal proposals must be submitted to the Commission by the end of the year. Will they be submitted to the Commission, following which legislation will be brought before the House and a gun put to our heads because the Minister will say it has already been agreed with the Commission? Will it be another case of the cart being put before the horse or will we have a direct input into it?
What efforts are being made to inform people how they can properly utilise and maintain a septic tank? Basic information is not being provided for the public on the ongoing usage and maintenance of a septic tank. What investment is taking place to develop the technology to install new systems such as seed bacteria or small reed beds that can solve many of these problems cost effectively?

John Gormley (Minister, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Dublin South East, Green Party)
I am glad the Deputy has referred to that innovation. I have spoken to people such as Éamon de Buitléar and others who believe we do not need hard engineering solutions but can use the reed bed technologies which work very effectively. It is something we will have to explore to a greater extent, particularly in small connurbations where they can be very effective.
To refer to the Deputy’s earlier point, I am not putting a gun to anybody’s head. We have been put under pressure, rightly so, by this court judgment. We must produce legislation. Deputies will have adequate time when the legislation is being debated in the House to make their feelings known and make proposals. That is the proper way to proceed. If the Deputy has ideas, I will be more than happy to discuss them with him if he believes it would be helpful.

Perhaps that explains some of the issues you're objecting to - septic tanks have to be licensed, because of an ECJ judgement against Ireland, and there's no money for any incentive grant because of the scale of the problem - if we take it that there's a problem with 67% of septic tanks (in line with the EPA figures for contamination), then an incentive grant of, say, €500, taken up by 281,000 septic tank owners would cost the state €140m. That's quite a bit of money in the current environment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

Given that the EPA Groundwater monitoring programme found 67% of wells and springs to be contaminated by faecal coliforms in 2007-2008, and that the EPA and the Groundwater Section of the Geological Survey of Ireland find septic tanks - well, on-site wastewater treatment systems (OSWTSs) - to be responsible for roughly half that contamination

None of that answers where that came from.

I'm actually surprised that you're supporting an unfounded claim since - as I said - if astrofool can support that claim, then there is no need for inspections; and if they can't, surely a moderator should be requesting people to back up unsubstantiated claims ?

Scofflaw wrote: »

an incentive grant of, say, €500, taken up by 281,000 septic tank owners would cost the state €140m. That's quite a bit of money in the current environment.

At least it would be money going to a useful purpose, rather than flushing it down the cesspit that is Anglo (pun intended).

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

None of that answers where that came from.

I'm actually surprised that you're supporting an unfounded claim since - as I said - if astrofool can support that claim, then there is no need for inspections; and if they can't, surely a moderator should be requesting people to back up unsubstantiated claims ?

The view that half the pollution found in the EPA's survey is derived from septic tanks is derived from the expert agencies in question - the EPA and the GSI. I did link to the Groundwater Newsletter in question, but perhaps I had better quote from it:

It is considered that OSWTSs and organic manure/slurry/soiled water generated in farmyards are roughly equally responsible overall for pollution of wells and springs by faecal bacteria in Ireland. This view is based on the following:

1. Groundwater pollution assessments done by the Geological Survey of Ireland staff over a 40 year period. Evidence was usually a combination of circumstantial (e.g. proximity of the polluted well to the OSWTS and nearby farmyards, taking account of the likely groundwater flow direction) and hydrochemical (e.g. K/Na ratio).
2. Well water quality surveys in south Sligo by Sligo RTC in the mid 1980s.
3. Research on septic tank systems by Sligo RTC in the early 1990s.
4. EPA-funded research undertaken by TCD on OSWTSs (refer to the article on page 4).

I can personally vouch for the fact that septic tank pollution has been an ongoing feature of Irish groundwater since the early Nineties - but it was hardly a new problem then. It just wasn't such a big problem because of slightly lower densities in many rural areas and slightly fewer people drinking the resulting contaminated water.

I'm not sure why you feel you need to reject all claims that septic tanks are a major source of water pollution in Ireland, but you're rejecting it in the face of fourty years' worth of expert evidence that it's the case. That, of course, invites the question "why has nothing been done about it?", and the answer is, as it is for nearly all these things, that doing something about them is highly unpopular unless you're offering to rebuild every septic tank in Ireland at public expense. Any other move leads to the usual round of whining about the insupportable burden of pointless regulation - except that it isn't pointless. Shite from some/many people's badly sealed septic tanks is getting into their own and other people's water. Something has to be done about it, and the government can't afford to rebuild or subsidise the rebuilding of everybody's septic tanks.

