The Green Budget

@Richard,

Many thanks for this excellent demolition job. But I fear that this charter of tokenism and economic illiteracy is merely a symptom of a deeper malaise which I have attemted to highlight under Karl Whelan’s post on “New Programme for Govenrment”.

Oops, I pressed the wrong button, and simply reproduced Richard’s post. Moderators, please delete. Thank you.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

I think all this is a bit too cynical. Extreme cynicism seems to be becoming a hallmark of some posters on this site, although I trust it will never reach the levels on other sites. Even allowing for the fact that the Green Party has disappointed those, who wanted it to carry out the political equivalent of a suicide bomb attack on Fianna Fail yesterday, this is over the top. I have never been a supporter of the Green Party, but give credit where its due:

Richard Tol said:

“Code for slash investment except in energy and public transport.”

Later on, Richard says:

“More investment in water infrastructure; less money for the rest.”

I say:

So, that is a third one added to the list. There isn’t that much left that actually requires a lot of increased investment in the next couple of years. The national motorway network will be completed next year. This has allready brought Ireland’s road death rate down to one of the lowest in Europe. Once built, you don’t actually need to build it again. Similarily, thanks to the tremendous investment in housing in recent years, the national housing stock is now by far the most modern in Europe and is greater than the number of households, so Ireland is one of the few countries in the world where it is now physically possible to give every family in the country a decent high-quality home. This would not be possible in the UK or in many European countries, where recent low investment in housing has resulted in a massive shortage of houses. Obviously, it requires sensible policy decisions on the part of the relevant Minister (is it John Gormley?) to actually turn Ireland into the first country in the world with zero homelessness, but the houses are now there for him to do so.

Richard Tol said (referring to Green’s plan to develop a grid that could be used to export electricty):

“Never mind that production costs of electricity in Ireland are higher than elsewhere.”

I say:

Well, I assume the Greens don’t mean exporting electricity produced from oil or coal, but from wind power and wave power. I’m aware that there is disagreement among engineers as to whether these are economic at present, but most seem to agree that one day it will be cheaper to produce electricity from wind and wave than from oil and coal. When that happens, Ireland will certainly be an exporter of electricity.

Richard Tol said:

“This is hardly needed for drinking water. Surface and groundwater quality are okay, and improvement can wait.”

I say:

Actually, water quality south of the border is not that great. I come from Northern Ireland. Water quality in the north is higher, because there has been more investment in water infrastructure and quality control over the years. Its one of the few areas, where the north still has a lead over the south. Better water quality in the north was one of the reasons (not the sole one) that Coca Cola gave for moving their bottling plant from Kildare to Antrim.

Richard Tol said:

“More investment in water infrastructure; less money for the rest.”

I say.

An abundance of water is one of Ireland’s trump cards in the years to come. Its Ireland’s ‘North Sea Oil’. You only have to go to Australia or Spain (among many) to see how their economies are going to be held back by shortage of water. However, as I said above, the quality is a bit lacking. We definitely need investment in this area.

Richard Tol said (referring to the 17% forestry target):

“The Emerald Isle will be greener still, and will be renamed as the Emeralder Isle.”

I say:

When the Viceroy packed his bags and left Dublin Castle, the area of Ireland covered by forestry had fallen to 2%, the lowest in Europe. Starting around 1950, an aforestation program was begun and this has brought the area covered by forestry up to 10% or so (not sure of exact figure). Many areas in the less fertile parts of the country have benefitted tremendously. There is a similar afforestation program in operation north of the border, and the Gortin Glens Forest Park is now one of the most important tourist attractions in the north. However, I think that the afforestation program has stalled a bit in recent years. So, getting it going again and bringing the area covered by forestry up to 17% is very sensible.

Richard Tol said (referring to Bray to Balbriggan cycle and pedestrian route):

“Oh Ireland. One was thinking that one was reading the renewed programme for the NATIONAL government, but one mistakenly picked up the programme of the village council.”

