Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I detect an effort to hide this and to avoid calling it what it is because the proposers know fine well, as does everybody, that Sinn Féin has a very dubious record on, and a dubious commitment to, climate action and what needs to be done to decarbonise our society. Sinn Féin is opposed to any form of carbon tax and the party should just be honest about that and stop squirming and dancing on the head of a pin. That is it, simply put. Avoidance of the term will not persuade anybody otherwise with regard to Sinn Féin's position on the environment.

Carbon levies and charges are a vital tool in the armoury in the existential fight against climate change. We simply have to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We support the principle of progressive taxes on fossil fuels on the basis that the bulk of the revenue generated must go towards supporting those households experiencing energy poverty, retrofitting and those on low incomes who can ill afford to pay more to keep themselves warm. In our view, all of the almost €10 billion the carbon tax will raise for the duration of the current cycle we have legislated for should be hypothecated, in other words, it should all go towards the fight against climate change. It should all go to social protection, retrofitting and decarbonisation schemes. This, in itself, would move the idea of a just transition beyond the slogan that it is for far too many who experience the costs involved in decarbonisation. These are people who are legitimately and validly scared of an insecure future and who struggle to come to terms with the very real shifts we all need to make because they feel they are carrying too much of the cost of the change.

There is no doubt that increases to carbon taxes can be regressive and hurt the least well-off the most. However, they can be progressive when the revenue is targeted at those who need the most help. In the immediate aftermath of last September's budget, the ESRI's independent assessment, which used the simulating welfare, income tax, childcare and health policies, SWITCH, model, concluded that the net impact of the carbon tax measures and those welfare measures that compensated for the increase was progressive. At the time, the analysis also found that the bottom 50% of households would be better off as a result of the social protection measures that were specifically funded by the increases in carbon taxes. As I have said, that was the analysis at the time. Things have moved on since then. However, all of this being said, we have a very great problem with energy poverty in this country. I ask the Minister of State to listen to what Dr. Tricia Kielty of St. Vincent de Paul said today in response to figures in Charlie Weston's story in the Irish Independent. One in eight homes are in arrears with energy companies but let us not be simplistic about things and pretend it is because of carbon tax. It is because of the war in Ukraine, because of the way in which energy companies plan and charge for their products and services and because of the crisis of low pay in this country whereby one fifth of all workers are merely existing on low pay. It is because too few people get the financial supports necessary to meet bill payments and because the roll-out of energy efficiency programmes has been patchy at best. Much more needs to be done in Tuesday week's budget to address all of these multifaceted problems for households.

A bit of honesty on climate and the environment is required from all of us. A bit of honesty is required from everyone with regard to the challenges, the solutions and the supports people genuinely need if a just transition is to move, as I said earlier on, beyond mere sloganeering.

See this speech in context