admin
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Warning carbon credits could cost €1bn
From:ireland.com
Monday, 2nd April, 2007The Government’s greenhouse gas policy could cost the taxpayer up to €1 billion over the next five years, according to a leading renewable energy company.
Under current policy, the State intends buying carbon credits from Russia and eastern Europe instead of cutting emissions.
Carbon credits are “licences” traded between countries and organisations. Under the Kyoto and Marrakesh treaties, countries or groups with low or falling emissions can sell credits to those with high emission levels. They allow the purchaser to continue producing high levels of greenhouse gases.
In the Republic’s case, the State is buying credits from eastern Europe and Russia because the numbers of industries in those countries have fallen over the last 20 years, which means they have had a related fall in greenhouse gas emissions.However, Mark Ennis, Airtricity’s chief executive of supply in Ireland, warned at the weekend that the Government has underestimated both the price of credits on the open market and the rate at which the Republic’s greenhouse gas emissions are going to increase.
“If you take Ireland’s projected growth rate between now and 2020, we’re going to generate 33 million tonnes [of greenhouse gas] above our 1990 levels.“At the same time, the projected price of carbon credits is likely to be €15 to €20 per tonne in 2008; that’s projected to rise to €38 by 2012, and it’s reasonable to assume that it will be €40 to €50 by 2020.
“The Government’s figures are showing that this will cost €270 million over the next five years. They’ve underestimated the quantity and the price. It’s going to be at least €500 million and it could go up to €1 billion.”
Airtricity’s group chief executive Eddie O’Connor also warned yesterday that the final bill for carbon credits could be as high as €1.5 billion by 2020, a little more than €115 million a year.
“It is inexplicable why the Government would contemplate purchasing licences to pollute from Russia,” Mr O’Connor said .
“They say that the cost will be €270 million. The cost is more likely to be €1 billion to €1.5 billion, all taxpayer money.”
He added that this would be enough to build wind farms with the capacity to generate 3,000 megawatts of electricity, over half the State’s current needs.
Mr Ennis said the policy of purchasing carbon credits would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as the countries from which the State was purchasing them have already had their carbon output cut by the closure of many of their industries.
The Airtricity executives said the Republic should be taking the lead in investing in renewable energy and in developing interconnection.
Mr Ennis said while the company was involved in developing wind-generation projects, it favoured support for all types of renewable electricity generation.
“We’ve missed an opportunity in this country. The Government declared a moratorium on all offshore wind projects in 2003, and no new projects have been connected up to the grid since then.”
All other European countries with a coastlines were “falling over themselves” to get offshore wind generation off the ground.
The recent Government White Paper on energy includes a commitment to have one-third of all energy needs met from renewable sources by 2020. Mr Ennis described this as an aspiration.
“They have no chance of delivering on that with no investment in green energy and interconnection.”
He said to meet this target Eirgrid (which manages the national electricity grid) and the Commission for Energy Regulation needed to join forces with the industry and focus on developing renewable energy infrastructure
.
Seems everyone except Dick is having a lightbulb moment picking holes in his hilarious attempts to formulate a plan to meet our finincially onerous commitments to the Kyoto protocol which is actually in fact not a three legged donky running in todays in the 320 at Punchestown but an international treaty which will cost the taxpayer billions if Dick keeps ignoring it.
@Pepsi wrote:
does anyone know if those concrete piles at heuston station are going to get any higher? what is going in there anyway? is it the heuston gate development or is it something else?
Any chance of an architectural critique of the sceme peps
It will be needed there is no question of that and if memory serves me correctly I think that a map of the Lotts before the railway was inserted displays that this was a throughway.
Virtually the entire area between O’Connell Street and the Eastlink will be 5 stories or higher within 5 or 6 years; I wonder how much the RPA were able to claw back from Capital contributions on this?
I can also see this intersection being a major traffic blackspot as the merging route of Guild Street will link with the Macken Street Bridge route from Grand Canal Street to Seville Place and onward to the North Circular Road.
Would love to see you give an architectural critique of the wes gate scheme and address its siting beside the Royal Hospital
As research shows mercury lightbulbs are only marginally better than old style lightbulbs and present significant disposal headaches
That is a fantastic improvement on what was there before and with the linear park out to tender you would know that we are into an election year in Dublin Central.
I don’t go with that analysis at all as the peatlands of the shannon basin have drained into the shannon waterway for thousands of years without damage to the eco system. The problem is very definitely man made and my money is on a combination of septic tanks and lawn feed not to mention sporadic illegal dumps containing everything from offal to hospital waste.
@GrahamH wrote:
Some of the development out at Heuston, overlooking the Royal Hospital gardens.
A rendering on a hoarding.
