Machines, Politics and Lobbying

cactus flower wrote:

Unilateral is correct, I think. We either bring in the measure on our own, independently of the EU, or we wait for a Directive.

The same thing goes for the additional wing mirrors needed to stop HGVs killing pedestrians and cyclists at junctions. We could bring the measure in unilaterally if we wanted to, but we have decided to wait a year or two until the EU does.

There is more lee way than people make out to bring in safety measures independently of the EU, but quoting the "level playing pitch" principle is a handy way out of doing things.

In the case of the light bulbs, It looks as if nothing had been thought through by the Greens.

Is the 'unilateral' to do with EU competition rules? It's a kind of protectionism or something to not allow some bulbs in or be used.... What has changed in the EU initiative that was mentioned, does anyone know?

Well it is correct, but it is a strange usage of the word. You wouldn't generally refer to a State acting unilateral in the Governance of their own domestic affairs. Generally it is used to describe a policy which is international in nature, or has the effect of impinging on other people. The emphasis being on the exclusion of the other parties. It is not an incorrect usage though in that it merely means acting singularly.

cactus flower wrote:

It just took a bit longer to be dropped than the equally ill-planned car parking levy.

Dropped?
The plan isn't being dropped! It is being extended! To the whole of the EU.

cactus flower wrote:

/>They are talking about the improvements in house construction as if they are a Green invention - they are in fact required under an EU Directive and can't be avoided.

Dick Roche had 5 years to implement a 40% increase in the minimum insulation regs which he just didn't get round to. John Gormley had it implemented within weeks of becoming minister. If the the EU was forcing Ireland to make this change why didn't we do it earlier?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Is the 'unilateral' to do with EU competition rules?

No.
Let's look back over what happened.
John Gormley announced he would ban the selling of inefficient bulbs, starting Jan 2009.
Joanna Tuffy of Labour claimed first that this was bad for the environment, and subsequently that it was against EU internal market rules.
Gormley then went to Brussels and confirmed with the relevant commissioner that it was not against the internal market rules, or rather that there is a derogation which allows for differing environmental standards. The commission then said it was fully behind the idea and would look into implementing it on an EU wide basis.
This week it confirmed that it is to be done in September on an EU wide basis.

So Gormley, has decided that rather than introduce the ban now, he'll wait to September, when it will be easier to implement.

Thanks eoin.

On the subject of the Greens not implementing Directives - I think they've worked pretty hard enough at them as much in opposition as in government.

The latest scandalous feet-dragging that was done over the Nitrates Directive and building the slurry infrastructure overshadows the likes of this. I don't think it's fair to villify the Greens over this. And it's not really a U-turn, rather it's a postponement

eoinmn wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Is the 'unilateral' to do with EU competition rules?

No.
Let's look back over what happened.
John Gormley announced he would ban the selling of inefficient bulbs, starting Jan 2009.
Joanna Tuffy of Labour claimed first that this was bad for the environment, and subsequently that it was against EU internal market rules.
Gormley then went to Brussels and confirmed with the relevant commissioner that it was not against the internal market rules, or rather that there is a derogation which allows for differing environmental standards. The commission then said it was fully behind the idea and would look into implementing it on an EU wide basis.
This week it confirmed that it is to be done in September on an EU wide basis.

So Gormley, has decided that rather than introduce the ban now, he'll wait to September, when it will be easier to implement.

Thanks eoinmn - that is fair enough.

So is it a good idea, anyway, and can it be done by 2012? http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Atmosphere/ClimateChange/LightBulbsPublicConsultation/LightBulbsFAQs/

Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil did this in 2005 - but perhaps they don't have so many crazy light fittings.

btw, tungsten halogen and I think LED are also allowable - anyone know anything about LED ?

We must have at least 6 or 7 different light fittings in this house. You can get energy saving ones for the vast majority of the fittings if you try though. IKEA has a particularly good stock of different ones. Only ones we can't get for is Halogen but I think they don't use as much energy anyway. You can get LED bulbs for halogen fittings but they are very expensive and not sure if they give great light at this stage.

johnfás wrote:

Well it is correct, but it is a strange usage of the word. You wouldn't generally refer to a State acting unilateral in the Governance of their own domestic affairs. Generally it is used to describe a policy which is international in nature, or has the effect of impinging on other people. The emphasis being on the exclusion of the other parties. It is not an incorrect usage though in that it merely means acting singularly.

