Dublin city council and a state agency are planning to pump water from the River Shannon, in the midlands of Ireland, up to the catchment area of Dublin, a distance closing on 80 miles. They are proposing to pump 350million litres of water per day to the city, to help serve as drinking water for the next 70 years.
Obviously, this is stirring up huge controversy. I am not going to get involved in either side of a passionate debate like this. I am more interested in the sanity/logic of this project, as more and more proposals like this will be mooted by governments worldwide, as a reactionary measure to counteract against increasing population levels and climatic changes. In this instance the project proposes moving water 80 miles for drinking purposes for a large urban area, at a proposed cost of 500million euro!
If I were a resident in the Dublin region, then two things look apparent. Firstly, it looks like my future water supply is in jeopardy and secondly, I am going to have to pay a lot of money over the years towards meeting that 500million bill, if this project goes ahead. However, by paying all this money in taxation is one actually guaranteed good quality water going forward? Im afraid not. Then, the question becomes why does one need to pay for this water to be moved. Why can't my council meet my water needs from water in my region?
If Dublin is running out of water then there has to be a reason. One has to question if Dublin may have significantly less rainfall than the rest of the country. It is slightly drier than the West, but still receives a large rainfall of approx. 900mm per year. Also, the beauty of a temperate climate is that this rainfall is fairly evenly spread out over the year and does not fall in a short monsoon season. Therefore the water cycle has a chance to keep working. This must mean that a lot of water is getting wasted in the city. And as it transpires this is the case. Victorian era pipe work leaks water like a sieve underground throughout the city.
So it is deemed sensible to move a great mass of water 80 miles to feed into pipe work that is totally inefficient. This is madness of the highest order. All at a cost of 500million euro. A pretty expensive bill for an illogical and poorly thought out proposal.
How to fix things:
Preservation of water has to be key. Don't even allow it into the pipework in the first instance. Trap water at source, e.g. capture rain water from roofs and store in individual household tanks. Get this tank plumbed into toilets/washing machines etc. Now less and less clean water is required from the council for these services. Now fresh water demand drops exponentially and the need to ship water cross country is negated.
Of course there will be a cost in implementing hardware in houses to capture water and feed it into the houses. However, if tens of thousands of houses across the region are getting this retrofit, then it could be done at a much reduced rate. Let’s just say we still spend this 500million euro, but instead redeploy it. If 500,000* houses, (nearly all of Dublin hinterland houses) all received a rain water harvesting system at a cost of say 1000*Euro (reduced price due to the quantity), it means we are empowering all those householders to help meet a lot of their water needs. If we get them to pay for this retrofit themselves, either up front if they can afford it, or over time if they can't (years if needs be), then they will not be hit with huge water charges going forward to pay for moving water by their council. This 1000*euro should also be written off against individual taxation. It is an investment in sustainability that means the government needs to perform less central delivery of services, and therefore it should be supported financially in the means of tax reduction. This means it will cost significantly less than the 1000*euro for the individual.
Of course people will cry foul at having to pay at all. However, with the plan of moving water the housholder will be forced to pay index linked taxation and water charges indefinitely into the future. Hence, they will pay a lot more than 1000Euro! However, if they paid 1000Euro now as a set amount to install their own collection system, then they know they cannot be forced to pay off a piece of state infrastructure indefinitely into the future.
Since we do live in a democracy it is a choice to implement a solution like this. However, those who do install it should be rewarded. Perhaps they would become exempt from all water charges going forward, or indeed just pay a token contribution (50Euro/year), whereas those who refuse to install their own water collection system should be those who need to install a full water metering device and pay for their usage. This also solves the crisis of how to apply water charging.
This project has the added benefit of creating thousands of jobs in installing these systems NOW, hence stimulating economic activity in the region. While a great big pipe from the midlands will create jobs, there would be far less due to large machines performing the bulk of the work. House to house retrofits are much more labour intensive and hence will create many times more jobs.
Now water doesn't need to be moved. It is generated at source.
We have to start coming up with local solutions like this. It is too easy for planners/councils/governments to sit in offices and make sweeping infrastructural decisions that have no long term benefit without pushing back and proposing better alternatives.
We gain security when we invest in these projects. It is far better putting our individual finances/savings into solutions like this, than investing in places like the stock exchange. We gain security when we invest locally. Now we know, at the very least, that we can meet a lot of our water needs, a somewhat basic human right. Shipping water 80 miles does not guarantee us this.
Also someone needs to explain first principles to these decision makers. A leaking bucket will always need more water. 350 millions litres today, 800million in a few years, where does it end!