If you have a counter-claim that septic tanks aren't a major source of rural pollution, feel free to trot it out - but I'll expect at least the level of expert backup I've cited in support of my position, rather than just an "I don't believe it and I'm entitled to my beliefs".

I'm tempted to add to that that I'm quite happy enough not to subsidise people's septic tanks - we city dwellers do a lot of subsidising, and in return we get told to keep our noses out of country affairs on a regular basis. I don't mind keeping my nose out of the affairs of country people as long as their hand isn't in my wallet, but unfortunately their hand is in my wallet.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

an incentive grant of, say, €500, taken up by 281,000 septic tank owners would cost the state €140m. That's quite a bit of money in the current environment.

At least it would be money going to a useful purpose, rather than flushing it down the cesspit that is Anglo (pun intended).

True, but regrettably apparently irrelevant, as well as applicable to pretty much everything in Ireland right now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not sure why you feel you need to reject all claims that septic tanks are a major source of water pollution in Ireland

Sorry ?

Show me where I rejected that ?

Unlike the earlier poster, I do not make claims about which I don't know the facts.

What I objected to was an unsubstantiated claim that most septic tanks were polluting, and I pointed out that the "polluter pays" principle is not being applied to this area.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm tempted to add to that that I'm quite happy enough not to subsidise people's septic tanks - we city dwellers do a lot of subsidising, and in return we get told to keep our noses out of country affairs on a regular basis. I don't mind keeping my nose out of the affairs of country people as long as their hand isn't in my wallet, but unfortunately their hand is in my wallet.

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

I did not ask you to subsidise it, nor do I expect you to.

I suggested that the cost of the inspection scheme be recouped from the fines. Given that it's such a huge problem, that should be very successful and should even make a profit.

It's also an ironic stance, considering I'm not the one who supports a party that forces us all to subsidise cesspits.

And before you go on about subsidising, remind me again who had to pay to buy out the M50 and whose taxes paid for the Luas and DART and inner-city redevelopment tax breaks ?

EDIT : And even more than I thought : http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0718/transport.html

expectationlost

the greens don't get the animosity they deserve

im sick of fine gael politicians, (and to lesser extent labour cos theyre not leaders of op) are constantly making lame vegetable and animals quips, saying the greens swapped nama for the stag hunt ban, they may have done deals on various issues in the programme for government, but many fg/td and ff politiciain have been saying, "the greens have swapping nama for deers and dogs",they seriously said this, be f'ing serious for god sake, you're talking about national politicians in government, they approved nama because thats what governments do. The green party isn't a joke, its part of your government, theyre real life humans beings with some intelligence the stag hunt ban is not more important then nama to them, grow up and don't even suggest it, they've dumped the hippies, look at their economic policies, that affect everyone. Theyre the pdgreens now, i believe pushing ff to the right, not the left, they're going to put double taxes on environmental services to create markets to be privatized, continue cap and trade scams, carbon taxes etc, green wash and green consumerism. maybe you don't focus on those issues because you agree with those policies?

IrishTonyO

expectationlost wrote: »

the greens don't get the animosity they deserve

im sick of fine gael politicians, (and to lesser extent labour cos theyre not leaders of op) are constantly making lame vegetable and animals quips, saying the greens swapped nama for the stag hunt ban, they may have done deals on various issues in the programme for government, but many fg/td and ff politiciain have been saying, "the greens have swapping nama for deers and dogs",they seriously said this, be f'ing serious for god sake, you're talking about national politicians in government, they approved nama because that what governments do, the green party isnt a joke, its part of your government, theyre real life humans beings with some intelligence the stag hunt ban is not more important then nama to them, grow up and don't even suggest it, look at their economic policies, that affect everyone, theyre the pdgreens now, i believe pushing ff to the right, not the left, they're going to put double taxes on environmental services to create markets to be privatized, continue cap and trade scams, carbon taxes etc, green wash and green consumerism. maybe you don't focus on those issues because you agree with those policies?

quite hard to understand when you type it all as one sentence

astrofool

Liam Byrne wrote: »

None of that answers where that came from.

I'm actually surprised that you're supporting an unfounded claim since - as I said - if astrofool can support that claim, then there is no need for inspections; and if they can't, surely a moderator should be requesting people to back up unsubstantiated claims ?

Never got back to this.

I have family who work in this area (treatment of septic tanks), claim is from first hand knowledge of working in the area.

Something that inspections will establish pretty quickly.

btw, I disagree with the Greens implementation of most policies, apart from this one

dermothickey

Word on the street is the Greens have no jobs for anyone except the taxman.

