Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think Deputy Smith misunderstands the purpose of a carbon tax. It is not to raise money. A carbon tax is to ensure people pay for the carbon damage their activities cause. In an ideal world this carbon tax would eventually raise no funds. It is not a question of finding some profitable enterprise and raising funds from it. This is about getting people to change their attitude to how they heat their home, choose their travel options, etc. That is the purpose of a carbon tax. It is to signal to every enterprise, home and community that when we create carbon we are, to use the Deputy's word, doing something that is "unjust". We are causing damage for which we are not paying. Carbon tax is being widely canvassed as one instrument we need to use to tackle that unfair use of resources.

It is one I believe profoundly we should do. People are going to make decisions about the car they are going to drive, the boiler they are going to install, the insulation they are going to use in their home, etc. If there are different balances between the cost and the benefits of doing that, people will change their behaviour. We have seen that with all sorts of other examples where people take stock of cost-benefit. It is not all going to be done through pricing. It also has to be done by bringing the community with us. Deputy Neville was very clear on that. This involves much more than a few smart instruments and that is why ideas of just transition and involving, respecting and trying to help communities manage the change facing them are really important.

Turning to the use of carbon in our economy, even the most optimistic projections of how we decarbonise our economy do not see fossil fuels disappear. They will remain an element of our energy profile for decades to come. We will have other activities that will offset that. The real issue, however, is to stop carbon being part of the way we behave in our lives and to come up with policies to bring that about. It is a different question, if we are using gas, whether that should be gas we find in the Irish Sea or gas that we get from Russia or the Arab countries. Deciding not to explore in any of our waters for fossil fuels would mean we would become dependent on Russia, or some other locations, to provide what will remain an element of our energy make-up. We have to have regard to the security of our supply of energy as well as the carbon agenda. The EU recognises that there is a balance to be struck. That is why I think ending the search for fossil fuels is not the correct approach.

Regarding the establishment of a new body, I did not hear Mr. Watt. My own view is that this is an intensely political issue. It is about how politicians elected to make decisions for the community can resolve the inherent conflict in changing the behaviour of people to the extent necessary. Creating some independent outside body, that is not elected or accountable and which is outside of what we do here and the accountability of politicians, would not deliver the sort of just transition of which Deputy Smith has spoken. I am also referring to the kind of balanced response Deputy Neville mentioned. One might say that is coming from a politician, and I have been a politician all my life. I see the merit in politics, and our job is to try to resolve these conflicts. We may not be very good at it but, as Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of Government until the alternatives are tried. That is the case. We have to muddle along, find solutions and be accountable for the decisions we take. People will kick us out if they do not like what we do.