(DCC proclaim their astonishment that wind changes direction, maybe they should read forecasts more often)

So The Internet Ate My Homework?

———————

REF:
Dublin Voter Says:
July 8th, 2010 at 7:24 pm

@Richard Tol

Is there a reason you have not published my comment of July 8, 2010 at 01:38? I can edit the text.

The Gorecki report is explicit about its assumptions on mortality. The ESRI cannot be expected to present every detail of its research in such a way that it pleases everybody all the time.

Is there a reason you have not published my comment of July 8, 2010 at 01:38? I can edit the text.

—————-

In Addition:

Is it not reasonable to ask ESRI and its employees to provide easily available references for statements they make
- especially when the reference is for an ESRI document the ESRI employee has referred to?

First you seemed to make the appearance of answering my question by referring to the Gorecki report (paid for by incinerator promotors DCC). You now seem to be changing the goal posts about answering my question, a question which is of strong public value. Did you know the Gorecki report did not answer my question when you referred myself and blog readers to the
Gorecki report?

=====
REFERENCE:
Dublin Voter Says:
July 1st, 2010 at 6:57 pm

What is ESRI’s expert guesstimate for the future taxpayer liabilities from premature deaths across the city of Dublin from incinerator micro-particles and nano-particles?

At 300 premature deaths across Dublin per year, and at €8 million per death, the proposed Poolbeg Incinerator would cost Irish taxpayers €2.4 Billion per year.

The Gorecki report has estimates of the external costs of incineration (as well as other forms of waste disposal) which include the health impacts.

Someone raised the Amsterdam issue in a previous thread, and I referred them to RIVM.

You have claimed Dutch environmental scientists are world class; that’s quite likely. However you also deny, without reference links, that 1000 unexplained excess deaths in Amsterdam per year may might be due to incineration.

You cynically spin “may” into “supposed”. That is dishonest. Its not science. Its not Dutch. Its not even the psuedo-science of economics. Its quite different. A technique from your country’s neighbours to the south and across the north sea, mischien. Or from the Galway Tent?

Here are some thoughts from San Francisco. Like Amsterdam most people in San Francisco are not rude nor arrogant. Many are knowledgeable. I’m prepared to accept the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency made an honest mistake. Your rudeness and arrogance are not Amsterdam style, not gezillich. I look forward to professional Amsterdam-style truth from the esteemed ESRI, an ESRI funded by Irish society.

===========
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/07/05/international/i055356D96.DTL&tsp=1

Dutch agency admits mistake in UN climate report

By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer
July 5, 2010 01:12 PM Copyright . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(07-05) 13:12 PDT THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) –

A leading Dutch environmental agency, taking the blame for one of the glaring errors that undermined the credibility of a seminal U.N. report on climate change, said Monday it has discovered more small mistakes and urged the panel to be more careful.

PS: I’m deciding whether to support Germany or Netherlands in the world cup final. Perhaps you can influence me by letting me know when ESRI expects to be able to answer the following. After all an informed citizen, including citizen Gormley, is a good citizen. Good citizens consume.

REFERENCE:
Dublin Voter Says:
July 1st, 2010 at 6:57 pm

What is ESRI’s expert guesstimate for the future taxpayer liabilities from premature deaths across the city of Dublin from incinerator micro-particles and nano-particles?

At 300 premature deaths across Dublin per year, and at €8 million per death, the proposed Poolbeg Incinerator would cost Irish taxpayers €2.4 Billion per year.

Maybe we should seek the views of some peer reviewed political scientists?

It is the Minister’s job to dictate policy. What he says goes. He signalled the change in policy and is conducting a review with a view to issuing more detailed documents. I don’t understand the confusion.

The stated policy of the Department of Environment, Heritage, and Local Government offers clear and unequivocal support for incineration; and said Department has raised no objection to the planned incinerator at PoolBeg. Note that Minister Gormley has been in office for three years and did not change the official policy of his Department.

I therefore think it make sense to distinguish between the Minister, who has shown no sign of opposition to the PoolBeg incinerator, and the person, who has.

As I understand it, Irish ministers are addressed as “Minister” but referred to as A B, Minister for C. Some persons on the wireless seem to have introduced the “Minister B” but I know of no statutory or customary authority for the usage. Perhaps these matters are arranged differently in the Celestial Kingdom.

I see no reason why ministers should not be addressed or referred to as “Citizen”: the status of citizenhood is an honourable one (civis Romanus sum, we might say to ourselves).

bjg

Look a little closer. The Constitution provides for the appointment of “Minsters” to be regulated by law. The relevant statute will give the department name to be used in the Minister’s title.

http://www.sbpost.ie/newsfeatures/gormleys-american-nemesis-in-us-waste-wars-50290.html

As far as I can see, no such title is bestowed by Bunreacht na hEireann.

bjg

It is not tugging the forelock to use a title bestowed under the Constitution of the Republic of Office. It is not like calling Tony O’Reilly ‘Sir Anthony’.

It is a mark of respect to the Office rather than the person in the same way that one must not have contempt of Court even if one cannot but have contempt for the moron on the bench.

It doesn’t bother me what people call Ministers. However, the language used sets the tone of the debate. Referring to “citizen Gormley” is fine if one is trying to personalise the debate, show contempt for an individual and display a lack of understanding of the role of an Irish Minister. I don’t think that is necessarily Richard Tol’s intention.

“It is offensive not to use a Minister’s proper title.”

Haven’t they enough of perks without expecting a tugging of the forelock?

What is their duty to the public and what happens when they ignore it?

@Richard Tol

Firstly, it is “Minister Gormley” not “Citizen Gormley”. It is offensive not to use a Minister’s proper title.

Secondly, the Minister dictates his Department’s policy. He does not require Oireachtas approval. The Program for Government set out the Government’s policy when the Government was formed. Your post confuses legislation and policy.

In my opinion, citizen Gormley is wrong to use the powers and privileges of his ministry to oppose the policies of his own department. He should use his position as a TD and Cabinet member to change policy. If he cannot, he should do his democratic duty and implement the policies agreed by the Oireachtas — regardless of his personal opinion or his electoral fortunes.

Posting on the blog is all most certainly immaterial, but you never know maybe DCC are considering a buy out behind the scenes.
Saying my opinion is pointless because I have no power is an unkind way to try silence me and not very democratic.

The fact that you, or other private persons, are unhappy with the contract should be immaterial.

What we don’t need however is a contract that was signed in 2007;
-when projected waste growth was grosly overestimated
-when public sector labour costs were sky high
-when DCC thought they had a monopoly on Dublin’s waste
-when landfill gate fees were twice what they are now
-when the epa had not yet defined the ‘pre-treatment of MSW prior to landfill’
-when DCC’s coffers were flush with development charges