Arnold Layne

dermothickey wrote: »

Word on the street is the Greens have no jobs for anyone except the taxman.

and Niall O'Brolchain and definitely no jobs at the propoed Poolbeg Incinerator

dermothickey

They could always offer the 450,000 people unemployed a job cleaning up the rivers and canals. Take everyone eligible for work out there in to the open and have em cleaning the whole country so we can have our green and pleasant land.

Back to the week on week off schemes. Breast fed shovels for the boys, but no the jobs they seemed to have created are people counting bats and frogs. Jobs for the boys huh

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Sorry ?

Show me where I rejected that ?

Unlike the earlier poster, I do not make claims about which I don't know the facts.

Sorry - it appeared to me that that's what you were doing. I had linked to the substantiating document already. I retract that statement, obviously.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What I objected to was an unsubstantiated claim that most septic tanks were polluting, and I pointed out that the "polluter pays" principle is not being applied to this area.

It's almost impossible to apply "polluter pays" here without doing a site survey on every septic tank. Groundwater surveys are expensive and time-consuming, and open to challenge, because there is always an element of uncertainty about stating that the pollution found is coming from a specific source (it's a bit like our corruption legislation in that respect - you have to show that the pollution you actually found is from the specific source). All of that, multiplied by 420,000 septic tanks, adds up to a huge bill.

If it's more cost-effective to treat every owner as a polluter, then that is, unfortunately, the right thing for the government to do - I appreciate what you're saying, that it treats you like a polluter when you're not, but "polluter pays" can only work when the polluter can be identified at a reasonable cost.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

I did not ask you to subsidise it, nor do I expect you to.

I suggested that the cost of the inspection scheme be recouped from the fines. Given that it's such a huge problem, that should be very successful and should even make a profit.

Not without draconic fines, really. Groundwater work in Irish geology is very expensive, and the cost of legal challenges to rulings could be high.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's also an ironic stance, considering I'm not the one who supports a party that forces us all to subsidise cesspits.

And before you go on about subsidising, remind me again who had to pay to buy out the M50 and whose taxes paid for the Luas and DART and inner-city redevelopment tax breaks ?

EDIT : And even more than I thought : http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0718/transport.html

I don't know - are you suggesting that the rest of country subsidised works in Dublin? I'd be interested in seeing the figures there.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's almost impossible to apply "polluter pays" here without doing a site survey on every septic tank. Groundwater surveys are expensive and time-consuming, and open to challenge, because there is always an element of uncertainty about stating that the pollution found is coming from a specific source (it's a bit like our corruption legislation in that respect - you have to show that the pollution you actually found is from the specific source). All of that, multiplied by 420,000 septic tanks, adds up to a huge bill.

If "most" septic tanks are polluting then 350,000 x €5,000 fine > € 1.5 billion

Scofflaw wrote: »

If it's more cost-effective to treat every owner as a polluter, then that is, unfortunately, the right thing for the government to do - I appreciate what you're saying, that it treats you like a polluter when you're not, but "polluter pays" can only work when the polluter can be identified at a reasonable cost.

Bull. It would be far more cost-effective to treat every driver as a speeder; should we just fire a letter out to every licence-holder and not bother with speed cameras, radar guns, etc ?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not without draconic fines, really.

So ? Are you suddenly against draconian fines for those irresponsibly and recklessly ruining the world ?

That's what "polluter pays" means; get those who pollute to cover the costs of their pollution and the associated overheads.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't know - are you suggesting that the rest of country subsidised works in Dublin? I'd be interested in seeing the figures there.

I don't know. As I said, I don't deal in non-facts. But you didn't have figures about "subsidising those living in the countryside", so a contra-argument was perfectly valid.

dynamick

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If "most" septic tanks are polluting then 350,000 x €5,000 fine > € 1.5 billion

Septic tank inspection, if it is charged similarly to Scotland will be around €100, so the inspections will raise €40m but will also cost the state a lot to carry out.

I can't see people being fined unless they repeatedly refuse to carry out the prescribed remedies after failing a septic tank inspection. Same as the NCT.

So the upshot will be that people whose septic tanks are poorly maintained or leaking will have to pay to fix them or face a fine. In other words, people who are polluting the water table with faecal coliforms will have to pay.

That sounds like the polluter pays to me.

Liam Byrne

dynamick wrote: »

Septic tank inspection, if it is charged similarly to Scotland will be around €100, so the inspections will raise €40m but will also cost the state a lot to carry out.

This is the part I am objecting to, because it is not "polluter pays".

dynamick wrote: »

So the upshot will be that people whose septic tanks are poorly maintained or leaking will have to pay to fix them or face a fine. In other words, people who are polluting the water table with faecal coliforms will have to pay.

