New FF/PD infrastructure agency could be used to impose incinerators.

by Very Anonymous Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:21

The Greens support "lawfully" imposed service charges and the jailing of bin tax protestors. They will have to support "lawfully" imposed incinerators for the sake of consistency at least.

Given that the Greens have zero appetite for any kind of grassroots resistance, as opposed to posturing, incinerators will be imposed on us regardless of what the Greens think.

Unless of course some of the bin-tax people, those who have any energy left after this campaign, decide to get involved. In that case the Greens will probably decide incinerators are a good thing after all!

It won't do to be seen on the same side as a bunch of working class yobbos, now would it? The good voters of Dun Laoighaire and Dublin South & South East might take fright!

by simon Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:24

did it say who would be on the NIB. sounds iffy. but depending on the structure of the body and the transparency it may get rid of the corrupt practices between the local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. keep an eye on it.

by pasionaria Mon Oct 13, 2003 13:55

cullen says the bin tax is to finance proper recycling facilities. yet we all know that under the waste management plan , bertie and the boys want to impose 8 incinerators on us.
bin tax will fund incineration.

by PK Mon Oct 13, 2003 14:40

Have the Greens worked out a strategy of how to fight and win the campaign against incineration without of course breaking the law?

I'm sure all involved in the bin tax campaign would love to know.

by Niall OB - Greens Mon Oct 13, 2003 15:14

Of course we've worked out such a strategy.

1. Delay incineration as long as possible.
2. Promote the alternatives.
3. Become part of the next Government, not involving FF or PDs.

* No to incineration is one of our conditions for entering Government.

If the purists among you feel that you are better off with a PD/FF Government that is probably what you'll get and our strategy may fail.

As for the other misinformation posted above about the Greens. Repetition of lies does not equal truth.

by binned Mon Oct 13, 2003 15:15

that recommendation for 8 incinerators came from a company involved in incineration. It seems to me that the greens will work on realistic strategies to actually deal with the waste crisis. The anti-bin tax people have done nothing but blocked a few trucks, got their promotional posters in the news and got their faces in the papers. Not one word on how to actually deal with waste. They have got into a tizzy about their confused political agendas and have forgotten what the whole thing is about.

have your fun breaking (minor)laws etc. but wait to see what your 'actions' bring to the country. All i see is more money wasted on jailing unfortunate citizens and an increasing waste problem. well done lads.

by PK Mon Oct 13, 2003 15:23

Interesting strategy.
What if they start implementing it before 2007?
What will be the strategy if the current coalition were to be returned.

by Terry Mon Oct 13, 2003 15:33

binned,
That is a lie that the campaign has nothing to say on dealing with waste.

Many in the campaign have called for a proper comprehensive recycling infrastructure in this country. What we have instead is a totally inadequate structure which is designed and setup to fail and thereby 'convince' the public that the only way to deal with it is through incineration.

Members of the campaign has also on numerous occasions called on the government to implement a tax on excessive packaging. This simple change alone would transform the excessive packaging over which at the moment consumers have absolutely no control.

Unfortunately it would seem that some, but not all in the Green party, see that the way to handle environmental problems is through a form of green fascism -i.e. the heavy hand of authority and the State. Then if people object to these tactics, baseless acussations such as you made above are levelled at them.

by Terry Mon Oct 13, 2003 15:35

Niall,
By the way, I am delighted to see that you have raised the incinerator issue. Well done. It remains to be seen what happens next.

by Very Anonymous Mon Oct 13, 2003 17:17

One of your tactics to stop incineration is to "delay it as long as possible" - how? This new agency will have statutory authority and will have been set up by a democratically elected government (of complete bastards) but nonetheless elected by the same process that got the greens their 6 seats. Are the greens really prepared to defy the decisions of this body - that'll hardly play well with the supporters of incineration in FG and Lab who, presumably, are going to be part of this magical government that won't impose inceration. You say "No to Incineration" is one of the conditions for the Greens entering government. Are you certain that this won't change in hardball coalition negotiations? Will the Greens walk away from a coalition deal over the issue of incineration and either provoke a new election or let FF and the PD's back - the scorn that would generate for the greens could wipe you out as a political force for a generation - can you clarify that the greens will walk away from any coalition that in any way supports the construction of even one incinerator?

