Mr. Tom Healy:

I cannot answer for congress on carbon taxation because the trade union movement has not taken a position on that. I think we should increase carbon taxes but we should do that in a very careful way that does not damage low income households and that takes cognisance of the fact that, in many cases, such as in rural communities, it is not an option to switch to alternatives to diesel or solid fuel heating, for example. It is something that needs to seen as part of a strategic investment plan.

The role of carbon taxes is twofold. One is to raise money for investment in renewables and in green energy, and the other is to help people to change their behaviour. However, one cannot help people to change their behaviour if there are not other options in terms of, for example, heating or transport. It needs to be a joined-up effort. To that extent, there are good examples in other countries of where carbon taxes can be ring-fenced and part of the benefits of a fund can be paid back to households by way of a dividend, which could be used for better insulation and retrofitting. There is a connection to what we were just talking about in regard to the midlands because a high proportion of the housing stock, particularly in the midlands, is of a low insulation standard. There is a challenge to bring a significant proportion of the housing stock up to A or B building energy rating, and that requires a certain mix of skills and it probably involves a new range of enterprise activity. It also means that households could benefit through a system of dividends paid back from a transition fund which is partly funded from carbon taxes. However, I emphasise the lessons from other countries, for example, France, of how not to do this and of how to create a strong public reaction that sees this as an attack on people's living standards, with regional implications. It is important to get that balance right.

The key point alongside carbon taxes, and even more important than them, is that the State should lead investment through an entrepreneurial effort. ESB and Bord na Móna, in particular, have the opportunity to launch new activities through the development of, for example, solar and wind power. We do not realise how much access we have to solar power in this country, although this might seem surprising, but the east and south east, in particular, have the possibility of developing new energies. This can be done across the bogs by installing giant solar panels. There are also examples in the area of wind power from Denmark, where community co-operatives are linked into the electricity grid. They have made a transition over three decades and, through wind power, have weaned themselves off much of their dependence on fossil fuels and imported energy. The key issue in Denmark, I understand, is that communities were given a stake in these community co-operatives. This is a crucial point. In places like Offaly, Roscommon and Longford, for example, understandably in come cases, there is a strong reaction against some new forms of activity, including wind turbines. One way to get people into owning the problem is to give them an ownership stake. That may also be a possibility for workers who are made redundant. Perhaps there are possibilities of worker co-operatives developing new services and activities.