Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ON MARCH 15 thousands of school children took to the streets in a magnificent expression of environmental solidarity.
Inspired by the example of Swedish school girl, Greta Thunberg, they organised demonstrations around the country to protest against the government’s inaction on climate change.
Leo Varadkar claimed to support the protests, but he was busy meeting the world’s biggest climate denier as they were taking place.
Donald Trump’s administration has pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement and consistently proclaims the virtues of coal.
Fine Gael are better at covering their tracks than Trump but they are almost as reckless in terms of the environment.
They have cut subventions to public transport, allowed the dairy herd to increase by 400,000 and issued new licences for oil and gas exploration.
This has made Ireland one of the worst emitters in Europe, as judged by the Climate Change Performance Index.
Now the government want to move the cost of climate change onto ordinary people – using cover from the Citizens Assembly.
Last year, the Citizens Assembly met with the aim of making Ireland a leader in tackling climate change. Their report contained 13 proposals, including more extensive cycling lanes, increasing forestry cover and expanding organic farming.
The Assembly also recommended increasing taxes on carbon, although this proposal won the least support from members who wanted the poorest 400,000 families exempted from the tax and all monies ring-fenced for climate initiatives.
On foot of this report, the government set up a Dail Committee on Climate Action which is due to report in the coming weeks.
All the indications are that a carbon tax will be their central recommendation, in what will be a regressive step in the fight against climate change.
The Case Against Carbon Taxes
The primary case against carbon taxes is that they don’t deliver anything like the reductions in Co2 emissions that we need.
Recent research by the International Panel on Climate Change estimated that to avoid the dangerous tipping point of anything beyond a 1.5% increase in global temperatures, we need to reduce Co2 emissions by 45% in the next decade and to zero by 2050.
This is an enormous task that requires a lead by the world’s governments in setting legally enforceable limits on corporations responsible for most of the emissions.
It also needs the government to tax corporate profits to fund a major investment in renewable technology.
In contrast, carbon taxes are socially regressive measures that target the consumption of individuals.
If people continue to burn fossil fuels as prices increase, emissions won’t fall even as governments take more money from people.
To make matters worse, petroleum products are defined as inelastic by economists, meaning that individuals tend to stick with them regardless of their prices.
This is because they are essential for everyday living and hard to replace with alternatives.
Hard pressed families are no less worried about climate change than anyone else, but it is very expensive to buy an electric car or to retrofit a house meaning that for many peoples these ‘options’ are really not options at all.
Motorists currently pay 90 cent tax on a €1.50 litre of petrol. So fossil fuels are already very highly taxed but so far that hasn’t encouraged many people to switch their cars.
That is because most people simply can’t afford an expensive, new electric vehicle.
The government are so certain of the revenue from petrol, that they lump it in with cigarettes and alcohol as ‘old reliables’ come budget time.
The major oil and gas companies are equally sure that these taxes don’t work.
A leaked report from Exxon Mobile estimated that an effective carbon tax would have to increase the cost of petrol by 300%, equivalent to €4.60 a litre.
The ESRI has calculated that an effective tax would add €1,500 to every person in the country or up to €2,350 if agricultural emissions are not tackled.
It is for this reason that companies like Exxon publicly support carbon taxes, while back in 2014 they privately reassured their shareholders that “world climate policies are highly unlikely to stop it from producing and selling fossil fuels in the near future”.
International evidence
The academic evidence also suggests that carbon taxes are not hugely effective.
Norway is often held up as a pioneer in carbon taxes, but a study by Bruvoll and Larsen showed that in the decade after they were introduced, carbon taxes were responsible for a 1.5% reduction for onshore emissions and 2.3% overall – nowhere near enough.
British Columbia is another example put forward by carbon tax enthusiasts, but according to Food and Water Watch, overall reductions were between 1-2% with most of this down to the impact of the recession.
Other studies have been more positive, but even then the reductions are estimated to be in the range of between 5% – 9%. That is nowhere near enough.
Besides their relative ineffectiveness, the other key factor in the adoption of carbon taxes is the fact that they shift responsibility away from the major corporate polluters and onto consumers.
The problem with this is that just 100 global corporations are responsible for 71% of all emissions through the products they place onto the market.
Consumers can only choose what these corporations produce – and if big business continues to find it profitable to use oil and plastics then consumers will be stuck buying them.
Here at home, according to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland households’ account for 15% of all emissions while agriculture is responsible for 32%.
The SEAI found that using renewable energy for heat, electricity and transport reduced emissions by 4.2 million tonnes of CO2. That is the equivalent to the CO2 emissions of 1.4 million cars.
