Green economics: Part of the problem ?

[wysiwyg]

I just wondered if anyone heard Mary White, Green TD for Carlow Kilkenny this morning, talking about adding a 1c levy to text messages as a way of increasing revenue.

In the piece she said that this could realise 1.4 billon. Now, I'm not sure if that's annually or over 4-5 years.

But I did some calculations and worked out, that to raise 1.4 billion at 1c a text, you'd need to send 140 billion texts.

That's 383 million texts a day ... or an average of 85 texts a day for every man woman and child...

So... does this tell us something about maybe why the Greens aren't really being seen to question FF economic figures ?

[revereie]

I think, from a discussion re this on the radio this morning, that you may have your figures wrong.

[Sensible Head]

I heard it and I laughed out loud (work for a mobile company), mind you 85 txt a day is nothing for some of the kids these days.

She was pulling figures out of her a%&e.

[Sensible Head]

I think, from a discussion re this on the radio this morning, that you may have your figures wrong.

The figures given were if i remember. avg 10 texts a day for 4m mobile users? Still came up with the 1.4bn when in reality is was nearer 90m.

She took a bit of stick from the presenters.

[atlantic]

i have heard this been talked about for the last month.I think it will happen,but what about free texts?

[smitchy2]

25 million text a day x 365 days x 0.01 = €91.25m

How did she go on national radio without researching properly?

[Hazlitt]

Totally agree, this says a lot about the Green Party, in particular Mary White who hasn't got much of a clue about her figures.

Approx 25 million texts are sent in Ireland per day.

So Texts x days in year x 1c tax = €91,250,000

€91 million, a SLIGHT bit short of her guesstimation...


[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[bm42]

Why is it a surprise she got it so badly wrong? This same woman was proudly pontificating on the radio, some time back, about the green credentials of her car which she runs on vegetable oil. She cited the emissions test in the NCT as evidence of how great it was. She quoted a figure that she thought was very good and speculated that other peoples cars would be much higher. With a suspicion she hadn't a clue what she was talking about, I looked up the my old NCT results, low and behold my old 1.8 petrol, running on unleaded, had a better result.
This can all be explained by the fact that the emissions measured by the NCT (CO and unburnt hydrocarbons) have nothing whatsoever to do with those used to calculate VRT and Road Tax (CO2), but why let silly things like facts get in the way of telling people how great it is to be a green.
I'm told she is a very nice person but any time I have heard her speak about policy, all I can do is cringe.

[zeleneye]

The thread title is wrong. I don't think Mary White represents 'Green economics'. Green economics have been trying to argue for a shift from our unsustainable, speculative system for a long time, to an economy that is based on real wealth, stability and well being. Here is one group in the UK that have tried.

It is the misunderstood and blind implementation of neo-liberal economics (in Ireland's case by FF and the PDs) that got us into this problem. They will not get us out. Green economics (not the same as Mary White's brain farts) could well get us out.

[oceanclub]

Totally agree, this says a lot about the opposition, in particular Mary White who hasn't got much of a clue about her figures.

Umm, Mary White is in the Green Party.

Which is in government.

How does this say "a lot about the opposition"?

P.