Fix the leaks, coupled with introducing a widespread water saving project like rain water harvesting would secure water needs permanently for the region of Dublin city.
* These figures are not exact and are only used as illustration of the possibility of redeploying this money into better local solutions.
p.s. While obviously it's a major project to retrofit houses like above, it is not too outlandish an idea. There was once a time where every house in the Dublin region (albeit less houses) all had single glazed windows. Then this new fangled concept came to pass where they put two panes of glass together!.......try to find more than a handful of houses nowadays with single glazing throughout. That was quite a labour intensive project for all those houses, but obviously achieveable over time. Nothing to say the same couldn't happen with this project.
Barry Fitzgerald
Author of "Building Cities of Gold"
Buy Now From Amazon
http://tinyurl.com/22t3mkc
Kindle Version - http://tinyurl.com/2vq2e2d
Publishing house: ATTM Press.
http://www.allthingsthatmatterpress.com/buynow.htm
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Hand Back the Keys!!!
A body in Ireland tasked with coming up with "creative" ideas to try and ease the pressure on struggling mortgage holders, reckon the best solution for these people is to hand back the keys to their homes, and to then go and join the social housing lists.
No consideration of the stress implications, the social impact of this, the fear and desperation of the people involved. They are treated like numbers, not people terrified out of their wits. Is there a better solution? One thing is for sure. People will need to help themselves, as inspiration ain't coming from the top down, as seen from above.
If we look at the figures, we are told 4% of mortgage holders are in dire difficulty. And anything up to another 10% are under uncomfortable strain meeting their repayments. Of course, the demographic involved is the 30-40 year old, with a couple of kids, i.e. the working (or not working, as the case may be) middle class poor. Also a major tax contributing demographic, if they are working. So they should just hand back their keys and give up. Yeah right!
It's time for unified thinking. Let's look at all of those who have no mortgages, e.g. the empty nesters, early 60's, who may be quite comfortable. Approximately 40% of people have no mortgage commitments and most of those are that type of profile described above. If we have a fit and healthy couple in their 30's who are unemployed, then they shouldn't languish under the stress and strain of potentially losing their homes through no fault of their own. If they can't (and many can't) gain employment, then perhaps we can marry these two demographic ranges together. For every unemployed person who can't get a job and who can't repay their mortgages, there is, in most likelihood, 10 mortgage free householders (or more) of more advanced years.
What if the young couple were to work in a socially agreed fashion for those 10 households? Any type of work; from manual labouring, painting, garden maintenance, to driving services etc.. Also more socially oriented work like house calls, counseling services, letting their young kids interact with what can often be a quite lonely demographic, i.e. the retired/elderly person. A fee could be pre-arranged, of say 10 euro per hour, for services rendered from the young couple to the older people. If each young couple performed just 10 hours work for another "older" household per month, then it would mean a remittance to them of 100Euro per month. Do that for 10 households and you have 1,000 Euro/month, for only 100 hours of your now "free time". That 1,000 would often meet, or go a significant way to meeting a monthly mortgage repayment.
Of course the "older" household has to have that 100 Euro spare every month. But a lot would have that. Secondly, they have to want to participate. But, if they are getting work done by a trusted, regular caller to their house, well they may well want to engage with such a scheme. Very often maintenance on something will prevent future catasptrophic failures, and so, a scheme like this could actually utimately save them money. Also, at a rate like above of 10 Euro they are getting a very fair price.
The upside is huge.
A ratio of 1:10 is what's needed. Find ten comfortable households for each struggling household. Oh, and I believe that that 1000euro/month should be tax exempt. It is people helping themselves through a very difficult time; hence they are not now so dependent on the government. They will not end up on social housing lists, will need less state support and will get back on their feet a lot quicker. A government should be encouraging schemes like this, and the best way to do that is to grant them official tax free status. The economic and social payback from a scheme like this far outweighs whatever puny (in relative terms) taxes it would raise.
How to set up this scheme? Well it would be easy to operate, easy to follow rules. The hard part, as always, is to own up and to actually ask for the help, if one is struggling. We have forgotten we are a society, not a collection of economic producing housing units. The scheme should run from the ground up though, i.e. do not let incompetent institutions (including private banks) near the reins of power. A simple website to advertise the idea, publish profiles of those seeking aid, and of those willing to offer "work". A matching process could then begin, based on location.
People helping people. The only way out of this mess. And nobody is getting screwed.