That rendering is a fairly typical example of the artistic licence taken in contemporary renderings; the wispy sky and absence of sun glare on the extensive glazing. Not to mention the stone gate style feature displayed as being open.
During the discussion on Hueston Gate proposal in late 2003 someone made the point that the height of the tower was irrelevant to The Royal Hospital in the context of this permission. They were right this scheme is an unmitigated disaster destroying the context of the finest 17th Century building in the Country.
kite wrote:It is not just one off housing and farming that is to blame for water contamination.
Bad planning by city and county officials, many who got their jobs by being “next in line†for promotion is the major cause of all our ills in this Country.
Imagine having a director of planning (now thankfully an ex director) who got his job by doing a six week course and then appointed by a City Managers Order.
Would anyone out there be happy to have open heart surgery performed on your child by a pen pusher who took a six week course and was appointed on the say so of a hospital manager?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………High density developments have their problems as well]
I’m not so surw that there are many unqualified planners in ireland today. To be honest it wouldn’t make much difference if there weren’t given many of the guidelines published by the minister and the complete lack of regional infrastructural planning in relation to waste and water. For example Wicklow is its own independent waste region and illegal dumps there had the potential to knock out 75% of the Dublin water supply according to former city manager John Fitzgerald when he made a submission for a retention planning application for an illegal dump.
One has to wonder what are the underlying causes of the Galway and Ennis water system meltdowns; I doubt it is sheep farming given their respective water catchments.
It is indeed shocking that a city in the wealthiest EU country (so they keep telling us) has had a water problem lasting longer than 7 days that wasn’t due to climatic conditions.
This is not a problem that is unique to Galway nor is it the fault of the local authorities imvolved. Carlow has been down this road many times and interestingly the Carlow supply is down river so to speak in the drainage pattern from Kildare which has a very high number of one off houses serviced by septic tanks. I have spoken to planners in county coucils who off the record have repeated outline coversations with applicants for one off houses explaining the risks of localised water polution quite graphically. The applicants either don’t believe them or don’t care as the ‘sites’ were to be sold and as such the applications were never for a ‘residence’ in reality for the applicants using the residency rules allowing proper planning rules to be ignored.
Unfortunately it is not only septic tanks that are the problem; Lough Derg has been virtually un-swimmable for years which horticultural experts attribute to the lawn feed from the numerous hacienda style one off houses that ruin the aesthetic of lake. Then you have the hundreds of illegal dumps which that sector is making €100m’s from due to no effective policing of.
Water quality is not an objective that has been properly considered or managed. Galway is just unlucky that it has affected them and not somewhere else.
I switched off his rhetoric a long time ago and strongly believe that he has taken this line only to pad out the time he spends in court. The only route unproven against his stance is unique bizarre constitutional route that no one else has ever invested legal costs in.
In relation to the Leopardstown case I can see the legal point. You have a lot of very similar land in the vicinity none of which is developed with some zoned resi and some zoned amenity. The zoning in such a case has some slight doubt as the decision to zone plot a resi and plot b amenity due to their similar characteristics is an arbitrary decision. It is a fair question to ask why there is a very different zoning despite the simularities. As a result the owners of the financially disadvantaged plot successfully argued this point.
However I do not feel that this principle can be transferred to Dartmouth Square for the following reasons. Firstly the site history for over a century displays that the estate zoning on the site was amenity. The plan has always been that this plot would be subservient to the adjoining residential uses. Secondly when the zoning was conferred in the first statutory development plan the plan for the area was reliant on this plot providing the amenity space for this locality and no other sites were considered so that decision cannot be conidered to be arbitrary. Thirdly the CPO of the lands at Leopardstown sought to change the day to day use of the subject plot; in this case the use is not proposed to change and as such the local authority cannot be said to be gaining any financial gain in the transaction.
I would ask one simple question what was the user clause in all previous leases and how long has the superior interest holder insisted on such a user clause formed the centre of all deals done? The zoning is valid on the basis of his predessors grants of lease.
I think the Bord do a very good job and if you analyse the volume of cases that they handle there will always be situations where people are not happy with the outcome. There will further always be cases where its quasi – judicial nature is exposed by the judicial process upon review given the extra resources brought into play by the payment of €5000 per day to Senior Councel to spin on the basis of case law that extends well beyond the planning sphere.
In a lot of cases appelants raise specific concerns which require the submission of information in the responses from the applicants in these cases it may or may not be necessary to remit this information to the appelants depending on the nature of the material submitted.
