We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency (EPA) has called for a “transformational change” in how Ireland views its environment.
The call comes as the agency releases its state of the environment report. The report, produced every four years, provides an overview of the condition of our waters, air and natural resources and the impact of the main economic sectors on the environment.
Speaking at the launch, Laura Burke, Director General of the EPA said that the overall state of the environment is ‘good’ – but a highly qualified good, and that the State and all citizens need to act quickly to protect what we now have.
Burke went on to highlight the need for Irish people to change the environment, saying 1,200 people die a year due to exposure to dirty air.
We are now seeing how vulnerable we are to climate change as an island nation. Our air quality may rate well by European standards but there is no safe level of air pollution.
In years to come, the pollution of our air from vehicles or burning fuels will be seen as being on a par with tobacco smoking. It has direct health consequences with over 1,200 premature deaths every year from exposure to particulate matter in Ireland.
Water
Water quality in Ireland compares favourably with our European neighbours. However, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of our pristine rivers, the best of the best, with 21 sites now classified as such compared to over 500 in the late 1980s.
Ireland has improved its waste infrastructure with a tenfold increase in recycling since 1996. Economic recovery, however, is causing an increase in consumption that is driving waste levels up again; food waste alone, for example, costs Irish families on average €700 per year. Litter at a local level and in the marine environment is also an enduring problem associated with what the EPA calls “our throwaway culture”.
“Ireland has a great deal to gain by becoming a leader in the move to a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy,” said Burke.
“We can capitalise on our natural advantages. And we can promote rapid decarbonisation by other countries.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
No surprise there then. Party of sham
@Kevin Conway: u think it only happens there
Can anyone think at this stage that ANY govt has its peoples wellfare at heart … a resounding NO. All rotten to the core.
@Lydia McLoughlin: wow wow hold yer horses there lydia. Yep u right
@Lydia McLoughlin: critical thought would tell me that if the Democrats are the ones that brought the bill forward, well then they have the publics and interest at heart.
@Lydia McLoughlin: at least Biden is making some sort of attempt to fix it.
@Kevin Conway: I dunno. The pessimist in me always thinks it’s all a front. Promise this, promise that but its only half hearted or it turns out it can’t be done anyway .. our lot are masters at it! Only those consulted benefit by producing report after report to come back and report it can’t be done!
Yes Minister springs to mind!
I just find it interesting this article did not say the reason the Republicans voted against it. Yes we heard why the Democrats think they voted against it but not their own response. Usually when Republicans vote against something that seems to make sense they have a reason that isnt as nonsensical as this article suggests. Im not saying I agree with them I’m just saying this is biased.
@Sean Casey: Yes, it does make sense. They want the dark money since it benefits them more than the Democrats.
@Peter Peterski: Why wasnt Mitch McConnells reasoning covered in the article?
@Peter Peterski: even though the article says the democrats benefited substantially more $1.5 million compared to $900k
@Anthony Mcgee: 1.5 BILLION versus 900 million. Just a tiny bit more.
Unfortunately In the end you get “the best government money can buy”.
Both sides are guilty but it would seem the Democrat party is at least willing to change the rules.
The amount of money (that doesn’t have to be declared where it comes from) that’s spent by on political advertising is phenomenal.
Less than 7 weeks to go until the midterms, in the US you can’t watch TV or watch anything online without being bombarded constantly by political attack ads.
This election cycle I’ve noticed that “radical” seems to be the buzzword. The 2 candidates for senate and the 2 candidates for governor in my state are running ads where they both just accuse and call each other “too radical for Wisconsin”
Political donations are corruption, plain and simple
Breaking news! facts in an article completely contradict the headline…
The irony of the democratic party bemoaning nefarious uses of political funding in American elections, while they themselves are funding extreme far right candidates in the US primaries to both make the Republican party look as far right as possible by association and also because they believe they can motivate undecided voters to vote for the democratic party candidates if the perceived alternative candidate is a far right looney that they themselves promoted into the political spotlight..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/12/democrats-interfere-republican-primaries/
Just to add, the amount of money spent by the Democratic party funding far right candidates in the current US primaries, is an eye watering $50 million to date.
@David Van-Standen: they want the ‘radical’ Republican candidate to win the Republican primary because they reckon the mad radical Republican candidate will lose to the Democrat candidate in the actual election in November. They are funding the weakest Republican in the primary so they beat them in the election.
It’s not for ideological reasons it’s so they can beat them in the actual election.
The Republicans did the same, backing Bernie Sanders to win against Hillary in the Democratic primaries.
It’s inherently risky, the mad radical they think will lose can end up winning sometimes.
After all, Hillary Clinton lost to Trump in 2016.
@Diaspora’d: thanks, that’s what i said.
I never claimed it was ideologically motivated, just a nefarious use of funding, in an attempt to rig the ultimate outcome in favour of the democratic party, while also slinging muck at the Republican party.
I just cannot figure how the Irish Government hrre have been able to afford Brexit, Covid, and, now the cost of living crisis it seems is going to bring a give away budget! Who is bank-rolling them? and Why?
Remember they announced a surplus of €6.3bn recently!
Republicans cannot stand against corruption and still support Trump. They don’t want to live in denial. Might as well defend corrupt money and don’t be called hypocrite later
Just like ours.
Biden could be on fire and the Republicans wouldn’t urinate on him to put it out. They wouldn’t do that for any democrat and that’s what’s wrong with politics in this day and age, the most basic concepts of civility is dead and gone
Dark money is that given to the Democratic party by the likes of Planned parenthood (who make a profit and promote abortion).
Should cap all donations to say around 50′id say
have your say