Promote the alternatives -how? Incineration will completely cut the ground out from under any kind of meaningful recycling in this country. The companies who aim to make money out of incineration are not going to stand for their raw materials being "reduced, recycled and reused". Once incineration gets the go-ahead, which it will to a large extent - recycling will be dead in this country. A sad prospect but more realistic than Green hand-wringing about promoting the alternatives. Indaver have much more clout than the Greens as things stand - if they were faced with massive Green sponsored civil disobedience then that might change but as things stand Indaver and chums won't be losing too much sleep over the Green Party. For the state incineration is the alternative.

Niall, the power of the state is behind incineration - we've seen how it's being wielded to crush the bin tax opposition - the same power will be used, maybe less oppressively, to impose incineration.

by pat c Mon Oct 13, 2003 17:51

stopping this will very likely involve breaking the law. just as green party tds and meps were prepared to break the law alongside joe higgins when they and many others went and uprooted gm crops.

this HAS to be stopped by extra parliamentary means as well as legislative action.

if this sort of a body was in place a year ago, building on the corrib gas fiels onshore facilities would have been approved and given the area construction work could well have led to an earth slide and a body count.

i hope you would be prepared to block trucks & break plenty of laws to stop this.

by binned Mon Oct 13, 2003 17:53

With a little insight into the development of our local authorities and local taxation and the legislative whims of FF youd realise that the reason for the poor waste infrastructure is because of the low taxation directed for that purpose. Ill repeat that in 1997 the local tax rate was 2.1% of the total share of govt. taxation and at the same time the OECD average was 12.7%. If you cant make the connection between that fact and the poor state of our waste infrastructure I dont know how I can make it clearer.

The move towards incineration is directly linked to this poor infrastructure, the mounting waste crisis and the need for a quick-fix in light of EU fines that are going to cost the economy billions of euros.

I can understand the govt's panic and faith in incineration. If anything thats going to push through incineration is the anti-bin tax lobbies continual drain on taxation resources.

by PK Mon Oct 13, 2003 18:07

"If anything thats going to push through incineration is the anti-bin tax lobbies continual drain on taxation resources. "

Sounds like you are getting desperate. If they do it won't be our fault. Anyway this government hasn't shown an aversion to making bad law, they won't need our help.

by Chekov Mon Oct 13, 2003 18:14

But you don't seem to understand that the proportion of taxation levied by local authorities is merely an administrative matter and is really irrelevant to the whole issue of taxation justice.

Perhaps if the local authorities were autonomous it might make some difference; they're not. All tax money ends up in the same pool which the government spends from. The government can offset money raised at local level by either delegating extra responsibility or cutting subventions to councils. They have done this repeatedly since the abolition of rates - the subvention is now at 49% of what was 'ring-fenced' off for local councils in 1977. Furthermore, if a council refuses to follow government instructions on spending they will find themselves abolished and replaced by an appointed bureaucrat. This has happened on many occasions around the country in the last 20 years and almost happened recently in Sligo and Dublin until SF and Labour lord mayors 'saved' local democracy by voting for the bin tax.

Given this abject lack of local autonomy, the particular source of taxation is a matter of little importance. What matters is how much tax you pay (and who pays it), not which branch of the government you pay it to. At the moment most people in Ireland would acknowledge the fact that the rich pay very little tax compared to what they can afford. Witness Denis O Brien whose tax swindle cost the exchequer more than the amount the bin tax would raise over 3 years in Dublin city if everybody paid it. The bin tax is going to make this inequitable situation even worse by further shifting the burden of taxation onto the poor. That is what we're fighting about.

