Mr. Andrew Murphy:

I will be as brief as I can because they are all excellent questions. We can improve the climate action plan through more focus on freight. It is suggested that there are no low-emission freight vehicles in the climate action plan but technology has changed rapidly in two years.

In terms of cost-benefit, I would drop the increase in the biofuel lending rate. If we look at where we are getting the ethanol from and the competition we have with land, the most recent National Oil Reserves Agency report on the sourcing of biofuels in Ireland, be they advanced biodiesel or bioethanol, raises some flags regarding origins of such fuels.

On where else we can increase ambition, the Tánaiste has launched his working-from-home proposal, which will study the potential benefits of working from home. We should await that study but that is another obvious way to increase ambition.

Carbon pricing is not the most effective way of reducing transport emissions because the consumer is forced into a particular model and if the price goes up, he or she is not necessarily able to then switch out to a different model. The Deputy mentioned that carbon pricing has supporters and opponents. The big supporters of carbon pricing are car manufacturers who would rather shift the burden onto the consumers and individuals as a way of having to do less themselves. We think of car standards at European level. Carbon pricing always involves a social equity issue. If there are ways to address the social equity issue but there will not be a big climate benefit from engaging in carbon pricing why go to the hassle of the potential risk of social inequity?