Who do we treat when resources are scarce?

In a health service with limited resources we must make decisions about who to treat ?rst. In this paper I develop a version of the restoration argument according to which those whose need for resources is a consequence of their voluntary choices should receive lower priority when it comes to health care. I then consider three possible problems for this argument based on those that have been raised against other theories of this type: that we don’t know in a particular case that the illness is self-in?icted, that it seems that all illness is self-in?icted in the sense used in my argument, and ?nally that this type of approach incorporates an unacceptable moralising element if it is to avoid giving those like ?re-?ghters a lower priority for treatment. I argue that the position outlined here has the resources to respond to each of these objections.

Preparing the ground for marine spatial planning in Ireland

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is advocated as a means of managing human uses of the sea in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of the ecological goods and services of the marine environment. The adoption of a system of MSP is seen as urgent in the face of ever-increasing demands on marine resources. This is particularly so in Ireland with its extensive seas, belatedly being recognised as a significant development resource. MSP is promoted by the European Commission (EC) in a recent Green Paper to which Member States of the Union, including Ireland, generally have responded positively. Arising from this consultative process, the EC has published the 'Blue Book' that commits support for MSP. It has also issued guidelines for an integrated approach to maritime policy. The recently adopted EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive strengthens the case for implementing MSP as it requires each Member State to develop a strategy for its marine resources. There is evidence that a diverse range of stakeholders at national and local levels in Ireland are positively disposed toward MSP but no practical manifestation of the concept is in place, though some preparatory work is underway to facilitate its likely implementation into the future. © 2010 WIT Press.

Can we meet targets for biofuels and renewable energy in transport given the constraints imposed by policy in agriculture and energy?

The deployment of biofuels is significantly affected by policy in energy and agriculture. In the energy arena, concerns regarding the sustainability of biofuel systems and their impact on food prices led to a set of sustainability criteria in EU Directive 2009/28/EC on Renewable Energy. In addition, the 10% biofuels target by 2020 was replaced with a 10% renewable energy in transport target. This allows the share of renewable electricity used by electric vehicles to contribute to the mix in achieving the 2020 target. Furthermore, only biofuel systems that effect a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with the fuel they replace are allowed to contribute to meeting the target. In the agricultural arena, cross-compliance (which is part of EU Common Agricultural Policy) dictates the allowable ratio of grassland to total agricultural land, and has a significant impact on which biofuels may be supported. This paper outlines the impact of these policy areas and their implications for the production and use of biofuels in terms of the 2020 target for 10% renewable transport energy, focusing on Ireland. The policies effectively impose constraints on many conventional energy crop biofuels and reinforce the merits of using biomethane, a gaseous biofuel. The analysis shows that Ireland can potentially satisfy 15% of renewable energy in transport by 2020 (allowing for double credit for biofuels from residues and ligno-cellulosic materials, as per Directive 2009/28/EC) through the use of indigenous biofuels: grass biomethane, waste and residue derived biofuels, electric vehicles and rapeseed biodiesel. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A biofuel strategy for Ireland with an emphasis on production of biomethane and minimization of land-take

Increasing energy consumption has exerted great pressure on natural resources; this has led to a move towards sustainable energy resources to improve security of supply and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the rush to the cure may have been made in haste. Biofuels in particular, have a bad press both in terms of competition with good agricultural land for food, and also in terms of the associated energy balance with the whole life cycle analysis of the biofuel system. The emphasis is now very much on sustainable biofuel production; biofuels from wastes and lignocellulosic material are now seen as good sustainable biofuels that affect significantly better greenhouse gas balances as compared with first generation biofuels. Ireland has a significant resource of organic waste that could be a potential source of energy through anaerobic digestion. Ireland has 8% of the cattle population of the EU with less than 1% of the human population; as a result 91% of agricultural land in Ireland is under grass. Residues such as slurries and slaughter waste together with energy crops such as grass have an excellent potential to produce biogas that may be upgraded to biomethane. This biomethane may be used as a natural gas substitute; bio-compressed natural gas may then be an avenue for a biofuel strategy. It is estimated that a maximum potential of 33% of natural gas may be substituted by 2020 with a practical obtainable level of 7.5% estimated. Together with biodiesel from residues the practical obtainable level of this strategy may effect greater than a 5% substitution by energy of transport. The residues considered in this strategy to produce biofuel (excluding grass) have the potential to save 93,000 ha of agricultural land (23% of Irish arable land) when compared to a rapeseed biodiesel strategy. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Understanding Parental Influence on Educational Outcomes Among 9 Year Olds in Ireland: The Mediating Role of Resources, Attitudes and Children's Own Perspectives

The relationship between parental background and children's educational outcomes has been a dominant theme within the sociology of education. There has been an on-going debate as to the relative merits of explanations which focus on the role of socio-cultural reproduction and those which focus on rational choice. However, many empirical studies within the social stratification tradition fail to allow for children's own agency in shaping the relationship between social background and schooling outcomes. This paper draws on the first wave of a large-scale longitudinal study of over 8,000 nine-year-old children in Ireland, which combines information from parents, school principals, teachers and children themselves. Both social class and parental education are found to have significant effects on reading and mathematics test scores among nine year olds. These effects are partly mediated by home-based educational resources and activities, parents' educational expectations for their child, and parents' formal involvement in the school. More importantly, children's own engagement with, and attitudes to, school significantly influence their academic performance. The influence of children's own attitudes and actions can thus reinforce or mitigate the effect of social background factors. The analysis therefore provides a bridge between the large body of research on the intergenerational transmission of inequality and the emerging research and policy literature on children's rights.

RESOURCES, DEPRIVATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY

Ringen has advocated the use of both income and deprivation criteria in identifying those excluded from society due to lack of resources, a widely accepted definition of poverty. We illustrate with Irish data how this might be done, paying particular attention to how appropriate indicators of deprivation are to be selected. The results show that employing both income and deprivation criteria rather than income alone can make a substantial difference to both the extent and composition of measured poverty. This highlights the restrictive nature of poverty conceived in terms of exclusion rather than minimum rights to resources.