I say:

Well, Bray may be a ‘village’, and ‘Balbriggan’ may be a ‘village’, but, unless they plan to route it via Athlone, I think it reasonable to assume that it will go through Dublin, which is certainly not a village. I think this could be a massive tourist attraction.

Hi Richard,
I find it odd you don’t make any reference to the risk of severe impacts to economic activty due to climate change / oil depletion / top-soil loss / etc etc.
I read a paper you wrote, which discounted the risks to ireland from climate change (making reference only to other papers you yourself published).
I find it disingenuous to adopt a can’t-prove-it-so-it’s-ignorable approach; perhaps you models neatly model the parts of the economy you pay attention to, but what of the wider question of the realism of the assumption that exponential growth is possible forever upon a finite world?
Can zero-growth not be a valid economic policy?

Declaring Ireland a GM-free zone is pandering to ignorance.

Like neutrality, and nuclear-free declarations, it would of course provide comfort to those who are sustained on empty slogans.

The recently deceased Norman Borlaug, the “father of the Green Revolution” made the point that no current crops are as they were even 50 years ago, much less a millennium ago. Farmers and scientists have always experimented with ways of cross-breeding plants to make them more durable and able to produce more food and profits in shorter periods. That they used hybridisation techniques rather than gene splicing makes no difference to the safety of the finished product.

In a few years, Greens will be eating GM foods and Ireland will be importing nuclear generated electricity.

It’s all comfort food for the selfish who do not have to be concerned about the challenges of food production elsewhere.

@John

“I think all this is a bit too cynical. Extreme cynicism seems to be becoming a hallmark of some posters on this site, although I trust it will never reach the levels on other sites.”

If you’re on the trail of extreme cynicism, look no further than the choreographed cliff-hanger in the negotiations, or the manipulated agenda for the votes yesterday.

Or how about John Gormley’s defense of the proposed cut in tax relief on pension contributions? Apparently its all in the interest of _equity_. This from a man who looks forward to a 100k pension courtesy of the tax-payer, assuming he loses his seat in 2012. At which point he will still be in his early fifties, and still have at least a decade of good earning potential back in the language school business.

If you could even buy a pension like that, it would have cost him many multiples of his entire salary. Yet he paid but a vanishingly small fraction of that notional cost himself. But still he sees it as being more equitable that people who actually pay for their entire pensions themselves should get a reduced tax-break. Because it would be fairer and all.

Cynicism indeed.

@ Richard

I’ll just comment on the places where you are obviously wrong, rather than the places where I disagree (because that would take too long)

Introduce new targeted and efficient taxation policies which encourage sustainable enterprise development and the creation of sustainable employment in the Green and Smart Economy.

Code for tax breaks for companies that adhere to Green Dogma?

j.c: No.”targeted” = on areas where market failures exist, “sustainable” = areas which don’t rely on rapidly depleting resources

We will extend our system of Accelerated Capital Allowances to develop the Green Economy into areas such as renewables, waste disposal and water usage.

Sure. Tax breaks for companies that are friendly with greens.

j. c: Very cynical Richard.

Introduce Carbon Tax in Budget 2010. The principles underlying the carbon levy to be introduced in 2010 will be:

those most at risk of fuel poverty will be protected,
we improve the fuel efficiency of our current housing stock,
the relative tax burden on labour will be reduced.
I’m in favour of a carbon tax, and for using the revenue to cut labour costs and increasing benefits to compensate low-income households. Using the revenue to improve the housing stock is bad policy (double regulation).

J. c. You may want to take this point up with your colleagues in the ESRI who have rightly been questioning for years why the government would spend 400 million euro p/a on fuel poverty mitigation. Why not just upgrade the social housing stock? As for the general housing stock, there are, as I have argued (very convincingly:) on other threads, a proliferation of market failures in the area of housing energy efficiency which carbon tax will not address.

