Professor John FitzGerald:

On the question of vulnerable people, a 1992 study by Ms Sue Scott, another study from 2007 or 2008 by Dr. Seán Lyons et al.and an even more recent study all come up with the same answer that if social welfare payments are increased, using approximately 30% of the revenue from carbon tax, it would make a difference. We should remember that many of the other policies we are implementing may also raise costs. For example, the Government has quite rightly indicated it will close Moneypoint in 2025, and this will raise electricity prices. Poorer households spend a higher share of their budget on electricity than richer households. We should look at whether closing it by regulatory decision is the right answer, as it will mean gas-fired generators will make more money because the price will increase, or whether it would be better to have a carbon price floor in Ireland. That would mean the price would go up but some of that increased price would go to the Government, which would have money to compensate the people who are adversely affected. If there is no carbon tax, where will we find the revenue? If there is a tax, it is more likely that those who are affected will be compensated than if there is regulatory action, where the rise in costs is hidden and not transparent.

There are other issues in making a difference. On average, people in social housing tend to be among the least well-off in society. If the State decided to spend €3 billion, €5 billion, €7 billion or whatever it would be on upgrading social housing so people would spend pretty much nothing on heating because the properties would use sustainable sources, it would be a big gain for those households. The long-term transfer for poorer households would be very substantial in that case. Probably even more important would be the health effects. I understand older people may have heating but they get nervous about spending money so they under-heat houses and end up with pneumonia or whatever. If they do not need to spend the money, perhaps there would be health benefits. It is not an issue for me; I am elderly but I heat my house and I do not have to worry about the cost. There are policy changes we need that could improve the distribution of income rather than the opposite.

On the NDP and no coherence of policy, I share the Senator's frustration. It is a rather technical issue, and I think Deputy Ryan referred to the work done in Cork. We should spell out a pathway or pathways of where we are going to go so we can fit the policies in, which is what the Danes have done. Then the Government can come up with a policy, which would allow us to say that is the difference it is going to make and measure it. Such a situation would make it much easier for politicians. It might be technical telling members the pathway but one could then bring in policymakers and ask them what they are doing to improve things. Such a situation would be helpful.

In terms of the national development plan and factoring in climate considerations into appraisal, it is one of the few clear gains we have had in terms of recommendation. We went to the Minister and said that the appraisal network framework for public investment does not take appropriate effect of climate change. The Minister said that was a bad idea and he would talk to Paschal. A fortnight later it was announced that the Government was going to revise the appraisal scheme because the scheme really must take climate change into account. The problem is a discount rate is used, which is relatively high but probably appropriate for most things. If one uses a high discount rate one would not do anything about climate change because the damage done today is significant but the damage done in 50 years' time, if we do nothing, will be massive. That is an issue that the Government must deal with.

The price of carbon is another issue to be dealt with. This is a spin-off of having the right price of carbon, which maybe should be between €80 or €100 a tonne, certainly by the end of the decade. In its appraisal, the Government needs to not just put in the €20 per tonne that we have today. It needs to put in a price that reflects the huge damage done to the world by climate change.

The Government has not completed its revision of the appraisal but that would bring more coherence to the national development plan. The Government has said that there is a lot of money available for climate change. However, we want that money spent in the most cost effective way so that we produce the biggest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for the sum of money that is there. This is a work in progress.

In response to the Senator's final question, I am a bit nervous about putting measures into the Act and then bringing judges in to decide. I keep coming back to the role played by the Oireachtas. I am not an expert in this area and I would not be ideological. Is Ms Burke ideological?