1. Why isn’t Irish taught as a foreign language?
2. How did Maud Gonne get to dominate the EngLit syllabus without writing anything?
3. How can someone like me pass honours physics without having a france how electricity works?
4. At what point in our education – either secondary or third level – should we be told that academic ability is pish, and that energy is the only currency in both jobworld and sexworld?
5. Why are we taught the modern novel without a single reference to the postmodern novel? Just, you know, to help explain if nothing else?
6. Why isn’t at least pass Irish taught as a foreign language? Can we admit it’s foreign to many many folks? Is a good level of Irish not what we really want?
7. If we’re taught so much balls, why aren’t we taught about wormholes?
8. Why do parents tell sporty kids to study hard and get a good leaving when their loved ones may earn more in a week than doctors and lawyers do in a year? (or architects in their entire career. (sniff))
9. Should not our higher maths papers have a duty of care to explain themselves in plain english? Shouldn’t a student answering self-referential leaving-ese be awarded full marks for replying ‘wtf do you pretend with such a phrase? This question is meaningless’
10. Is there anyone out there teaching Irish who makes any connections with Portugese, Spanish, Catalan, French, Swedish and many other European languages (THAT AREN’T DEAD)???? To phrase it another way: does anyone explain to leaving cert. students that YES, in a roundabout sort of way, learning this can help you get pussy – not just bog-pussy, but with a bit more work, glamorous, tanned pussy?

Please add to the list. As Disgraced Minister would say, I’m not vomiting here, I’m asking…

The rate at which individuals fuck the planet is directly proportional to how much money they have, that’s the uncomfortable truth. Switching off the telly at the plug doesn’t make a dent in that.

A blanket levy is simply rubbish in that context, but if you factor in a severe recession it’s mind-blowingly cruel. Stop digging.

And Nyder – trying to be a crap Lawrence Miles and ending up a crap Charlie Brooker – Ha Ha! How pish is that?!

I don’t care what the definition of green has become, I care only that energy efficiency and conservation are mainstream topics for discussion, even when unpopular. I’m thankful that Ireland and Europe in general are at least 30 years ahead of their US counterparts, but it only serves to underline the scale of the challenge ahead.

You say a better method of generating income for renewable projects would be to increase taxation for the wealthier section of the population. The problem I have with that, and the reason I support a blanket levy, is that to create a two tier notion of whom should shoulder responsibility for the future of energy production

So, taking your points in no particular order:-

drawing attention to an additional tax on electricity will smarten their attitude toward it’s supply. There is a need to wise up on where heat, light, power and hot water come from, and the most effective way to make the point is to increase smart metering across the country so people can monitor their consumption. And add a tax to its supply.

Seriously? Leaving aside the smart-metering stuff, of which I’m firmly in favour – why is a levy going to reduce consumption? It’s not a tax, as you suggest (when you’re not telling me I haven’t done my research); it’s a flat-rate levy. The only way to avoid this is to use no electricity at all, which isn’t a viable proposition; therefore there’s no incentive to cut usage at all. Even if it were a per-unit tarrif, electricity has very inelastic demand, so you run into an obvious problem; for a tarriff to be high enough to disincentivise the wealthy (who consume the most electricity per capita), it will significantly hit those on low incomes who can’t reduce their electricity use anyway. It ends up being regressive, and a flat tax is worse.

There’s a wealth of historical data to suggest that taxing energy supply is nowhere near as effective as is commonly assumed. The best demonstration is oil supply of the 1970s (disregarding the 1973 and 1979 crises), at a time when OPEC drove prices consistently higher by limiting supply; however, prices had to reach astonishingly high levels before consumption was affected to the point that other energy sources became seen as a viable alternative. The limited impact of petrol prices on sales is a further demonstration.