We will mandate the €200 million “Green Fund” established in AIB & BOI to prioritise the following activities:

Help existing mechanical/electrical engineering firms to become Energy Services Companies (ESCOs) providing managed energy services to public buildings by providing capital to install equipment on client sites;
Supplement the grants schemes run by Sustainable Energy Ireland (€50m Home Energy Scheme) by lending to homes and businesses that are retrofitting energy efficient equipment in their homes/businesses.
This is meddling in supposedly independent, commercial enterprises. It is also picking winners. Bad idea.

j.c. Very wrong. Will create 1000s of jobs. Your faith in the market is totally unfounded in reality.

We will put in place new public procurement procedures and guidelines to ensure that green criteria are at the centre of all state procurement.

Tokenism.

j.c. That is just silly. The public sector is hugely important market and can lead in adopting new and emerging technologies thereby, eg:Dublin Bus.

We will prioritise research and technologies that offer strong development opportunities in the area of water management, leaks, measurement, metres etc.

This is mature technology. Little need for research.

j. c. Sorry Richard that’s wrong. These technologies are a huge growth area and rapidly evolving.

We will work with the ESB and international motor companies to see a deployment of some 6,000 electric vehicles over the next three years.

Too much too soon. And isn’t ESB a commercial company?

j.c. Depends what type of EV.

We will present a plan for a high voltage off-shore electricity grid as part of the wider European electricity ‘Supergrid’ so that in the future we can become an energy-exporting nation.

Never mind that production costs of electricity in Ireland are higher than elsewhere.

j.c. bit of vision needed here.

We will introduce new energy demand reduction targets for energy utilities, thus allowing the customer to “save as they pay” through energy efficient measures.

Double regulation. A carbon tax will do just that.

j.c. No it won’t. This comment displays a lack of knowledge of the area. A carbon tax won’t even apply to the power gen sector!! and even if it did, it wouldn’t work because of the prevalent market failures.

Ensure the achievement of the target of 5% of land in organic agriculture and meet the growing demand for domestically produced organic produce by providing adequate resources and supports for the achievement of the target, with a focus on import substitution in areas where Ireland is under producing at present e.g. horticulture. Beginning in 2010, and rising in subsequent years, stepping up supports for the Organic Farming Scheme for conversion to organic production, Capital Grants for the Organic Sector and Non-Capital costs.

Interesting language. There is an apparent demand for organic produce, but supply needs to be supported nonetheless.

j.c. not a big fan of organics myself

We will overhaul and significantly enhance the current range of programmes and supports to facilitate the attainment of the target of 17% forestry cover by 2030 and contribute to meeting our climate change
commitments.

The Emerald Isle will be greener still, and will be renamed as the Emeralder Isle.

j.c. This is hugely desirable policy objective which will have big payoff

We will use producer responsibility to reduce levels of packaging waste generated and increase the target for recycling of such waste to 75% by 2013, in line with the recommendations of the international review of waste policy.

Higher costs for producers, higher prices for consumers.

j.c. reducing packaging will drive down costs

Ah now, Ernie, some of the ideas in the PfG are so self-evidently lame that Richard would be insulting our intelligence by explaining from first principles why this is so.

But how about going ahead and explaining why you think those insufficiently rebutted ideas are in fact good ones?

Electricity, as a form of energy resource. Very versatile, but … …

We may, (please correct if wrong), have run up against the infinite wall of the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrt generators and motors.

6000 new electric vehicles! WTF! My understanding is that in order to be ‘green’ we need to use LESS AND LESS electricity with each passing year – or at worst, maintain our existing load level. To use such a versatile resource for private (as opposed to public) transport is insane.

Forests: Very good idea. Would you all do our future a favour. Buy a walnut tree and plant it asap.

Water: Have concerns about the quality of potable. Could be major problem.

FWitsW: Using liquid fuel to power a vehicle is, (somewhat), like walking on a gentle, downward sloping surface. Not much effort is required. Substituting electricity for the liquid in the fuel tank is like walking up a slope: your lungs have to work harder, your heart rate increases, you begin to perspire. Think again, real carefully about the real cost, (the energy cost, that is), in using electricity.

Thanks RT, for taking the time to compose your post.

B Peter

The GP certainly has economic realists, and indeed has those who like capitalism. I’ve found quite a few of these people to be close to current leadership and influencing policy.

