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

One has to be careful with what targets are put in legislation. If one says it is fair that every sector takes a 30% cut, the cost of that in some sectors may be dramatically different from others. One has to be careful in setting a target because one then forces perhaps a very high-cost solution in one sector. We were just talking about agriculture. The impact of setting the same target in agriculture as in some other sector could be quite high for certain rural communities. It is important that we have sectoral targets. We have to work through policy options and towards the targets so that they are consistent about where we get to but do not overprescribe. That is the only advice I have.

We aim to have a comprehensive suite of measures. The Deputy rightly signalled that there will be a balance to strike. Some sectors will argue that reducing carbon is a significant handicap to our sector. If this was a smoking chimney and the Deputy said he needed to continue to have a smoking chimney in the middle of his community to support a business he was running, people would give him short shrift. There is not much difference here. Damage is being done and we need to factor that into decision-making. The challenge in some areas is how we get people to take decisions which factor that in. The message will be that where carbon continues to be used for whatever reason, it has to be used very effectively. There have to be good, effective minimisation policies in place. Having carbon use mitigated by carbon sequestration is not a full end but that is the message.

With regard to the carbon tax, if one had built spending plans on the back of the plastic bag tax, one would be pretty disappointed because people just stopped using plastic bags. In an ideal world, people would stop using carbon so the amount of money raised from this tax would fall rapidly. It is instructive to see what happened in Paris. If people see they are paying for certain behaviours but getting something back, they can also see that taxpayers are not having money taken off them but are being nudged towards doing certain things. One would hope that it would be easier to sell a carbon tax in that context.

Of course we will need mitigation measures and they will cost money but, at the end of the day, mitigation measures and whether they should be in the form of penalties, incentives, tax breaks or whatever, have to stand on their own and on their merits. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and his Department would say that one cannot create a charmed area of public spending that is guaranteed the money. If we are making an investment in climate change and arguing for an incentive for whatever, we will have to show that that is the best use of public money against carbon targets and other targets. Public spending rules must still apply but they have to factor in the price of carbon. It was very positive to see that come from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I recognise that offshore generation is at an earlier stage of development. That is correct. I thank Deputy Dooley for the positive support. This is not a partisan issue. We have to deliver it as a group of politicians.