That sounds like the polluter pays to me.

Are you missing my point ? The €100 charge applies to EVERYONE, including non-polluters.

It is your 2nd point that I agree completely with, as it would be "polluter pays"; the problem is that they're charging EVERYONE (or rather, everyone who has already installed and maintains their own septic tank, at their own expense).

Add a multiple of that €100 charge to the fines, based on the predicted ratio of polluting tanks (e.g. a €2,000 increase if they suspect that 1-in-20 are polluting), and leave non-polluters alone.

Just as Scofflaw doesn't want to subsidise non-Dublin dwellers, I don't want to subsidise the polluters.

Anyways, this is just ONE are where the Greens are objectionable, so I don't want to hog the whole thread.

bijapos

Has a definite decision been made as to whether they are going to charge for the inspection?

dynamick

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is the part I am objecting to, because it is not "polluter pays".

I would have though that it's normal that compliance costs are carried by the person being inspected. I pay for my own NCT even if I pass. Do you think someone else should pay for my NCT?

If you decide to poo in a box in your front garden I don't see why I should pay to check it for leaks.

By the same token, I wouldn't want you paying for my sewage treatment, which you probably do.

bijapos wrote: »

Has a definite decision been made as to whether they are going to charge for the inspection?

I don't think that the public consultation has even started yet. So you should have a chance to make your view known. Check http://www.environ.ie

Liam Byrne

dynamick wrote: »

I would have though that it's normal that compliance costs are carried by the person being inspected. I pay for my own NCT even if I pass. Do you think someone else should pay for my NCT?

If you decide to poo in a box in your front garden I don't see why I should pay to check it for leaks.

I didn't suggest that you do. I said that the scheme should be financed from the fines : "polluter pays".

The NCT also checks for safety, so it's not completely related to the "polluter pays" principle.....mind you (just as an aside) I can see the NCT being more objectionable in the future as the country will have less money to maintain the roads.

dynamick wrote: »

By the same token, I wouldn't want you paying for my sewage treatment, which you probably do.

Thanks for the reminder that I'll be paying on the double! :P

ei.sdraob

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are you missing my point ? The €100 charge applies to EVERYONE, including non-polluters.

You have a very good point there Liam

As i said earlier i already spend alot and will be spending more annually to mantain a system that has nearly drinkable :P water coming out the other side

Slapping more tax on top of this will be a punishment for being responsible, and amounts to nothing more than another tax considering i am not polluting

sigh greens make me sick for their arseways approach to the environment

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If "most" septic tanks are polluting then 350,000 x €5,000 fine > € 1.5 billion

As dynamick says, I can't see people being fined for anything less than repeated breaches.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Bull. It would be far more cost-effective to treat every driver as a speeder; should we just fire a letter out to every licence-holder and not bother with speed cameras, radar guns, etc ?

By all accounts the system of fines for speeding more than covers its costs.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So ? Are you suddenly against draconian fines for those irresponsibly and recklessly ruining the world ?

When have I ever been for it, exactly?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's what "polluter pays" means; get those who pollute to cover the costs of their pollution and the associated overheads.

Like I said, I doubt it's feasible in this case. The analogy of speeding is poorly chosen - speeding is easy to determine, pollution by a particular septic tank is hard.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't know. As I said, I don't deal in non-facts. But you didn't have figures about "subsidising those living in the countryside", so a contra-argument was perfectly valid.

Touché - the second statement at least.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dynamick

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/regincome.pdf

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I didn't suggest that you do. I said that the scheme should be financed from the fines : "polluter pays".

The NCT also checks for safety, so it's not completely related to the "polluter pays" principle.....mind you (just as an aside) I can see the NCT being more objectionable in the future as the country will have less money to maintain the roads.

The issue here is also safety, though - the concern with septic tanks is contamination of other people's water supplies. This isn't about birds and bees, it's about the fact that Ireland has E.coli levels in water nearly 30 times that of England and Wales.

Fines are not going to cover the cost of inspections here unless they are so draconian that they become really worth fighting in court, and the more draconian the fines, the more reluctantly they will be applied - which means that the fines need to be increased to yet more draconian levels, etc.

Dog, dog licence - septic tank, septic tank licence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Dog, dog licence - septic tank, septic tank licence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

your true colors are shinning thru' now :rolleyes:
it has nothing to do with environment but everything to do taxing people more and more

the above perfectly illiterates how bluntly indiscriminate and silly the Greens tax tax tax approach is

you keep ignoring that new waste treatments systems are very clean
why should tax be paid on these (on top of maintenance and checks)?

wheres your "polluter pays" principle gone??