Something awful has happened and the GP has taken a lurch to the left, and not merely some form of “Justice left”… actually a left that requires lots of Central Control & Command Planning (USSR)

Even allowing for their goals, their solution methods are inelegant, in summary I’m disturbed that
1) These solutions are inelegant and often unworkable
2) They indicate a normative leftward drift in the GP

Hello,
I agree with John above who says that the tone of the article is a bit too cynical, in common with a lot of commentary these days. And when you say tokenism – i presume you think the measures of are of no consequence or perhaps of no consequence given the huge financial mess we face. But allowing bikes on trains is good policy, I’ve heard a number of foreign visitors complain about this, it’ll be good for cyclists, good for tourism. I think small incremental improvements in policy are to be welcomed.

“Something awful has happened and the GP has taken a lurch to the left’

Don’t you mean a lurch to populism?

I’m just trying to figure out if the Green leadership actually knows this is BS and can’t believe they got away with it, or if they’ve become like Tony Bliar and forced themselves to believe that they stand on the side of justice and truth.

Free fees, free minks and 3 more years of free mercs. And meanwhile the thousands of newbie developers who are too small for NAMA will slowly go bankrupt and taxpayers will keep shovelling in the money to fill the hole. But hey, once we’re GM free, then it’s SO worth it.

Not.

btw, does anyone know if the ban on corporate donations will cover SIPTU’s donations to the Labour party?

@ Richard

You are the one labeling the policies as “silly” with nothing more that a series of unsupported sweeping statements based and ideological assumptions, and a gaggle of gullible cheerleaders egging you on.

GET REAL.

“Never mind the costs” – you say. You mean the costs that are recouped IN ONE YEAR on bulb that lasts 8-15 times longer than an incandescent? ie: that costs the consumer a tiny fraction of the cost over the lifetime of the bulb?

Mercury..The Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and the The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive have taken care of these concerns for the most part. As I said if you have concerns for the safety of the product you should contact the NSAI.

Banning the bulb makes us (the EU) Stalinist? LOL. It’s hardly the gulag.

I find the extreme faith in price signals and objection to any form of regulation in the face of overwhelmingly blinding evidence to the contrary, and within the context of the recent collapse of the global financial system, almost overwhelming in its obtuseness. If reality doesn’t match the findings of your model, I’d say reality must be at fault. I actually don’t know whether to laugh or to cry.

As for use of carbon tax revenues, Sue Scott among others have indicated that compensating the less well off from the negative consequences of a carbon tax can be achieved through efficiency upgrades.

All benefits achieve in badly heated buildings is “heating the sky” to quote the title of one of her papers. Not that’s really “silly”.

Just wanted to add that to bring a cfl lifespan to the same as an ordinary incandescent you would need to switch it on and off every five minutes.

@Eoin & Richard

Renault alone has a target to sell between 20,000-40,000 electric vehicles in 2011. There will be a limited roll out in 2010. Renault is currently investing €4bn euro on four different models of electric cars. (http://tinyurl.com/yfgr5fy)

They are likley to sell for a price premium of up to €10,000. This will no doubt be reduced with some forms of tax incentives or subsidies. Whether the demand is there remains to be seen but I think a target of 6,000 vehicles in three years isn’t too outlandish! If anything, given the current rate of investment by car companies, there may be a risk of overcapacity if demand doesn’t materialise.

The 200,000 car target will require about 45,000 EVs sold in 2020 assuming linear growth. This would be about 25% of the market if car sales of 200k per year are assumed. That said, if you look at Simon Coveney, likely the next energy minister, he calls for (http://tinyurl.com/dcaknp):

100,000 by 2016
350,000 by 2020
No petrol or diesel cars sold in 2020

Certainly ambitious. The driveability of EVs is much better than petrol cars – excellent acceleration, no gear changes, no oil changes etc. 75% of work trips are less than 20km. Range is clearly an issue for longer trips but approximately 600,000 homes have more than one car so conceivably one of those could be reserved for driving in the locality.