It sure beats having thousands of house keys dangling from a banker’s office wall, with their corresponding houses lying empty.
Barry Fitzgerald
Author of "Building Cities of Gold"
Available Now From Amazon
http://tinyurl.com/22t3mkc
Kindle Version - http://tinyurl.com/2vq2e2d
Publishing house: ATTM Press.
http://www.allthingsthatmatterpress.com/buynow.htm
No consideration of the stress implications, the social impact of this, the fear and desperation of the people involved. They are treated like numbers, not people terrified out of their wits. Is there a better solution? One thing is for sure. People will need to help themselves, as inspiration ain't coming from the top down, as seen from above.
If we look at the figures, we are told 4% of mortgage holders are in dire difficulty. And anything up to another 10% are under uncomfortable strain meeting their repayments. Of course, the demographic involved is the 30-40 year old, with a couple of kids, i.e. the working (or not working, as the case may be) middle class poor. Also a major tax contributing demographic, if they are working. So they should just hand back their keys and give up. Yeah right!
It's time for unified thinking. Let's look at all of those who have no mortgages, e.g. the empty nesters, early 60's, who may be quite comfortable. Approximately 40% of people have no mortgage commitments and most of those are that type of profile described above. If we have a fit and healthy couple in their 30's who are unemployed, then they shouldn't languish under the stress and strain of potentially losing their homes through no fault of their own. If they can't (and many can't) gain employment, then perhaps we can marry these two demographic ranges together. For every unemployed person who can't get a job and who can't repay their mortgages, there is, in most likelihood, 10 mortgage free householders (or more) of more advanced years.
What if the young couple were to work in a socially agreed fashion for those 10 households? Any type of work; from manual labouring, painting, garden maintenance, to driving services etc.. Also more socially oriented work like house calls, counseling services, letting their young kids interact with what can often be a quite lonely demographic, i.e. the retired/elderly person. A fee could be pre-arranged, of say 10 euro per hour, for services rendered from the young couple to the older people. If each young couple performed just 10 hours work for another "older" household per month, then it would mean a remittance to them of 100Euro per month. Do that for 10 households and you have 1,000 Euro/month, for only 100 hours of your now "free time". That 1,000 would often meet, or go a significant way to meeting a monthly mortgage repayment.
Of course the "older" household has to have that 100 Euro spare every month. But a lot would have that. Secondly, they have to want to participate. But, if they are getting work done by a trusted, regular caller to their house, well they may well want to engage with such a scheme. Very often maintenance on something will prevent future catasptrophic failures, and so, a scheme like this could actually utimately save them money. Also, at a rate like above of 10 Euro they are getting a very fair price.
The upside is huge.
- Unemployed struggling young people can "work" without being dependent on the wider paralyzed economy to employ them
- Older people who physically may not be up to some tasks can get a lot of work done to their homes at a moderate rate
- There is a sharing of problems
- A feel good factor for the older generation, in being of such valuable social service
- The obvious easing of stress on young couple which feeds into less stress/pressures passing on to their kids
- The building of relationships that will trancend the generational gaps. When the younger people come out the other side of their difficulties down the line, valuable and deep relationships will have been forged. etc.etc.
A ratio of 1:10 is what's needed. Find ten comfortable households for each struggling household. Oh, and I believe that that 1000euro/month should be tax exempt. It is people helping themselves through a very difficult time; hence they are not now so dependent on the government. They will not end up on social housing lists, will need less state support and will get back on their feet a lot quicker. A government should be encouraging schemes like this, and the best way to do that is to grant them official tax free status. The economic and social payback from a scheme like this far outweighs whatever puny (in relative terms) taxes it would raise.
How to set up this scheme? Well it would be easy to operate, easy to follow rules. The hard part, as always, is to own up and to actually ask for the help, if one is struggling. We have forgotten we are a society, not a collection of economic producing housing units. The scheme should run from the ground up though, i.e. do not let incompetent institutions (including private banks) near the reins of power. A simple website to advertise the idea, publish profiles of those seeking aid, and of those willing to offer "work". A matching process could then begin, based on location.
People helping people. The only way out of this mess. And nobody is getting screwed.
It sure beats having thousands of house keys dangling from a banker’s office wall, with their corresponding houses lying empty.
Barry Fitzgerald
Author of "Building Cities of Gold"
Available Now From Amazon
http://tinyurl.com/22t3mkc
Kindle Version - http://tinyurl.com/2vq2e2d
Publishing house: ATTM Press.
http://www.allthingsthatmatterpress.com/buynow.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