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

pollution by a particular septic tank is hard.

Strawmanning. The new system is going to have to determine who to fine, so this point is completely irrelevant.

All I have suggested is that those fines be slightly higher so that the "polluter pays" principle that the Greens normally claim remains intact.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ireland has E.coli levels in water nearly 30 times that of England and Wales.

And, of course, the faecal matter from septic tanks and those pesky animals that crap in fields can't get into the water supply, now can it.....because it's sealed and doesn't leak, right ?

ei.sdraob

Would a system like below not solve the problem?

* 1st time FREE check and provide feedback and time-frame to house owner
* if the 1st check is negative then a 2nd FREE check X months time-interval later
* if the feedback has not being dealt with then a fine is imposed

this process should pay for itself via the fines, and not contribute any money to the exchequer to be spend on banks or public sector :rolleyes: remember the aim is to help the environment not give the govt more money to waste ...

over time less and less fines be imposed and less inspections can be made

hell it will probably create a raft of green and ****ty :P jobs


this way the environment wins, people win, polluter pays and jobs are created

edit: does anyone know how many septic tanks/treatment systems are in the country? so can work out some numbers

Liam Byrne

That's almost precisely what I was proposing, ei.sdraob......

Unfortunately, while it conforms perfectly with the "polluter pays" principle, it's not "tax the bo**ox out of anyone who had the gall not to live in a city".

dynamick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

edit: does anyone know how many septic tanks/treatment systems are in the country? so can work out some numbers

440,000 from census 2006

I have a survey at home showing maintenance of septic tanks in Ireland. As far as I remember, a good proportion of people service their septic tanks once or twice after they buy them but after a few years, hardly any bother. I'll have a look for it in the next few days.

ei.sdraob

dynamick wrote: »

440,000 from census 2006

I have a survey at home showing maintenance of septic tanks in Ireland. As far as I remember, a good proportion of people service their septic tanks once or twice after they buy them but after a few years, hardly any bother. I'll have a look for it in the next few days.

thanks, lets do some numbers

440,000 first time inspections + 220,000 repeat inspections = 660,000 inspections a year
assuming one hour per inspection, its not exactly high skilled job and there could be travel times involved going house to house in countryside, and paying lets say 9eur/hour, once again its a ****ty enough repetitive job that wouldn't require much skill

thats 660,000 * 9 = 5.94 million

now lets quadruple this since there would be other overheads (petrol , vans, admin costs etc)
thats 23.76 million euro operating cost a year, but lets roundup to 30 million this being Ireland and the workforce needing teabreaks and who knows there could be a union involved

at a 1000 euro fine you would need to fine 30,000 owners to break even



now you could either setup a quango to do this (my heart bleeds) lets call it An Board Poo,
or offer startup capital to 3-4 or more companies to compete and have a small regulating body and earn a profit, tho their market would shrink over time


eitherway this could:
* help the environment by tanks being checked regularly and forcing the owners to upgrade/cleanup
* ~660,000 to ~1,000,000 man hours a year would create ~625 full time jobs (1,000,000 / 1600) which could be perfect for unskilled since not much training would be involved

Scofflaw

dynamick wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/releasespublications/documents/economy/current/regincome.pdf

In pictorial terms:



And that's just "social transfers" on the inbound leg. Wicklow, Dublin, Kildare and Meath each pay an average of €1624, €2022, €2125 and €2321 per capita annually into the social transfer system. Kilkenny, Cork, Laois, and Clare each manage a little input - €103, €210, €283 and €297 respectively - but it's a tenth of what Dublin people pay on average to support the rest of the country. Add into that the EU transfers, which nearly all go out in the form of VAT (and therefore mostly come from the four 'productive' counties again) and come back in in the form of CAP - the beneficiaries register would allow me to add those into the system if I had time. And since the balance of taxation and social transfers in most counties is already negative, there's no chance they're paying for their infrastructural projects.

Liam Byrne wrote:

That's almost precisely what I was proposing, ei.sdraob......

Unfortunately, while it conforms perfectly with the "polluter pays" principle, it's not "tax the bo**ox out of anyone who had the gall not to live in a city".

See the map above - actually, the principle is "tax the bo**ox out of people who live near Dublin to pay for everyone else".

regards,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

at a 1000 euro fine you would need to fine 30,000 owners to break even

Again, my thoughts exactly, however you're off by a possible factor of 5!!!

Fines of up to €5,000 or three months' imprisonment can currently be imposed for not ensuring the wastewater is properly treated. Penalties are likely to be of a similar order under the new system.