The key issue is battery cost – batteries are by far the most expensive part of the car. Whether cost comes down with mass production remains to be seen. Battery cost is not subject to Moore’s law as much of the cost is in raw materials.

1. We have to CONSERVE the energy resources we have. Any proposal to spend additional is madness.

2. The build-out of EVs requires an significant EXTRA input of energy over an above that already input(ted) for vehicle production.

3.We do have enough raw materials for all ’em batteries??

@ Richard

Have you the slightest bit of evidence for this:

“CFLs last longer than incandescant light bulbs if in continous use. If you switch them on and off all the time, they break. That reverses your cost savings and your energy savings”‘

You better report these findings to the US EPA/Department of Energy:

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

“An ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months. It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an incandescent bulb.”

Joe Duffy is not a reliable source by the way.

I think it would be wise to take the Greens programme absolutely seriously. They have been waiting for 28 years, they are now familiar with the levers of power, and they have immense leverage. But they only have 2.5 years in an unstable government, so they are going to set a cracking pace. Gormley made a recent observation along the lines that other Green parties were devastated in elections after having been in office, so they might as well get as much done as they can. Normally, the senior centre party can force the more ideological junior to moderate their demands. But in this case there is no use in FF trying to threaten the Greens with an election. The Greens will just say we know we won’t survive but you will suffer huge damage too. FF have made a deal with them and barring a sudden collapse I would expect them to keep to it. The Greens also have the two ministries they want with what I would expect is ring-fenced funding.

You can compare them to an Israeli religious party, a secular religion or the early strong commitment to their ideals of socialist parties or nationalist parties, or the Pirate Bay party…Like Socialists, their goals may well be correct and at the time they started highly desirable. But also like socialists they have debated and agreed among themselves a set of policies to achieve them, which they will stick fairly rigidly to. Only experience of policy failure will teach them, and teach them slowly. Given that, it’s no wonder all the efforts made by the lead contributors to this blog regarding Nama failed. Nama just didn’t interest them. You might as well have been talking to the “Knights who say Ni”.
Or in their case, the knights who say “smart”, “green”, “sustainable” and “transform”. The best guide to what they will do and how much they will achieve is the performance in office of Green parties in other countries.

However, I have a semi-serious proposal for speeding up the Green party’s learning process. Academic economists should join up en masse. It’s the only way.

It makes sense to examine the green parts of the RPG because it is here (broadly energy and environment) that the Green Party ministers have some sway. The remainder of the RPG requires the buy-in of other ministers and it is probably safe to assume that their enthusiasm will be somewhat less than that of the Green ministers.

In addition to the filtering exercise that Richard has performed it probably would be useful to assess how this wish list would be implemented. It may be that some initiatives may be implemented using the existing powers of the ministers as set out in legislation (SIs, etc.), but it is likely that many of these initiatives will require new or amending legislation. With a programme of legislation already in place and with the Dail sitting just 3 days a week for less than half the year, it may prove difficult to enact the required legislation. However, I expect department officials will be encouraged (pressurised?) to be as innovative as possible in coming up with ways to engineer the implementation of some of these green wheezes using existing ministerial powers.

This is where the serious lack of transparency in policy formulation and the lack of scrutiny of policy proposals really manifest themselves. External informed critique or dissent simply bounces off this process without having any impact. But this is precisely when and where economic expertise if required.

@Ernie Ball
“Lemme see if I have this straight: Richard Tol is a big expert. Therefore he can dismiss others’ ideas with a wave of his hand and you’ll be content to admire his manicure?”
Well, leaving his shapely mitts aside, yes, RT is THE expert in ireland. And as Marcus says, trust but verify. In the same way if Philip Lane were to start dissecting something on international macro, id be more inclined to take his views as a starting point than if say, Mandarin X in the DoF. We are lucky to have RT here in Ireland as a critical expert. Lets try to raise our intellectual aims and listen to these people?

@ Marcus & Brian

Ernie Ball: “That might also have the fringe benefit of making them somewhat less willing to issue ever-so-timely reports supporting public sector pay cuts and the like.”

