Ms Michelle Murphy:

On the funding, the initial investment far outweighs the long-term cost. At the EU level we should be making the case that climate investment is not on balance sheet. That is an obvious starting point.

With regard to the national implication for costs, the agricultural and transport sectors' emissions are under constant scrutiny, but one sector we do not scrutinise is environmental subsidies or environmental tax breaks. We forgo a significant amount of money annually, for example it was to €2.4 billion in 2018. Perhaps these could be subject to scrutiny, with a sunset clause for those that are damaging, and an assessment as to how they could be phased out. That money could be invested into just transition, biodiversity, reducing and eliminating energy poverty, and implementing some of the OECD recommendations around this. The OECD recommends that public investment is far better than tax breaks in bringing about change, and recommends expanding the fuel subsidy to all members of the population and rebranding it as we go through the transition of decarbonising our economy and society. I would really point to this area of the tax code for initial scrutiny. It would increase the fiscal and budgetary space available to the Government without levying any additional taxes on individuals sectors.