In conclusion the ABP system isn’t perfect as no system is but it is independent of government and gets the vast majority of its calls spot on with the use of conditions to deliver solutions not possible by a simple grant/refuse method. A return to the ministerial power of decision makes me think of John Prescott and that is not a difficult one to decide upon. More resources for the Bord would really help but what would help a lot more would be if many local authority planners were free of county manager interference to grant which results in large numbers of appeals against schemes that could not be considered sustainable in any shape or form.
Seamus
I agree with your Macro take on this; DCC shouldn’t be in a position where the reversionary interest wasn’t bought; they should used the many obvious flaws in the folio to their advantage to depress the price as no doubt Mr O’Gara did.
However on the sale I strobgly disagree that the site is for sale for over €100m in any real sense.
If I were advising a client on the sale of a major parcel of land you would be talking about instructing CRBE or JLL or DTZ i.e. a major player with a dedicated land division who has handled 9 figure transactions on a regular basis i.e. someone who is a market maker as well as an agent. In this instance we are supposed to believe that a local auctioneer in Terenure with no website listed in a google search is capable of securing such a sale.
A 9 figure deal
There is a couple of hours of good drama in this one
He will get €100,000.00 from DCC as per their formally binding offer which he shall consider and accept or refer to arbitration if he feels aggreived.
There is no brochure for the site. The site is open form interested parties to view and the auctioneers are not conducting accomapnied viewings on site as is normal for development land transactions. The auctioneers are claiming that DCC have not served a requisite notice and are backtracking on their original intention to purchase the square.
I am therefore very surprised as to why he is selling his interest and why he has instructed Allied Auctioneers who appear to be a specialist property management firm as opposed to development land specialists. One wonders if DTZ, JLL, Lisney, Bannon, Savilles and Colliers were offered this?
Presuming that those specific details are defined in the handbook or ancillary appendicies / annexed documentation.
DIT Bolton Street has it in the Library if you are city Centre; failing that it is published by The Construction Industry Federation who would I’m sure be able to advise you on where to pick up a copy should they not sell it online.
If not a building surveyor who specialises in defects may be an attractive route as most architects have little interest in this type of work these days. First question; if this goes to arbitration can the defect be proven as negligent?
The Theatre Royal would be a great reintroduction; but one feels that the plot ratio of the combined plots of Apollo, Hawkins & College Houses together with the Screen Cinema may be combined be the planners if all three existing horror stories are to be erased.
The term pastiche really pisses me off as do the bland undesigned apartment blocks terms ‘sensitive infill’ by their proponents.
There are two types of non-contemporary desigbs that I find acceptable. Firstly in architectiural comservation areas where research is undertaken to establish what was on the site being reinstated accurately.
Secondly where there are unusual plots of undeveloped backland and a restrained but faithful to a specific period is executed with the materials one would expect for a fire reinstatment. An example of somewhere suitable for this would be the blank wall on Kildare Place between Dept Ag and the Museum. A short terrace faced in portland stone or copy of 33-35 Fitzwilliam Place in granite could tidy this area up and give more of a plaza feel to thia completely wasted public space.
Has a consensus emerged on whether Liberty Hall should go at all?
@jdivision wrote:
Paul, unfortunately unless they do something with the rail bridge the sightlines of the Custom House are already ruined
The image is interesting in that it shows views of the north Dublin hills prior to development of the Irish Life Centre and that the loopline had no advertising hoardings at least as late mid 1960’s
I thought about this on the way to work this morning; I couldn’t think of any reason why converting a 60m tower into a 90-120m would do any harm. Then it hit me the shodow analysis test may prove that it would have an effect as the tower is due west of the Custom House which may result in shadowing of the Custom House. An independent shadow analysis would sort this out.
One aspect of SIPTU’s argument for replacement that disturbs me is their assertion that it is jaded office space and that they have a right of equivelence to new third or fourth generation space to be paid for by an additional quantum of development. My view on this is that the building must in circumstances where it is owner occupied be considered to be a landlord’s void i.e. the landlord must decide whether they wish to invest to bring the specification up to contemporary norms to attract a tenant on passing income streams.
Why should SIPTU have the planning rules bent so that they can have free offices?
There seem to have been more of these types of pieces lately. These articles are always devoid of relevant statistics and point to the period before proper climatic records began.
patterns such as el nino and the intensity of hurricanes are manifestations of a trend that is clear. The world is getting warmer and regardless of the underlying causes being disputed it would be irresponsible not to take steps to slow this trend as far as is possible.
If you want independent confirmation of the problem and a view from those who consider all aspects look no further than the acturial profession who at a consensus level predict that the cost of climate related insurance claims will exceed global GDP in the 2050’s.
Gimics such as scapegoating the aviation industry do not help but it is clear that energy use on a macro scale is recalibrated in favour of renewables.
Any news on the Moneypoint conversion?