Nor are we, as you have repeatedly accused us, fighting to retain the current FF imposed taxation regime. We are fighting to stop it from getting worse. Sure we could mount an ambitious campaign to reform all taxation, but if we can't first stop the situation from getting worse, what chance do we have of achieving the far more difficult task of getting the rich to cough up?

by binned Mon Oct 13, 2003 18:50

FF abolished the ability for local authoities to obtain sufficient taxes to run their services. This was a way for FF to centralise power and reomve the strength of the local authorities to govern democratically and locally. But its clear from looking at the councils budget figures that even the subvention is not enough to cover costs.

The only way for the government to increase this subvention is to bundle the increases with general taxation. That would be dangerous and worse for the poor and thats why I would rather see the local authorities regaining local powers and administering a traceable rate rather that vague increases in general taxation.

you know I dont have faith in your assertion that we can simply 'tax-the-rich' to pay our way especially when we have been getting a fairer deal than most other countries. It sounds nice to people who may regard themselves as hard done by (mostly they are far from poor). Id like to see what people would be saying when the trickle down effects will cause prices for goods and services to rise and affect job-creation etc. It has to be more balanced.

Also I wonder how many applied for the waiver that was designed to protect the truly poor from the taxation.

by Chekov Mon Oct 13, 2003 19:56

That is a fine example of the art of weaseling there, my dear binned. Just to go through some of the deceptions of your comment.

"The only way for the government to increase this subvention is to bundle the increases with general taxation."

The use of the phrase 'general taxation' here can only be conscious deceit. I assume that by general taxation, you mean to give the impression that the only alternative to the bin tax is 'taxation payed by all' (like VAT or income tax). This is of course nonsense, a minor increase in capital gains tax would cover the bin tax revenues many times over. There are also many other means of raising the revenue, from cracking down on tax evasion to increases in upper levels of income tax, which could only be described as 'genaral taxation' by a scaremongerer.

"That would be dangerous and worse for the poor"

So an increase in say PAYE tax to raise the same revenue as the bin tax would be worse for the poor? You should know well that this is obviously nonsense. The bin tax is regressive, PAYE is progressive, so an increase in rates of PAYE (in whatever band) equivalent to the revenues raised by the bin tax would categorically and absolutely be better for the poor. The maths are quite simple and unambiguous.

"and thats why I would rather see the local authorities regaining local powers and administering a traceable rate rather that vague increases in general taxation."

This is perhaps the most outlandish claim I've heard from you in your defence of the bin tax. Consider the context - the government orders the councils to impose the bin tax; in cases where the councils are unwilling they are threatened with dissolution; finally the city manager steps in and imposes non-collection against the expressed desire of a majority of councillers - and you think that this is progress towards local authorities regaining powers?? Or maybe you think that the government will start to grant them more independence as soon as the bin tax is paid in full? There is nothing but blind faith to support that view and, considering the record of our government, creationism is a more convincing tenet of faith to hold.

"you know I dont have faith in your assertion that we can simply 'tax-the-rich' to pay our way especially when we have been getting a fairer deal than most other countries."

PAYE workers pay a much higher proportion of direct taxes in Ireland than in any other EU country. The only people who have been getting a fairer deal in Ireland is the rich. And why can't we tax the rich? Moving corporation tax and capital gains tax into line with income tax would raise hundreds of times more revenue than local service charges ever will.

"Also I wonder how many applied for the waiver that was designed to protect the truly poor from the taxation."

I wonder how many residents in Sligo applied for the waiver only to have it terminated after privatisation when the charges rose to over 500 euros a year?

I am still convinced that your arguments are dishonest and motivated by another agenda than your stated concerns.

by Niall OB - Greens Mon Oct 13, 2003 20:02

Q. One of your tactics to stop incineration is to "delay it as long as possible" - how?

A. By every means available to us. The Green movement has already invented a whole number of new methods to prevent incineration coming to Ireland. Principally by ensuring that EU environmental directives are enforced and by using people power to put political pressure on the Government. Non violent direct action may have to be considered as a last resort.