You make great play of the fact that the money will be ring-fenced, but this is spectacularly irrelevant, as is your point about projects requiring government boosts. I have no argument with this at all, and don’t dispute it anywhere in the piece. However, the money could be attained in any number of ways, and it’s difficult to imagine that they could find a way that’s less equitable. An extra 1% on the top rate of income tax would generate far more funding, and would also have a far greater effect on emissions reduction, yet we expect the poorest people in the land to contribute as much as the richest. It’s not a financially significant amount, but it’s socially distasteful. Sorry if an opposition to regressive taxation constitutes whining, but there you go.

To be honest, you’ve assumed so readily that an energy levy must be good by definition, that it’s such a perfect demonstration of the attitude about which I was writing that I almost wonder if it’s deliberate.

Passive Housing in Ireland is a viable alternative, one of many

There isn’t enough space here to adequately debate the passive house model (and, given that the overwhelming majority of our houses are already built and unsuitable for retrofitting, it’s not materially THAT important an issue anyway – I only raised it because the discussion around passive housing is instructive, and I deliberately gave a thumbnail view), but all I’ll say is this; the total number of passive houses in Europe – in the climate for which they’re designed – is (as far as I’m aware) around 20,000. This isn’t a lot, and immediately suggests question-marks about their success. I’ve got no objection to them as a niche form of construction, but as a mass housing model they’re significantly flawed when compared to conventional low-energy housing in an Irish climate. A B2-rated house (say) of moderate size already generates low bills, and the financial uplift from there to Passive standards is so significant that – when you consider that the capital expenditure is debt and needs to be serviced – has an extremely long payback period.

I’m fully aware of MosArt (I question some of their work, but again, that’s another discussion) and that there are passive courses available. However, without adequate building control methods, in the discussion of passive housing as a large-scale alternative it’s quite unimportant. By far a more productive activity would be to lobby to for the introduction of effective, third-party building control, or at the very least Part L certificates, and a system of registration for competent contractors. None of this has been addressed, and to my mind that’s because it’s administrative and doesn’t involve shiny technology (or financial gain).

I’ve also poked around the SEAI website several times, and their energy-saving tips are as devastating as “turn the lights off when you leave a room” and “turn your thermostat down by 1 degree”. It’s so facile it’s insulting, and the notion that this is what’s going to make us energy-independent is laughable.

I don’t know why you mention BER, as you agree it was botched. BER is fine, my only difficulty is that it’s sometimes used in ways for which it isn’t designed. My only point was that the way it was botched reveals quite a lot about the mindset of its introduction, and if anything you’ve only confirmed that opinion.

Sorry for being so – um – robust, but you’ve missed the point of the piece spectacularly, and your assumption that I haven’t researched – or even heard of – very widely-known bodies is irritating, frankly.

Passive Housing in Ireland is a viable alternative, one of many, and is being successfully taught to building professionals in the Passive House Academy in Wicklow by these guys: http://www.mosart.ie. If you ever care to examine the SEAI website (www.seai.ie) you will find a wealth of energy saving tips that are free and easy to implement, aimed at householders and businesses alike. It is not simply pushing for gadgets to promote efficiency, it is looking at lifestyles. The BER has failed for many reasons but the cracks will be ironed out in time, and with proper advice from suitably qualified professionals, installations of heat pumps etc. can be successfully integrated into a client’s demands.

The levy is not reckless and it is clear where the money is intended to go. There are too many chicken-and-egg situations in Ireland at present, such as this one: http://www.mayopower.com, where a government financial boost is required to actually get it going. The peat burning power plants are all undergoing renovation or have been renovated for co-firing with biomass, and while I don’t support the promotion of peat-for-fuel, the co-firing option alleviates peat demand while allowing existing facilities to continue in use until demand is met by a steadily growing electrical generation capacity from 100% renewables.

While the majority may not be able to significantly reduce their electrical consumption, drawing attention to an additional tax on electricity will smarten their attitude toward it’s supply. There is a need to wizen up on where heat, light, power and hot water come from, and the most effective way to make the point is to increase smart metering across the country so people can monitor their consumption. And add a tax to it’s supply.

Back up plan? The Robots.