Are the ESRI for real!

N

ninsaga

Registered User
Messages
954
....with their recommendation in introduce a carbon tax for fossil fuels. Are they on a different planet or what? Was listening to he news on the radio this morning & had to double check that this wasn't an April 1st prank.

Consumers are already being impacted by substantial increases in petrol costs over the last 12months....and their may be more to follow. A proposal such as this is totally ludicrous.
 
it will discourage the use of fosil fuels, yeah right. if there was an available substitute for petrol etc then i could understand this but this is just taxing for the sake of it.
 
Oil and other fossil fuels are going to run out. That's it, end of story.
When? I don't know. By some of the environmentalist predictions we should have run out by now. Others predict the end of industrial civilization by 2025

"The newest study indicates that the 'cliff event' will occur about 5 years earlier than 2012 due an epidemic of 'rolling blackouts' that have already begun in the US. This 'electrical epidemic' spreads nationwide, then worldwide, and by ca. 2007 most of the blackouts are permanent. The 'modern way of life' is history by ca. 2025."
[broken link removed]

I don't have any qualifications to make me agree or disagree with this guy, but my gut says no.

One of the reasons we haven't run out so far dis that for the moment we're finding as much oil as we're using, and the higher cost of oil makes it economical to tap oil fields that couldn't be tapped in the past.

Of course that only works if the additional money goes to the Oil companies to make it economical. If governments get's the money it does nothing for opening up new Oil Fields.

If it were a simple case that charging the customer more would reduce the consumption of oil then consumption wouldn't keep rising along with price.
How many among us can honestly say that the rising price of oil has a long term effect on our behaviour. When petrol hits 1.30 you MIGHT decide not to take that trip down the country. But when it stay's at 1.30 and becomes the norm, you settle back into your old ways and drive just as much or more.

Slowing consumption (if that is even possible) might buy us a little time.
In all probability a Fossil Fuel tax in a country like Ireland MIGHT marginally decrease Ireland's consumption and make research into alternative energy more cost promising.

Ultimately as the poster above mentions the change will come when there's something to change to. People in the main will continue to behave as they always have. Getting them to row back on fossil fuel won't happen by taxing fossil fuel, it'll happen by giving them something cheaper to turn to so they can still go for those trips down the country when they like.

I'd agree with a Fossil Fuel tax if and ONLY if 100% (or more if possible) of the revenue raised went to people trying to develop alternative technologies.

A bigger problem with Fossil Fuels is the number of products that use them as raw materials. We might find alternative ways of making things move, but you can't use Solar Power or Wind Power to make the following items:

Products Made from Fossil Fuels
[broken link removed]

We need more than an alternative to Fossil FUEL's we also need some sort of synthetic material that exhibits the same physical characteristics, so that we can keep making these products. Or we need renewable alternatives to these products.

Will the fossil fuel tax be extended to all of the above products?
How much time would we buy for Ireland or the world if Ireland introduced a tax?
Would Irish people end up getting the hell taxed out of them while China gobbles up as much and more fossil fuel as we save?
Would the Irish government do something useful with the tax, or would they argue that the tax in itself is useful?
Would any of this make a difference to peoples behavior in a world that doesn't have alternatives?
Don't we already have a very high tax on fuel? Why on earth are we even discussing the possibility of the government INTRODUCING a fuel tax?
Are our current Oil issues Man Made (Wars, Increased Consumption not matched by production) Weather Related(Hurricanes), or is it a sign of a move to the end game for fossil fuels?

It's a very interesting subject. We're all going to be talking a lot more about Oil in the next few years.

-Rd
 
Added to the above ....a more prudent thing to do would be to provide tax incentives to those who build eco-friendly properties...there are no benefits to the consumers now to encourage them to do it.....that'll be one for my local TD when he comes looking for a vote!
 