Fairly sure this is self explanatory in why he has his particular viewpoint on most of the economists on this site…Ernie is quite honestly and vehemently against such cuts…

The words Rome, fiddles, burns immediately spring to mind.

The true economic raitonal for water meters in Ireland is extremely week. Sahara yes, Ireland no. More politicly driven eoconmic dead loss.

All the rest more tofu-barrelling indeed. A wonderful phrase.

More tax increases, as expected to make the income tax system even more progressive. 51% effective maginal tax rates payable at median earnings clearly isn’t enough yet.

The only major issue on their plate, NAMA, voted through. Says it all.

@Ernie Ball
“If economists want to push this line, the price to be paid is this: no government or corporate consultancy work, ever. That might also have the fringe benefit of making them somewhat less willing to issue ever-so-timely reports supporting public sector pay cuts and the like.”

I think that I am the first (reasonably well known) commentator on this site to call for PS pay cuts , back, oh, nearly a year ago now. And I dont do much consultancy (too many hostages to fortune), and was “encouraged” to leave the last two govt posts I held.
So, as they say in the midlands, now for ya

@ Richard

Not a contradiction, just an exception to the rule, eh?

Insulation is better than benefits, except when the revenue comes from a carbon tax?

Ok how about this one:

“CFLs last longer than incandescant light bulbs if in continous use. If you switch them on and off all the time, they break. That reverses your cost savings and your energy savings”‘

and

“CFLs cannot explode as far as I know”

LOL

Again I ask: any evidence for this assertion?

@Richard: I generally agree with most of your criticisms of the Green program. A lot of the fundies have lost sight of common sense. But your strident dismissive tone makes me suspect that the anti-green thing has become an ideological belief. I may be wrong.

Back to CFLs, my conclusion from the studies is that even if you switched CFLs on and off just like ordinary bulbs, given that the average cycle time is 32 minutes, you will still save a lot of electricity even if they break well before their stated life. So please go ahead and switch them on/off like usual. Just don’t use them as strobe lights. I switched to CFLs three years ago and with 8-10 bulbs in the house and switching them off every time I leave the room, I have not had a single one “break” on me yet.

@ Richard

Commission for Taxation Report 2009

http://www.commissionontaxation.ie/downloads/Part%201.pdf

“The
overall effects of our proposed carbon tax on vulnerable households should be appraised to ensure that
such households (urban and rural) are cushioned from the effects of the tax. We also suggest that the
recycling of carbon tax revenues to fund energy efficiency incentives for business and households would
be appropriate”

There go those crazy greens again, eh, attempting to implement the findings of expert bodies!!

@Paul McDonnell
All true. Regarding Nama, they remind me of the British Labour government in the twenties which defended the Gold Standard. As a socialist government they wanted to prove that the economy was safe in their hands. Then they split, to be replaced by a conservative dominated national government. Which then left the Gold Standard.

@zhou
It would be interesting to see how the the Greens would react if Global Warming was disproved/ resolved and abundant sources of cheap clean energy were discovered. I’d say many would be disappointed – “now we’ll never get them to live in harmony with the planet”.

My own view:
It might be useful to distinguish between economist greens and green economists:

A green economist would be someone who wants to resolve environmental problems by using standard economic theory.

An economist green has the same goals but he believes in the policy approach devised by his party: regulation, government investment, recycling. He will use his economic knowledge and skills to devise similar policies with the same approach in ever more areas. The green economist will then throw up his hands and talk about efficency and double regulation and the preferability of incentivising the private sector. The economist green likes double regulation – it gets the job done at twice the speed. He likes recycling and government investment – he doesn’t care if he is told they are inefficent solutions. He has decided on his methods. Judging by many socialist parties, if his methods fail he is not likely to abandon them. Instead he will say they failed because they did not go far enough and come up with something even more interventionist.

Over time, as the costs of the Greens interventions become clear, and they face a more sceptical public, they will become more cautious. Also, we will be devoting so many existing resources to the Green budget that they will be faced with political opposition to cut-backs in other areas. Indeed, that might yet impact in this government’s life.