It has distinct overtones....it suggests a cavalier disregard for other opinions, or acting in the face of them.

ibis wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Well it is correct, but it is a strange usage of the word. You wouldn't generally refer to a State acting unilateral in the Governance of their own domestic affairs. Generally it is used to describe a policy which is international in nature, or has the effect of impinging on other people. The emphasis being on the exclusion of the other parties. It is not an incorrect usage though in that it merely means acting singularly.

It has distinct overtones....it suggests a cavalier disregard for other opinions, or acting in the face of them.

Like this:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Well it is correct, but it is a strange usage of the word. You wouldn't generally refer to a State acting unilateral in the Governance of their own domestic affairs. Generally it is used to describe a policy which is international in nature, or has the effect of impinging on other people. The emphasis being on the exclusion of the other parties. It is not an incorrect usage though in that it merely means acting singularly.

It has distinct overtones....it suggests a cavalier disregard for other opinions, or acting in the face of them.

Like this:

Like that!

JohnFás, I think you're grand with the Halogens.

I think its a good idea.
There is minimum efficiency standards now on oil burners (for home heating), cars (I think), so why not bulbs.

Detractors tend to get worked up about the shortcomings of CFL bulbs ignoring that
the tech is improving all the time
there are other options, apart from CFLs
if there are tech problems, that's not the fault of legislators
they are already more common than one may think, for example in shops.

Their predecessor the florescent tube used to be in most kitchens when I was young.

I think most people have starting coming around to them now though. Most of my friends have installed them certainly in the easier fittings in their homes at this stage. We'd have all energy efficient here except for two rooms, one of which has halogen, which won't be replaced, and the other which will be replaced once we get around to it. We went on a drive and replaced them all except that room a few years ago when the bulbs for those fittings weren't easily available and just haven't got around to doing it yet.

We get a power surge on our power line every morning at 2 a.m. No bulb of any description lasts more than 3 months. Sometimes they don't last a week.

I suppose we will have to engage in lengthy negotiations and hassle with the ESB, or resort to candles.

I hear that the EU is going to let Chinese CFLs in though, so the price will drop.

I think the EU will allow halogen.

I bought two CFLs, I think Omacron were the brand, in Atlantic, which blew after a few months.
I replaced them with Solus one's and haven't had a problem.

The Solus one's are brighter too, but take much much longer to warm up.

LED isn't there yet is it ? Regardless - it could be time to start looking at them yokes now instead of the CFL bulbs at all.

eoinmn wrote:

I bought two CFLs, I think Omacron were the brand, in Atlantic, which blew after a few months.
I replaced them with Solus one's and haven't had a problem.

The Solus one's are brighter too, but take much much longer to warm up.

I have a Phillips in my office which I put in...hmm..well, five or six years ago, anyway. Cost me something like 15 euro, but I've replaced the incandescent bulb in the other lamp maybe a dozen times in that time. Even on a straightforward 'capital' cost, it's paid for itself.

This machine or mechanism is slightly different - the political election mechanism of the List System. I'm shameless whipping some of Toxic Avenger's post over on p.ie because it's a subject I'm interested in but know little about.

http://www.politics.ie/elections/42010-second-republic.html#post1398378

In response to this [an article], and to the low calibre he perceives our nepotistically-chosen TDs to generally be, their abilities being confined to local party chicanery, Crown proposes a national list system to replace the multi-seat constituencies, thus turning Ireland into one constituency and aiding a break with clientilism and parish-politics.

A reduced but directly constituency-elected Seanad would compensate for this, with it being given limited powers of legislation or amendment. Also proposed is the ability to appoint outside experts to the Cabinet, just as the Americans can,plus a massively slimmed down Civil Service.

Would it lead to lobbying on a grand scale? Would that be a bad thing? To me this sounds like it's something we need - the local balance would be there in the Seanad.... How the hell would we get a List system in the first place ... through Lobbying nepotistically-elected TDs ??!!