Forget Property prices - the real elephant in the room is Energy

darex said:
Both Italy and the UK have schemes in place to allow consumers to sell energy back to the grid - I really don't understand why we don't, yet another example of our backwardness with respect to energy policy I suppose
Click to expand...

100% on this ... smart metering (that can allow variable prices to dissipate peak power loading as well as allowing reverse selling of micro generation back to the grid) should be a major policy objective ... the technology to do this is readily available now.
 
sunrock said:
I applaud people who try to conserve energy, but it is difficult to see what difference its going to make in the grand scheme of things, when the majority of people and countries are using energy as if they don t care.
Click to expand...

I hate this negative attitude. For several reasons:

1. What headway can be made when politicians hear people speaking like this? If they hear the public talking positively about conservation, they're more likely to represent this attitude in the Dáil and take action.

2. You say what difference does it make when the rest of the world doesn't bother. Well, somebody has to lead the way. Other countries already have, they conserve very effectively and are continually improving. It probably arose out of the first point by the way.

3. It costs money to start initiatives and educate people. That's why Germany, Scandanavia, etc lead the way and the poorer countries you mention lag. It's up to us as the richest countries to bear the costs of learning and developing solutions because we have that luxury. The improvements WE learn to make can be applied with less cost to subsequent countries. There may be no need for poorer countries to pollute as badly as we have in order to come up to the same standard of living . They're not OUT to pollute, the end goal is to have the quality of life that we have.

4. Lastly, I would take immense pride in my country being among the cleanest and forward-thinking in the world, wouldn't you?
 

This is a significant problem. Currently the main suggestion to overcome it is to spread the generation capacity over a large area (The wind is always blowing somewhere). Airtricity (our main wind power producer) have come up with a scheme which they call a SuperGrid that would provide wind power for much of northern Europe see:

It is said that the UK and Ireland alone have enough wind power to power Western Europe
 
I previously stated that i believe in conservation and alternative soucres of energy ,such as wind and wave.
Not sure about biofuels as they need a lot of energy inputs and land.
The fact that fossil fuels are used up on a massive scale around the world is just stating a fact.
Carbon taxes on an individual level are going to be very difficult to implement,with a whole array of exemptions and loopholes being inevitable.
Increasing taxes on petrol and SUVs makes more sense ,but i m sure people think we pay enough taxes.
Personally i feel there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding conservation, with people saying use less energy, and yet I am sure they are driving a big car and at least trying to live in a big house.
How can we as an individual and a country conserve more energy?
Drive less?
Consume less?
Take less holidays?
I don t hear anyone suggest we reduce our standard of living, and i m afraid thats what it s going to take.
A recession would definitely do it.
 
ubiquitous said:
Agreed but can you honestly imagine any Irish government resisting the temptation to use it in this way?
Click to expand...

No doubt if the carbon tax scheme is implemented as poorly as the penalty points system we will have yet another government initiative that is used largely for revenue accrual and doesn't really change undesirable behaviour. However, don't write it off in advance until we see the details.

If as a country we agree that living in a green lifestyle is desirable, then the economic rewards and punishments administered by the government should be changed to reflect this desire.

However, given their suspicious failure to levy a tax on SUVs (a classification difficulty apparently) I am less than confident that the government views green issues as anything more than an annoyance to paid lip service too. Since we live in a democracy, it is up to us to change this.
 
sunrock said:
Carbon taxes on an individual level are going to be very difficult to implement,with a whole array of exemptions and loopholes being inevitable.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. We apply VAT to just about everything and nobody regards it as difficult to implement. It is exemptions and loopholes that make taxation difficult - I see no reason for any to apply in this case.

sunrock said:
Increasing taxes on petrol and SUVs makes more sense ,but i m sure people think we pay enough taxes.
Click to expand...

If taxes were halved people would still say they pay enough tax. The beauty of this scheme is that people who do not exceed their quota can sell the unused portion of their quota on a secondary market. Therefore, these people will actually end up better off than they are now.

sunrock said:
Personally i feel there is a lot of hypocrisy regarding conservation, with people saying use less energy, and yet I am sure they are driving a big car and at least trying to live in a big house.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense.

sunrock said:
How can we as an individual and a country conserve more energy?
Drive less?
Consume less?
Take less holidays?
I don t hear anyone suggest we reduce our standard of living, and i m afraid thats what it s going to take.
Click to expand...

It's not just about consuming less energy - but using renewable energy in place of finite energy resources. If managed correctly nobody has to reduce their standard living. If we ignore the problem then everybody suffers as the price of finite energy sources increases.

sunrock said:
A recession would definitely do it.
Click to expand...

What a wonderful solution. Presumably unless you are proposing some kind of permanent depression with ever decreasing energy consumption and associated destitution, this only delays the inevitable rather than postponing it indefinitely.
 