Source : http://www.independent.ie/national-news/440000-must-buy-septic-tank-licence--gormley-1929083.html

So absolutely no need whatsoever to charge non-polluting members of society, and the threat of a possible fine or that magnitude would cause people to check and maintain theirs more often, reducing pollution, which is (supposedly) the whole point.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

See the map above - actually, the principle is "tax the bo**ox out of people who live near Dublin to pay for everyone else".

Does that map factor in the fact that all state vehicles (Garda cars, buses, post office vans, ESB, ministerial cars, etc, etc) are "D" regs, and therefore are taxed via (and providing income to) Dublin local authorities despite being used in other counties and therefore not providing much-needed income to those local authorities, thereby requiring redress from central government ?

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

See the map above - actually, the principle is "tax the bo**ox out of people who live near Dublin to pay for everyone else".

regards,
Scofflaw

I worked in Dublin and here in west, don't forget that people move about for work

taxation could be moved more towards the local county level as well
sort of like the states in the US have more local state taxation than federal

anyways thats a whole other subject

but it seems your whole argument for the septic tax revolves around

"Dublin pays for the rest of the country so we need to impose a Poo tax on those boggers" :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Again, my thoughts exactly, however you're off by a possible factor of 5!!!



Source : http://www.independent.ie/national-news/440000-must-buy-septic-tank-licence--gormley-1929083.html

So absolutely no need whatsoever to charge non-polluting members of society, and the threat of a possible fine or that magnitude would cause people to check and maintain theirs more often, reducing pollution, which is (supposedly) the whole point.

I know about the 5000 figure
I should have explained my rationale

the 1000 eur fine would be enough of an incentive (without crippling the family in short term) to invest in a ~4000-5000 eur treatment plant (total cost to family will be 5000 in end but they get a treatment plant out of it)

the fine of course could be doubled year on year to make a point


either way its a quite reasonable (but not too harsh) proposal; that targets the polluters, creates jobs and helps the environment

Jebus i am more Green than the Greens here on boards who seem to have thrown the polluter pays principle of theirs out the window causing so much "anonymity" (see thread title)

and instead have exposed their true agenda of making the country people pay because the center of commerce and the country is in Dublin (for a great variety of reasons going a long way back into history), and has nothing to do with helping the environment of course

ei.sdraob

could have a twist on above

and have a 5000 euro fine

but 4000 of this would be refunded when and if a proper treatment system is in place



@Scofflaw you would like this



transfer of money occurs on the EU level too, I don't see many people in Ireland complaining about receiving more money from EU than giving back, just hope they dont get ideas in Brussels about a Poo Tax (with all the cows we have that be something) or Methane tax or whatever

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

could have a twist on above

and have a 5000 euro fine

but 4000 of this would be refunded when and if a proper treatment system is in place

@Scofflaw you would like this

transfer of money occurs on the EU level too, I don't see many people in Ireland complaining about receiving more money from EU than giving back, just hope they dont get ideas in Brussels about a Poo Tax (with all the cows we have that be something) or Methane tax or whatever

What we transfer to the EU is largely VAT, generated by businesses, and mostly based in the circum-Dublin urban areas. What we get back from the EU is largely in the form of CAP, which doesn't go back to those areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Uriel.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not a case of "pushing through the turf ban", though - it's a case of finally implementing something that should have been implemented 11 years ago. No pushing about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

+1

The Green Party get a very raw deal over the turf cutting issue. An issue that has nothing to do with Green Politics or environmental issue per sé, in the primary. Very few people comprehend that fact or the consequences of not pushing the ban.

Scofflaw

Uriel. wrote: »

+1

The Green Party get a very raw deal over the turf cutting issue. An issue that has nothing to do with Green Politics or environmental issue per sé, in the primary. Very few people comprehend that fact or the consequences of not pushing the ban.

I think the Green Party get a lot of the animosity directed at environmental regulation full stop - they "stand for" the "environmental movement" and "environmentalism" in general in the eyes of those objecting to a given piece of environmental legislation, even though protection of the environment is very widely supported amongst the public and political parties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Uriel.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think the Green Party get a lot of the animosity directed at environmental regulation full stop - they "stand for" the "environmental movement" and "environmentalism" in general in the eyes of those objecting to a given piece of environmental legislation, even though protection of the environment is very widely supported amongst the public and political parties.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The turf cutting issue isn't a true Environmental issue though. Certainly not in the sense of sustainable development or water pollution/quality. It's a heritage issue really - preservation of an endangered national/european (global) habitat.

I know it can be very difficult for people to separate those two things though.