The Greens were left on their own for too long, indulged, unquestioned, ignored and not taken seriously. Isolated, their party evolved a very regulationist, interventionist set of policies. Only repeated failure, resource constraints and public opposition will stop them. The next election will be difficult, but if they can create a big enough constituency for themselves they may well recover surprisingly quickly. At the moment they view green economists as wrong and mainstream economists as enemies.
Over time this will change.

In the mean time please take all their policy proposals very seriously.
Dismissal won’t work. Only repeated critical analysis.

@Garo
A 3 pack of energy saving bulbs in Woodies is €6.99 i.e €2.33 each
A pack of 2 standard bulbs is €1.79 or 0.90c each.

Now you have to sell the cost saving story and this is where Joe Duffy comes in. I’ve been watching the argument here back and forth. I’m an intelligent guy, an accountant and would like to save money but

1. I hear CFLs don’t work on dimmers.(ESB site confirms this) Most of the main lights we use in the house are dimmers. Are dimmers effectively going to be banned?
2. You have to turn the cfl on a few minutes before you can actually see anything properly. We have a couple of ordinary bulbs in the shed and garage which literally go on and off for a few minutes not even once a week.
3. How does it work with all these specialist bulbs that light fittings seem to need.
4. Now you’re suggesting leaving lights on for 15 minutes after leaving the room. I’ve 2 teenagers, I’m trying to get them to turn off lights!!!

I don’t know how much of the above is true or scare stories. Anyway my main ESB cost problem is the emersion, the tumble dryer, dishwasher, ghd….

I decided to try and get some way of calculating the saving and found an 11 watt cfl will save me €11.30 per year assuming the light is on 4 hours per day. I reckon about 7 bulbs (excluding the dimmers) in my house would be on for 4 hours per day max but only in the autumn/winter. Let’s say savings of (11.3*7/2) and that’s €40 per annum. The 7 bulbs will cost me €10 extra. I’m underwhelmed but when the next bulb goes I’ll try a cfl.

The site I found did suggest a €600 per annum saving on a large house but you had to have 45 bulbs on for 4 hours per day average to save this.

@ Richard

“Indeed. The Commission on Taxation got it quite wrong in this case.”

It appears that the ESRI may have got this one too. Professor Eakins who co-wrote ESRI paper with Sue Scott with in 2002 noted in relation to carbon tax that “compensation is not the only policy measure to hand” and that energy efficiency programmes could also have positive spin-offs.

I note also from paper you co-authored, Working Paper 262, that “Improvements to the housing stock are a sine qua non for sensible policy on fuel poverty, and even more so with high energy prices prevailing in the foreseeable future” p32, November 2008. Yet we should use revenues to increase allowances?

Anyway you can take it up with Professor Eakins – he will be launching Carbon Energy Taxation: The European Experience in the IIEA, Wednesday 12:45.

http://www.iiea.com/events/carbon-energy-taxation–the-european-experience

@KW

The dogs are muzzled in hare coursing for 10+ years since. Contrary to the coffee table talk in Dublin boudoirs the supporters of hare coursing are likely to be homely elderly rural people rather than blood-lust crazed demons intent on torturing bunnies. Given how comfortable those people are with the lack of cruelty in coursing they will react negatively to being painted as animal hating scum by any party and likely never vote for them again. This would likely cost FF a number of marginal seats and number of party members. The same is true for FG.

Most of Labour and the Greens, as urban parties, would not recognise these people unless they appeared as those urbanites imagine them, i.e., with a wild look in their eyes, blood dribbling from their mouths and various dead baby animals hanging from their baling twine belts. [A bit OTT I know, but seeing as it is the season for going over the top in our criticisms of all things Green..]

@Sarah: Crappy light? I’d just get the CFL with the next higher rating and ignore what the box says. Also, just ignore the 15 minute rule and switch them on/off as you please. but do get good quality CFLs. Philips has worked well for me.

BTW, instead of CFLs why don’t we think about a switch to FLs?