I recall reading about this now that you mention it ... an expensive idea to construct i'd imagine (and how much of the generated energy would be lost in transmission / how carbon intensive would the construction be ?) - I just wonder if the sums would add up on it ?

I also read somewhere recently that windmill type turbines are not the optimal design (you can't make them any larger really without problem caused by the extreme rotation forces / blade tips going supersonic). Apparently cylindrical style wind turbines would probably be more efficient and more scalable
 
room305 said:
Not necessarily. We apply VAT to just about everything and nobody regards it as difficult to implement.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has direct experience of the bureaucracy of VAT would not say this. It is the most evaded tax of all, is cumbersome to administer (except that almost the entire burden of administration is lumped upon the business sector) and it is riddled with inconsistencies and anomalies.

room305 said:
It is exemptions and loopholes that make taxation difficult - I see no reason for any to apply in this case.
Click to expand...

None at all?
1. How do you propose that a carbon levy be operated in relation to agriculture? Livestock produce a large % of our total carbon output. What will this mean for future food production?

2. Do you propose that rural dwellers end up being taxed much heavier than their city cousins given that they have no option but to drive everywhere they want to go, given the almost 100% absence of public transport in most rural areas?

3. How do you propose to deal with anomalies arising from cross-border movement? For example I don't use any less carbon if I fly from Belfast instead of Dublin, yet under your proposal I would be taxed for flying from Dublin while no charge would apply from Belfast.

4. How do you propose to negate the effect on resource-heavy industrial production facilities where an increase in costs would have consequences for employment?

5. Would this levy apply to inward air traffic into the country as well as outwards? If not, why not? If yes, what would be the consquences for tourism?
 
EvilDoctorK said:
Yes - but if supply increases too that's not necessarily an issue is it ...
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by 'supply' I suppose. If you mean supply increasing in terms of new oil fields being found etc that's one thing. But if you mean supply increasing by OPEC simply ramping up production of existing reserves then that is most certainly a issue as it speeds up resource depletion.

EvilDoctorK said:
Mr Jevon's original theory concerned coal and we didn't run out of that (we've largely stopped using it because we've discovered better alternatives to steam engines ...
Click to expand...

Fingers crossed that this is what happens to oil, that it turns out be replacable by either some tech break-thru or any other resource on the planet.

EvilDoctorK said:
and one day we'll surely have a better alternative to the internal combustion engine too and oil usage will decline as well)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are few indicators that this is more than wishful thinking at the moment, it's not just a matter of finding another energy source, it's a matter of finding another economically-scalable one. I sincerely hope P.O. advocates are proved wrong, I mean who wants to be living in a cave
 
ubiquitous said:
1. How do you propose that a carbon levy be operated in relation to agriculture? Livestock produce a large % of our total carbon output. What will this mean for future food production?
Click to expand...

The carbon levy should be applied to agriculture same as anything else. Just because one industry generates more pollution than any other doesn't mean we should exempt it from carbon tax. If farming isn't economically viable once we account for the environmental cost then it needs to adapt.

ubiquitous said:
2. Do you propose that rural dwellers end up being taxed much heavier than their city cousins given that they have no option but to drive everywhere they want to go, given the almost 100% absence of public transport in most rural areas?
Click to expand...

In rural areas, it often doesn't make any sense to provide public transport as the public by very definition is sparse in such areas. This will be part of the cost of country living but again adaption is key, travelling less, using low emission vehicles, biofuels or counter-balancing by using renewable energy for home heating and electricity provision.


We only have control over what is within our own borders, so obviously we can only apply the carbon to travellers leaving Dublin and hope the UK and other countries follow suit.

ubiquitous said:
4. How do you propose to negate the effect on resource-heavy industrial production facilities where an increase in costs would have consequences for employment?
Click to expand...

I don't, although perhaps the government could give grants to companies to make the necessary changes to reduce their carbon output.

ubiquitous said:
5. Would this levy apply to inward air traffic into the country as well as outwards? If not, why not? If yes, what would be the consquences for tourism?
Click to expand...

Same as point 3, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to tax incoming passengers, so we should just tax outgoing passengers and trust that other countries will implement measures to control their own carbon output.

Obviously there will be some areas of difficulty with such a system and as with any tax there will be tax evasion. However, I think appropriate taxation is a good way to induce people to reduce their carbon footprint. Especially if it is coupled with real rewards for reduction. I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your opinion on how we should go about reducing carbon emissions?
 
What you are proposing therefore is likely to...

1. have devastating effects on agriculture which is barely economic at the moment without being literally taxed out of existence.

2. tax rural dwellers much more heavily than city dwellers

3. Cause major employment losses in food production and carbon resource-heavy industries

Sorry I can't see this ever being politically feasible at all in Ireland.

