Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Professor Barrett provided a good breakdown at the outset regarding the cost per household if the carbon tax was doubled from €20 to €40 per tonne. I would like more of a breakdown in the context of how he arrives at figures such as that. He stated that €20 per tonne would probably result in a 5% reduction, give or take. I question how he came up with that figure. It has been touched upon. From an industrial perspective, if there is a tax increase from €20 to €40, €60 or €80 per tonne, those who have the greatest greenhouse gas emissions under their industrial business model will sit down at the beginning of the year, take their costs, look at the end product cost to the consumer and build that extra cost into the end consumer's price. Depending on the size of the business and the number of customers or consumers it has, it could be a very small increase. Ultimately, however, it is the end consumer who pays the tax. The businesses to which I refer will not reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in any way and will be no worse off. How does driving up tax in that scenario change anything? How does it hurt the people the ESRI wants to hurt and how does it change the behaviour of people whose mentality the ESRI wants to change? How does it improve or reduce greenhouse gas emissions? On the 2:1, 3:1 or whatever ratios are being thrown out on the ratio of public transport versus road infrastructure improvement, where would we be if, when going to Galway, I was still obliged to go through Leixlip, Lucan, Chapelizod, Kinnegad, Moate and Ballinasloe, compared with getting there in two hours? How much worse off would we be if we did not have the roads?