Traumadoc

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Does that map factor in the fact that all state vehicles (Garda cars, buses, post office vans, ESB, ministerial cars, etc, etc) are "D" regs, and therefore are taxed via (and providing income to) Dublin local authorities despite being used in other counties and therefore not providing much-needed income to those local authorities, thereby requiring redress from central government ?

I do not think government vehicles pay tax.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I worked in Dublin and here in west, don't forget that people move about for work

Not really of any relevance!

ei.sdraob wrote: »

taxation could be moved more towards the local county level as well
sort of like the states in the US have more local state taxation than federal

anyways thats a whole other subject

but it seems your whole argument for the septic tax revolves around

"Dublin pays for the rest of the country so we need to impose a Poo tax on those boggers" :rolleyes:

Not at all - the argument for paying for a septic tank licence is that the licensing system needs to be paid for, and the licensing system is legally required. The DoE have known they needed to do it since about 2002, but have chosen to fight a legal battle instead - which has now ended with the DoE on the losing end. It hasn't very much to do with the Greens at all.

The point about the way Dublin and its hinterland pays for the rest of the country is simply as a counterpoint to the endless litany of how Dublin punishes the rest of the country, interferes with the rest of the country, etc etc, which is frankly both tedious and false. We in Dublin are taxed to allow people to live in the countryside at a reasonably comparable level of services to the cities - but providing services to dispersed rural dwellers, particularly to those in one-off housing, costs more money per capita than to city dwellers.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

either way its a quite reasonable (but not too harsh) proposal; that targets the polluters, creates jobs and helps the environment

Jebus i am more Green than the Greens here on boards who seem to have thrown the polluter pays principle of theirs out the window causing so much "anonymity" (see thread title)

It's a proposal that misses the point - there's a licensing system to be paid for. Everyone with a septic tank will need a licence, therefore it's reasonable for everyone to pay the licence fee. Inspections and fines are a separate issue.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and instead have exposed their true agenda of making the country people pay because the center of commerce and the country is in Dublin (for a great variety of reasons going a long way back into history), and has nothing to do with helping the environment of course

And that bit is, frankly, silly. Whether Dublin being the centre of commerce is a historical development or not, I pay an extra €2,000 annually in taxes that gets transferred to the country - except that, of course, there's plenty of Dublin that doesn't pay net tax, so actually it's rather more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a proposal that misses the point - there's a licensing system to be paid for. Everyone with a septic tank will need a licence, therefore it's reasonable for everyone to pay the licence fee. Inspections and fines are a separate issue.

so once again it has nothing to do with protecting the environment but everything to do with keeping bureaucrats employed and taxing more for the sake of it :rolleyes:

i outlined a way in which all septic tanks can be checked for 30 million a year or less helping the environment and solving the issue, thats spare change to the Greens who signed off on NAMA

no thats too bloody practical since the real agenda of the Greens has been exposed yet again

btw there is already a licence fee to be paid to local councils when new treatment systems are added

Scofflaw wrote: »

And that bit is, frankly, silly. Whether Dublin being the centre of commerce is a historical development or not, I pay an extra €2,000 annually in taxes that gets transferred to the country - except that, of course, there's plenty of Dublin that doesn't pay net tax, so actually it's rather more.

I can bet that me and my company pay alot more tax than you several times over, so dont get me started :rolleyes:

you seem to have a problem with how tax is redistributed, and your answer is more tax
do i need to point out the obvious flaw in your outlook on taxation?



btw this whole septic tank ****e from the greens is just that, ****e, the real agenda for the Greens once again is to kill of the countryside and turn it into and wasteland:
* In 2008 there were 6.7 million cattle, 5.1 million sheep, and 1.5 million pigs in the Republic of Ireland which are of course kept in the countryside
* animals produce 130 times more waste than humans
* animal waste is far more polluting than human
* while human waste goes thru septic tanks, that ****e smell you get being in the countryside for last month or so is **** being spread on fields (to feed city dwellers as well of course)

to summarize animal waste is far far more polluting than human waste

once again the Greens dont really care about the environment

their real agenda is a perverse tax tax tax D4 imposed hippy fluff

Scofflaw wrote: »

We in Dublin are taxed to allow people to live in the countryside at a reasonably comparable level of services to the cities - but providing services to dispersed rural dwellers, particularly to those in one-off housing, costs more money per capita than to city dwellers.

what alot of fluff (i seriously expected better of you), maybe you should get out of Dublin more, people in the countryside pay quite a bit for everything like water (if there happens to be a scheme), ESB extra installation and standing charges, broadband? what broadband, motor taxes which are not really spend on roads

hey how about all of Dublin pays the countryside billions in carbon credits since the countryside provides Dublin with a huge carbon sink of trees, grass and bogs

View

What a lot of fuss over something small.

