Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I only have a short time, so I will fly through my questions. The climate action plan states:

For most areas of environmental damage, a key problem is that those inflicting the damage do not pay the cost of the damage they inflict. This is the rationale for charging a carbon price.

To whom is the Department referring as the people who are inflicting the damage? It sounds decidedly punitive and is directed at people who have little or no choice over their level of emissions because of, for example, issues of poor-quality insulation in council houses across the country, which are rank with damp and so on. Is the Department referring to them? Are they the people who are at fault? Is the Department's policy going to punish them as opposed to people who are wealthy and can afford to insulate their homes? In addressing this issue, how will the Department ensure the just transition? I assume that it is not referring to companies that sell petrol on the side of the road or to other companies that produce polluting products, but to householders and, since public transport is not good enough, people who drive cars.

Is the SEAI concerned that the better energy warmer homes scheme and the warmth and well-being pilot scheme, which provide supports for retrofits, are limited to those who are in receipt of the fuel allowance and that people who are just over the eligibility criteria cannot avail of them? The Government has set its face against raising the eligibility criteria. What do the delegates from the SEAI think of this point? I meet the people affected every week. Elderly people, people with disabilities and so on tell me that they would like to retrofit their homes but, because their incomes are just over the threshold, they cannot benefit from the schemes and the costs of the other schemes are too punitive for them. For those over the eligibility criteria, the costs are generally punitive. Do we not need something that is much more radical in this regard? I do not know whether my next point has already been discussed, but if the ESB or the State in some shape or form gave people grants upfront, could the difference between their current emissions and the reductions that would result from the retrofitting be the basis of any repayment of grants? In other words, they would never pay more as a result of getting a loan and the grant would still be repaid because it is only the difference.