I can forsee legal challanges to this tax being introduced. I know someone in one of the Dublin areas successfully challanged the waste charges because there was no viable alternative available ... ie no encouragement to recycle etc. As far as I know the esb is still using fossil fuels ... so does this mean our esb bills will go up too?
I'm off to plant some flax ...
 
...."so does this mean our esb bills will go up too?" ......

...which all leads back to the original question.... are these guys for real or what......
 
When I heard this I was reminded of Moore McDowell's contribution to a radio debate about the cost of the Westlink. His perspective was that the toll should be increased to reduce demand and improve traffic flow.

There is thinking outside of the box and there is this - so far outside of the box that they're in a different time zone ;) ?
 
Moore McDowell also had some interesting views on the the smoking ban, he reckoned the economic cost to the hospitality industry as a result of the ban far outweighed the cost to the public health system in terms of treating people with tobacco related illnesses!
 
Carpenter said:
Moore McDowell also had some interesting views on the the smoking ban, he reckoned the economic cost to the hospitality industry as a result of the ban far outweighed the cost to the public health system in terms of treating people with tobacco related illnesses!
Click to expand...
I would agree with him.
 
McDowell was also spot on in relation to the M50 tolls. If you make something cheaper, more people buy it. If you make it dearer, less people buy it. Less people on the M50 means less congestion. A lot of people wouldn't mind paying an extra 50 cent per journey if it would eliminate delays.
 
ubiquitous said:
McDowell was also spot on in relation to the M50 tolls. If you make something cheaper, more people buy it. If you make it dearer, less people buy it. Less people on the M50 means less congestion. A lot of people wouldn't mind paying an extra 50 cent per journey if it would eliminate delays.
Click to expand...

for jaysus sake :rolleyes:

this reminds me of the Iarainn Rod Eireann guy saying they could ease the problem of overcrowding on trains by burning off punters through even higher charges.

Why dont we wont abolish state health subsidies and put a floor of €2,000 cash deposit for hospital admissions, that would fairly wipe out the queues wouldnt it?? Of course Moore might have the tot up the cost of removing the corpses from the slums and the measures to prevent cholera outbreaks.

How about somebody trying to make it work better e.g. electronic tolls, more train carraiges, more efficient health service, rather than falling back on public misery to "cure" the problem.
 
There is already a structure of charges in most hospitals for A&E admissions. They are designed specifically to discourage people from using A&E as a substitute for GP consultations. However they have zero effect in discouraging A&E overuse by the large proportion of the population who are medical card holders. It is widely acknowedged that were admission charges levied on medical card holders for each A&E admission, that this would cut A&E overcrowding.
 
ubiquitous said:
There is already a structure of charges in most hospitals for A&E admissions. They are designed specifically to discourage people from using A&E as a substitute for GP consultations. However they have zero effect in discouraging A&E overuse by the large proportion of the population who are medical card holders. It is widely acknowedged that were admission charges levied on medical card holders for each A&E admission, that this would cut A&E overcrowding.
Click to expand...

But my point is that the logical conclusion to such "solutions" is to make the service unattainable to those other than the very wealthy who, lets face it, are the profitable "customers" everyone wants. But, as a society, is that the best we can do????
 
Except that you don't necessarily have to bring everything to its logical conclusion. At the moment it is a crazy situation (and not very efficent either) where medical-card holders clog A&E units when many of them would be just as well off going to their doctors, where they will get an equivalent service with no queueing. If a system can be devised to encourage enough of them to opt for GP services, this will improve the A&E's efficiency and quality of service for all. Everybody wins.
 
where medical-card holders clog A&E units when many of them would be just as well off going to their doctors, where they will get an equivalent service with no queueing. If a system can be devised to encourage enough of them to opt for GP services, this will improve the A&E's efficiency and quality of service for all.
Click to expand...

Not that this has anything to do with OIL, but..
If Medical card holders can go to their GP and avoid the queues
at A&E, why aren't they doing it? It costs the same for a medical card holder to do either, so why are they voting with their feet and choosing to queue at the A&E?