We only have control over what is within our own borders, so obviously we can only apply the carbon to travellers leaving Dublin and hope the UK and other countries follow suit.
Click to expand...
So you would propose introducing this levy even if it is not implemented in the UK?

it would be very difficult, if not impossible to tax incoming passengers, so we should just tax outgoing passengers.
Click to expand...
This doesn't make sense. It is impossible to exempt incoming passengers as they will simply be taxed when they exit the country. Again I don't think you have thought through the implications for tourism.

At this stage, it appears that the carbon levy would have dire consequences for our:
1. agriculture & food production sector
2. tourism industry
3. much of our industrial production.

Will there be anything left in the economy at that stage?

I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your opinion on how we should go about reducing carbon emissions?
Click to expand...

I am actually very sceptical of the whole climate change argument, especially as thirty years ago the scientists were worrying about global cooling. I am also sceptical of man's ability to affect climate change for better or worse. That said, if you want to reduce carbon emissions, I would have thought that nuclear power and afforestation are 2 of the most obvious options -however our self-appointed "environmentalists" seem strangely to be collectively allergic to both nuclear plants and spruce trees - which leaves us back at square one.
 
Global warming sceptics might read an article called [broken link removed] published in 2005 in The New Yorker. You can find parts 2 and 3 in various places online, or at least you used to be able to.

Food for thought.
 
I'm not a sceptic of global warming however I am a massive sceptic of the doomsday senarios presented by Green campaigners. Big deal the environment changes, human beings have survived large changes in our environment before and will again.
 
Perhaps - but does that warrant doing less than we can, now - even if the consequences of global warming turn out to be less catastrophic than some of the proposed scenarios - or even if it turns out to be just a blip?

This is a big issue, and just because the media have finally jumped on the bandwagon doesn't mean it's not something to be taken seriously.

The evidence that something massive is taking place is overwhelming. The link to overuse of fossil fuels is compelling. The science isn't being made up as we go along.
 
ubiquitous said:
I am actually very sceptical of the whole climate change argument, .
Click to expand...

unfortunately for your theory the people who actually study climate change (scientists) all agree that climate change is accelerating and the major driver is man. The only question is if and how much we can slow it down.
Ref1
Ref2
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (Ref3)
I don't get the whole sceptisim to climate change, if a doctor tells you you have xyz disease, you don't see people who have no medical training saying "I am very sceptical of the existance of xyz disease". They realise that someone with 8 years training and 20 years expierence in a certain field has a better understanding of the topic than they do. Why is climate change different? (Personally I think because the changes happen so slowly. Ignore the doc and you could be dead in 6 months, ignore the climate change scientist and it's your children who will have to pay)
 
Of course climate change is accelerating. I fully accept this. Climate change has happened throughout history (remember that Oliver Cromwell died from malaria contracted in Ireland in the 1640s-50s when Ireland was a much hotter place than today). The question is, as you say, whether we can slow it down. I'm not yet convinced that we can, at least to the extent that would warrant us unilaterally dismantling much of our economic, social and employment infrastructure.

It is simply incorrect to say that all scientists agree that the major driver of climate change is man. Maybe all the scientists that you see on the Irish Times, RTE or the BBC? (Btw, one would hope that our policymakers will depend on sources a little more reliable than wikipedia in making decisions on this area on our behalf.) However there is a greater diversity of opinion out there than you might think, and scientists are not infallible. Don't forget that 30 years ago the scientists were telling us that the earth was cooling down at an alarming rate; and 20 years ago they were telling us that nuclear proliferation would have us done for by the turn of the millennium.
 
ubiquitous said:
What you are proposing therefore is likely to...

1. have devastating effects on agriculture which is barely economic at the moment without being literally taxed out of existence.
Click to expand...
Without having read the whole thread - would the whole new industry of carbon offsetting not be able to give farming a masive boost - new uses of farmland, either for wind farms, afforrestation, developing manure power stations, the growing of algae to utilise photosynthesis for power production......

The majority of scientists agree that the earth is currently getting warmer, there is not a unamimous consensus as to why, climate has always changed, man may or may not be a causal factor in this instance. Personally, i have no problem in running with the theory that it's our carbon emissions that are causing change, and that we should cut such emissions, better to be safe than sorry.
Whilst taking decisions to cut carbon may have short term economic consequences, it also creates many opportunities in new industries, these are decisions that will have to be taken soon anyway (as fossil fuels run out), so why not try and get ahead of the game and become world leaders in alternative technologies - as a small island with virtually no fossil energy resources, it's not as though we have much to lose!
 
ubiquitous said:
It is simply incorrect to say that all scientists agree that the major driver of climate change is man. .
Click to expand...

OK I should have phrased that as "majority of scientists".

Your dismissal of wikipedia is patronising. If you had taken the time to read the articles, you would have seen that most(all) claims on the wikipedia pages are referenced.

Scientists also told us in the past that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. That doesn't make the current scientific claim that the earth is round and revolves around the sun incorrect. Bringing up global cooling is a red herring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register