Q. Can you clarify that the greens will walk away from any coalition that in any way supports the construction of even one incinerator?

A. Yes I can. Unlike other parties the Greens cannot enter Government unless two thirds of our membership vote in favour of it. Our convention unanimously approved a motion to put the anti-incineration stance on our list of conditions for Government. It needs a 66.6% majority of the membership to overturn this. I can't see that happening.

Q. Promote the alternatives -how? Incineration will completely cut the ground out from under any kind of meaningful recycling in this country.

A. You're right. We have been trying our best and we will shortly be bring out a major new policy on waste management. However, the only way to ensure that a proper infrastructure is in place is to have it included in a programme for Government.

Q. The power of the state is behind incineration - we've seen how it's being wielded to crush the bin tax opposition - the same power will be used, maybe less oppressively, to impose incineration?

A. The Government hasn't succeeded yet. The fact is that there is considerable political support for the anti-incineration position from the general public. Some people put it at around 85%. I don't think that the anti-bin tax campaign has anwhere near that level of support. Bringing public opinion with you is crucially important.

by binned Mon Oct 13, 2003 20:33

the term 'general' taxation is one that is being used buy the anti-bin tax lobby. Its not like me to be so vague. I agree 100% that the revenues from higher bracket taxes need to be hauled in but it needs to be marked by a balanced process. I imagine if there was any further increase in capital gains tax it will only serve to hike the price of property and land which will affect who, the poor. The area of corporate tax reliefs is a better bet but the FF heads say these incentives are essential for attracting businesses into the country in order to provide jobs - so its a flip between more jobs or less jobs. This view depends on what side of the fence your on. ;)

Your call for raising PAYE on all brackets etc. is dangerous because you know that the effects of that rise cannot be treated isolation.

The only way I understand the bin tax to be regressive is that it will be trying to fix the mistakes FF made a long time ago.

What I mean by a traceable rates is one that is visible to the payer and less susceptible to variant rises that go unnoticed. Rates that could be more managemable for when the payment per weight system gets rolled out.

You should know that the prices are being hiked in rural areas due to the imbalance in tax revenue, mainly from the Dublin area.

I have not said one thing that was dishonest in fact I had to pull up one of your friends on another thread because he was using out of date facts and was modifying and ignoring tracts of directives in order to disseminate lies. Maybe instead of being paranoid about my 'motives' try and convince me that you are right - try to find plausible solutions to the problems.

by Very Anonymous Tue Oct 14, 2003 14:32

Q. One of your tactics to stop incineration is to "delay it as long as possible" - how?

A. By every means available to us. The Green movement has already invented a whole number of new methods to prevent incineration coming to Ireland. Principally by ensuring that EU environmental directives are enforced and by using people power to put political pressure on the Government. Non violent direct action may have to be considered as a last resort.

****BUT WILL THE GREENS HAVE THE STOMACH FOR NON-VIOLENT DIRECT ACTION - THEY WEREN'T TO KEEN ON IT EARLIER IN THE YEAR AT SHANNON. MAYBE I'M MISTAKEN BUT AREN'T INCINERATORS BEING CONSIDERED IN AN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH EU DIRECTIVES ON WASTE?****

Q. Can you clarify that the greens will walk away from any coalition that in any way supports the construction of even one incinerator?

A. Yes I can. Unlike other parties the Greens cannot enter Government unless two thirds of our membership vote in favour of it. Our convention unanimously approved a motion to put the anti-incineration stance on our list of conditions for Government. It needs a 66.6% majority of the membership to overturn this. I can't see that happening.