I don't think we need a "Scheme" to encourage behaviour. Why need to figure out why people engage in irrational behaviour when there is an alternative.

Are there too few GP's? Are they badly distributed? Are they badly served by Public Transport? Is the Hospital just the obvious lazy choice (I'm sick, I could try to find a GP, maybe he'll fit me in on Tuesday or I could just show up at to the Hospital, I might have to wait 3 hours, but that's still quicker than Tuesday)?
-Rd
 
You've hit the nail on the head on all counts.

- There are too few GPs (due to our crazy university & points systems)
- They are badly distributed - every time a GP tries to start an urban practice in this country, there are planning permisssion objections from local residents, who get their way sometimes.
- Hospitals are indeed an obvious lazy choice, where you can show up without a prior appointment.
 
One difficulty about trying to live a carbon-neutral life in Ireland at present is (a) the cultural myth that everyone "needs a car" with its corollary of disdain for public transportation and (b) the rigidity of the planning and building regulation system; from initial inquiries a few years ago when I was trying to move back to Ireland my impression was that if newbuild and house renovations were not straightforward 'short-back and two sides' routines - if, for example, you wanted to integrate solar panels or use carbon-neutral building materials it would be a lengthy costly process.

When I was a schoolkid I remember all these photographs in the geography of Ireland books of water-powered electricity generating plants such as Polapouka. Are they all defunct? I would have thought water-power was something the island had plenty of!!!

Oh - that's just reminded me! New billboard advertisements over the past few weeks feature the Guinness bird with the news that Guinness now comes direct from Dublin!! No more disappointment this end then.
 
I guess the ESRI's timing may not have been ideal, but this is a long-term strategic issue - the recent increases in oil prices over the last few months don't change the rights or wrongs of the situation.

I do see a need for state intervention to reduce the dependance on fossil fuels, and I don't quite buy the argument of 'let's wait until we have a better public transport system' - I have a funny feeling that no public transport system will ever be good enough to encourage the average car driver out of their car.
 
ubiquitous said:
If you make it dearer, less people buy it. Less people on the M50 means less congestion.
Click to expand...

Yes, but no.

I'm struggling to remember my Leaving Cert. economics but isn't there a type of good with inelastic demand whereby the dearer it becomes the more people want of it ?

Surely petrol, in this context, is such a good and the the increase in a levy would not reduce people's dependence ? Perhaps it might prompt people to switch to gas for home heating but I'd be less sure about it reducing the number of car journeys.

"Giffen good
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

For most products, price elasticity of demand is negative. In other words, price and demand pull in opposite directions; price goes up and quantity demanded goes down, or vice versa. Giffen goods are an exception to this. Their price elasticity of demand is positive. When price goes up the quantity demanded also goes up, and vice versa. In order to be a true Giffen good, price must be the only thing that changes to get a change in demand."
 
Last edited:
I was asked to post this here by someone who is 6 posts short of what it takes to post in LOS.


Prof John Fitzgerald, ESRI chief economist, said the extra green carbon tax on petrol and diesel would "not be noticed" because the current prices "are so high".
(source Irish Independant, 07/09/2005, written by Treacy Hogan)

Original Poster's Comment:
Basically saying that Irish consumers are so gullible they'd pay it, and wouldn't notice it, as if we are accustomed to paying high-prices...and not noticing things.

My comment:
This is a classic example of the kind of Wooly thinking that goes into taxation in this country. If we're going to tax Fossil Fuels then it needs to be because we want to change people's behaviour. How does a tax that people don't notice help to change their behaviour?

The only explaination is that John Fitzgerald doesn't care whether we change peoples behaviour or not, he just thinks it would be appropriate to have yet another tax to raise even more revenue.

Bad enough that someone would think that a fossil fuel tax would be a good way of changing behaviour. But to introduce one with the hope of people not noticing is just daft.

-Rd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top