Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The rainy day fund has been established for fiscal stability. It involves setting aside resources that are temporary in nature as a feature of the present stage of the economic cycle. I think that is a prudent approach to the public finances. The Senator will have read the comments of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, which has taken issue with the approach we are taking, even with the rainy day fund. It is important that we are increasing investment in the public sector by 25% this year. All of that is being funded out of taxation. The golden rule used to be that a Government should borrow to fund its capital expenditure, but should not borrow for current expenditure. We are using taxation to fund all of our capital expenditure. Much of that is designed to try to create a more climate-resilient economy. I believe that by expending investment, we are showing ambition for the decade ahead.

While I take Deputy Eamon Ryan's criticism, I suggest that a certain view of what Project Ireland 2040 is trying to achieve must be taken. It is completely different from anything that has been done previously. As I have said, I have been around for a long time. I have never before seen a Government try to put a solid investment behind a vision of a regionally balanced, compact, connected and sustainable programme. The growth in cities like Waterford, Cork, Galway and Limerick, which will be on a fixed footprint, will be 50% faster than the growth in Dublin. The Project Ireland 2040 plan is a really ambitious statement of where we are trying to get to. While I would be the first to admit we do not have all the tools to get us there, I do not accept that the plan was drawn up with no consideration of the sort of carbon-resilient community we need to create. I believe such consideration is at the heart of the plan. We have to do a lot of building out from the plan to make it purposeful.

I have met Professor John FitzGerald of the Climate Change Advisory Council. I would certainly support useful research in this area. We have put out the disruptive technology fund. We also have the climate action fund and the other funds. We are looking to tap into bottom-up solutions. We do not pretend that the solutions to all of these challenges are in Merrion Street.

I think it is simplistic to say that Moneypoint should not be used.

We need to build out our renewables so that we do not need to use it. It is there as a reserve. It will be the last plant to be brought into the grid much of the time. We are moving to 55% renewables by 2030 and that is probably not enough. We probably should be more ambitious. We will phase out Moneypoint but that has to be planned. It is not a case of switching it off, going home and saying we do not use it any more until we have interconnection and other ways of ensuring that we can have renewables. The ESB has to deliver power when it is there. Similarly, keeping it in the ground will not reduce carbon emissions at all. It just changes where the fossil fuels we use are sourced. I do not agree that it is a signal and the trouble with a signal like that is that it is not encouraging any of the behavioural change that needs to happen. It is purely a political signal that will not shift the dial on our carbon emissions. I want to concentrate on changes that will have an impact that we will start to see quickly.