**WILL CUFFE, GORMLEY ET AL THROW AWAY THEIR PLACE IN A GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS OF ORDINARY GREEN MEMBERS OVER INCINERATION? MORE LIKELY, THE MEMBERSHIP WOULD BE BROWBEATEN AT A CONVENTION WITH SERIOUS ARM-TWISTING TO GET THE NECESSARY MAJORITY. I DOUBT GREEN TD'S WOULD THROW AWAY THEIR CHANCE BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS OF ORDINARY MEMBERS - IT WOULD BE REFRESHING IF THE MEMBERSHIP PREVAILED IN SUCH A SITUATION - BUT I DOUBT IT WOULD. SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE WOULD BE THRASHED OUT TO ENABLE THE GREENS TO JOIN OFFICE AND SUPPORT EVEN LIMITED INCINERATION***

Q. Promote the alternatives -how? Incineration will completely cut the ground out from under any kind of meaningful recycling in this country.

A. You're right. We have been trying our best and we will shortly be bring out a major new policy on waste management. However, the only way to ensure that a proper infrastructure is in place is to have it included in a programme for Government.

***AT THE VERY EARLIEST THAT WOULD BE 2006 - 3 YEARS AWAY - IN THE MEANTIME THE NIB WILL IN ALL LIKELIHOOD BE UP AND RUNNING AND GIVING THE GO-AHEAD TO INCINERATORS ETC. TALK ABOUT CLOSING THE STABLE DOOR AFTER THE HORSE HAS BOLTED.***

Q. The power of the state is behind incineration - we've seen how it's being wielded to crush the bin tax opposition - the same power will be used, maybe less oppressively, to impose incineration?

A. The Government hasn't succeeded yet. The fact is that there is considerable political support for the anti-incineration position from the general public. Some people put it at around 85%. I don't think that the anti-bin tax campaign has anwhere near that level of support. Bringing public opinion with you is crucially important.

***FAIR ENOUGH POINT - HOWEVER, WHILE EVERY HOUSEHOLD IS AFFECTED BY THE BIN CHARGES AND MUST MAKE THE CHOICE WHETHER TO PAY OR NOT THAT WON'T BE THE CASE WITH INCINERATORS. THE CURRENT PLANNING APPEALS ON INCINERATORS ARE PROVIDING GOOD INDICATORS TO THE LIKES OF INDAVER ETC ABOUT HOW TO GO ABOUT PROPOSING ANY FUTURE INCINERATORS. I EXPECT THAT A LOT OF OUT OF THE WAY PLACES IN RURAL AREAS WILL BE PUT FORWARD. WHILE 85% OF THE PUBLIC MIGHT NOT SUPPORT INCINERATION I'D ARGUE THAT THEY MIGHT NOT SUPPORT INCINERATORS CLOSE TO WHERE THEY LIVE BUT AFTER THAT "OUTT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND" WOULD TAKE OVER. I CAN'T SEE DUBS OR PEOPLE IN LEINSTER GETTING TOO WORKED UP ABOUT AN INCINERATOR IN, FOR EXAMPLE, LEITRIM OR SLIGO. THE PROPOSED NIB WILL STEAMROLL ANY LOCAL OPPOSITION IN THESE PLACES. TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MASONITE FACTORY IN LEITRIM IS AS NOXIOUS AS AN INCINERATOR AND THE AUGHINISH ALUMINA PLANT IN LIMERICK IS LIKEWISE. BOTH ARE UP AND RUNNING AND THERE'S NO CHANCE OF EVER CLOSING THEM DOWN NOW - THE ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT FROM BOTH IS WELL KNOW BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE FULL BACKING OF THE STATE THEY'RE SAFE FROM ANY INTERFERENCE. INDEED YOU COULD ARGUE THAT INCINERATORS IN THE BMW AREA MAY WELL BE TOUTED AS "GOOD FOR JOBS". WHEN REAL POLITICAL CHOICES HAVE TO BE MADE ABOUT HOW TO CONDUCT OPPOSITION TO LAWFULLY MANDATED INCINERATORS THEN OPPOSITION GROUPS WILL BE PORTRAYED IN THE MEDIA AND BEYOND IN A SIMILAR MANNER TO THE WAY THE BIN-TAX PROTEST IS CURRENTLY BEING PORTRAYED. ****