@ KW,

I can provide some cultural info on why the Sodiers support hare coursing and are prepared to let stag hunting go by the wayside. hare coursing is a past-time of the plain people of Ireland (who have their dinner in the middle of the day) and who used vote FF. Stag hunting is the past-time of large farmers (and Protestants) who primarily vote FG. Simple rally. Mink coats are worn by the nouveau riche wives and mistreses of property developers but they are all bust now, so who cares. Simple politics really.

@ Richard

More on this house retrofitting, sorry! There was a rather excellent report put out today by the Committee on Climate Change in the UK which you may have seen. It’s here (from page 9 onward):

http://hmccc.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/21667%20CCC%20Report%20Chapter%205.pdf

It contains lots of useful figures and a few MACC curves. I imagine much of the analysis is applicable to Ireland also. One figure that surprised me was the £650-£1350/tCO2 of solar thermal!

The report offers evidence that 30-50% of people would not even take completely FREE efficiency measures. They’re just not bothered.

Anyway, one of the ideas presented that I’d like to run by you is the idea that:

-Houses are given a complete house audit (BER I guess)
-Presented with a package of measures and offered finance
-The finance is placed on the house and set against their electricity/gas bills at a level equal to the amount they should save
-It is rolled out community by community with show houses to encourage takeup and vault over those nasty indifference barriers.

Does that sound palatable to you?
Also, do you support the idea that houses being offered for rent or put on the market should have a minimum BER which is gradually increased or is this double regulation?

Thanks,
Eamon

@Richard
“The majority responded with a “40 years! that’s great, let’s get one!” and they did.”

I suspect the reality is very few of these projects would give a positive return on investment unless you make not doing it very expensive.

The problem is not just the builders being around but doing the job properly. Our heating system works – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. We had work done on the emersion and it hasn’t worked properly since despite numerous calls to and by the workman who did it.

The only way to get a big takeup on making people acting more “green” is to charge them. Take recycling. When we started paying for waste then we took action. It still costs more than it used to but we’ve got it to about one third of what it might have been.

Not the best time at the moment to hit people with higher bills.

@Richard

Your point is very well made. 30mins is slow for a charge but you need to get your head around the model for pure EV motors. The ‘industry’ views the future market something like this:

Short commute (school/shopping/work) = Pure EV car like Zoe or Leaf. This will be about 20-30% of the market supported by 3phase urban recharging points (http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/view.m?id=193255&tid=120787&cat=Transport). Your car would be charged while you are at work or shopping or some such lazing about.

Long distance = Series or Parallel petrol or diesel hybrids or HCCI petrol or EVs with battery swap out

Future = fuel cell.

Maybe I should have included ‘sources close to the industry’ in my posting – but my points are supported by an interview with Thierry Koskas, head of Renault’s electric vehicle project (http://www.renault.com/en/capeco2/vehicule-electrique/pages/entretien-thierry-koskas.aspx).

From Renault: Standard battery charge (at home): 4 to 8 hours; recharge at rapid station: 20 minutes; battery exchange at “quick drop”: 3 minutes

My source is not Thierry by the way.

@Richard

A valid commentary of this model would be that the EV is the car for the weekday commute and that the ‘family’ also have a diesel/range extender hybrid (or have access to rent/hire one) for the weekend or ‘road trips’. With your domain knowledge I think you are best positioned to fit this ‘transport solution’ into the appropriate demographic.

Implementation wise – It will work well in France where they will EV commute to and from their RER/TGV/Light rail stations.

@ jc

Cool, it appears the government is already on it.

@ John

I can’t imagine fuel cells ever being the future – hydrogen is a distracting joke. That’s why the US DoE dropped funding for it. I can’t speak to why some car companies still believe in it.

@ Richard

In that situation you could rent a car for the day. It’s not terribly imposing but some behavioural changes will be required in the energy future. Even if all new cars were electric from now on it would take about 15 years to change the car fleet. Starting now with modest introduction is a sensible option to prepare for future oil scenarios. It’s not that we want to change, it’s that we’re being forced to.