Should all car owners start protesting because they have to pay to have the NCT done on their cars? Is it "anti-motorist" that they have to pay for this instead of being able to get non-car owners to subsidise the cost of the NCT system?

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so once again it has nothing to do with protecting the environment but everything to do with keeping bureaucrats employed and taxing more for the sake of it :rolleyes:

i outlined a way in which all septic tanks can be checked for 30 million a year or less helping the environment and solving the issue, thats spare change to the Greens who signed off on NAMA

no thats too bloody practical since the real agenda of the Greens has been exposed yet again

I suggest you write to the DoE, since the details of the scheme to be run are not yet settled, and they're running a consultation. Otherwise, you can complain about the scheme that comes in all you like, but it's just wind - you have an idea, share it! Who knows, maybe your idea is better than anything they've come up with in the Department?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

btw there is already a licence fee to be paid to local councils when new treatment systems are added

Let's go over it again. Ireland lost an ECJ judgement, which requires us to license septic tanks - something the government did not previously have any plans to do (indeed, they had plans not to do it).

So this isn't anybody's "agenda" at all.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I can bet that me and my company pay alot more tax than you several times over, so dont get me started :rolleyes:

you seem to have a problem with how tax is redistributed, and your answer is more tax
do i need to point out the obvious flaw in your outlook on taxation?

My answer is not "more taxation", and I don't have a problem with the redistribution of taxation - I have a problem with the people benefiting from that redistribution claiming that they're the ones suffering. If you and your company are paying more tax than me, I congratulate you, but it doesn't change the fact that I personally am paying a very heavy subsidy to rural Ireland, and what I get in return is to be told that I'm some kind of lentil-eating tree-hugger with no right to an opinion.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

btw this whole septic tank ****e from the greens is just that, ****e, the real agenda for the Greens once again is to kill of the countryside and turn it into and wasteland:
* In 2008 there were 6.7 million cattle, 5.1 million sheep, and 1.5 million pigs in the Republic of Ireland which are of course kept in the countryside
* animals produce 130 times more waste than humans
* animal waste is far more polluting than human
* while human waste goes thru septic tanks, that ****e smell you get being in the countryside for last month or so is **** being spread on fields (to feed city dwellers as well of course)

to summarize animal waste is far far more polluting than human waste

No, that's not the case - I've already cited the two expert bodies concerned, whose view is that water pollution in the Irish countryside is equally caused by farm waste and human waste.

Please don't make up "facts" to suit yourself.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

once again the Greens dont really care about the environment

their real agenda is a perverse tax tax tax D4 imposed hippy fluff

I'll say it again, because you don't seem to have got this very basic point - we've been required to license septic tanks. It isn't anybody in the current government's preference to do it, it's the result of losing a court case. Saying, therefore, that it "exposes the Green agenda" is nothing but an indication of the way you feel about the Greens, because this has nothing to do with the Greens except that a Green TD happens to be the current Minister.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what alot of fluff (i seriously expected better of you), maybe you should get out of Dublin more, people in the countryside pay quite a bit for everything like water (if there happens to be a scheme), ESB extra installation and standing charges, broadband? what broadband, motor taxes which are not really spend on roads

Yes, that's right - it costs more to provide those services in the country. More than the country can provide in value-added, basically, which is why those services have to be subsidised from Dublin.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hey how about all of Dublin pays the countryside billions in carbon credits since the countryside provides Dublin with a huge carbon sink of trees, grass and bogs

That's perfectly reasonable (and will be the partly the case once CAP is reformed), as long as you look after them properly - but I'm prepared to bet that the money will be taken, while the necessary requirements will be complained about.

You've gone on a long diatribe about the "Green agenda" here (as elsewhere), which has been both poorly thought out and factually inaccurate - in some places involving "facts" of your own devising. What is very obvious from it is that you don't like the Greens - you see them as anti-rural D4 hippies - and you don't care to find out whether you're pinning the right "crimes" on them or not. Like several other posts on this thread, it fails to explain why the Greens attract animosity, and is instead just an example of it.

not impressed,
Scofflaw

?Cee?view

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's go over it again. Ireland lost an ECJ judgement, which requires us to license septic tanks - something the government did not previously have any plans to do (indeed, they had plans not to do it).

So this isn't anybody's "agenda" at all.

10 October 2009 - Programme for Government is released. At page 24 it states:

• We will introduce a scheme for the licensing and inspection of septic tanks and wastewater treatment systems.

29 October 2009 - the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland had broken EU law for failing to enact legislation to deal with domestic wastewater from septic tanks and other treatment systems.