But it is also equivalent to just one-fifth of agricultural emissions of greenhouse gases.
Despite this, the government are committed to increasing the dairy herd by 22% over the next decade and have resisted calls for major investment in public transport.
Fine Gael has also blocked a People Before Profit bill, to leave remaining fossil fuels in the ground.
At the same time as they issued licences for exploration in places like the Porcupine Basin off the west coast.
This shows the hypocrisy behind the government’s imposition of carbon taxes.
They have no interest in taking on their friends in the corporate sector but want to use the carbon tax as a way to cover their tracks.
Recent riots in France shows that carbon taxes risk alienating working people at a time when we need them on board.
To really tackle climate change, while protecting the poorest and most vulnerable in society, we need:
Brian O’ Boyle is an economist with People Before Profit.
He holds a PhD in economics from the National University of Ireland, Galway and is currently working on a book about how Ireland is a tax haven.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Nothing will stop climate change, it has always changed. We’re all interested in a sustainable planet but not a tax based on lies and scaremongering
@Seamus Hughes: so we’ve nothing to do with it?
@Seamus Hughes: So you are talking about the weather! Here is some knowledge:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
Our climate is changing and it has been thanks to us over the last 150 years. 4 industrial revolutions later, our pollution and waste is causing more damage. Do your bit and tidy up your area. #trashtag
@Simon O Flaherty: more lies and propaganda. 1 volcano mount Saint Helens spewed more carbon monoxide into the atmosphere than man has over 70 years. Bigger problem is simply that there are just too many humans on earth living in fruitless zones. Soon to be coming to a place near you soon,
@Joseph Kane: sorry Joseph, but it’s not. It’s true, no matter how much we whinge. This time it us humans who are responsible.
@Simon O Flaherty:
You can’t ca
@Simon O Flaherty:
You can’t categorically say that climate change is solely down to human activity. The world managed to rid itself of previous ice ages all on its own.
I’m not a climate change denier- it’s happening by all accounts but other such experts point to previous massive climate swings long before the Industrial Age.
@Seamus Hughes: Carbon tax is a scam. We need an election NOW.
@Seamus Hughes: your assessment is correct, but they are all gone mad, this climate change is not real. The SPIN that’s being Spun is unreal. There is big money behind all this , with the intention of making a lot more money in the long run. All a nonsense story, in fact the greatest Bulls..t story ever told.
@Eugene Comaskey: OK, if it’s bulls**t prove it. Find some counter evidence to your skepticism; https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.118-a536
@Simon O Flaherty: Here are a couple
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G25FxnF6e1U&pbjreload=10
@John Kennedy:
Blogs and youtube videos vs peer-reviewed scientific evidence from experts in the field.
Hmmm…..
Which one will I choose….
@Simon O Flaherty: Of course it’s Bulls…t, . We are gone crazy in this little Country, the Climate has always changed all down the Centuries. And even if all your ” Bull…t is anywhere near correct, we will make no difference, even if we closed down the Country. China, India, America are all laughing at this trash, and they are polluting fairly badly. We need to cop on a little and stop this nonsense.
@The Great Unwashed: I don’t mind, choose one that disproves their claims and send me a link please.
@John Kennedy: Still committing the argument from authority fallacy. None of the people in those links are any more qualified than the ordinary layman to make those claims about climate. Maybe you are dazzled when someone waves their PhD, but if the qualification is not in the relevant or a related field then it is totally irrelevant and they are misusing their qualification to dazzle the unwary. It is an easy one to get caught out on but it can be countered by a good standard of research. One of the highly qualified people is a lady whose area of academia is childhood development and music so how is she qualified to use her academic qualifications in climatology, she is not. What would people think if you turn up at your solicitors office when you are sick or go to the doctor for advice on making your will. I think they would be slightly bemused and maybe a little worried as to how you were coming to conclusions. We all know that normal reasonable people consult with the relevantly qualified professional when necessary, we should also follow the same procedure when researching a topic. Otherwise we come to the wrong conclusions and end up in the wrong place with the wrong information. We have pointed you in the direction of the evidence in the recent past. The evidence as provided by the relevantly qualified people, backed by the overwhelming weight of scientific research, but you have chosen to totally ignore that. Now that really is making a statement. If someone continued turning up at doctor for legal advice and vice versa despite the fact that they were constantly pointed in the right direction what would that actually say about that individual? Hard to say maybe, but I think you would agree that there was something totally amiss. The scientific evidence is overwhelming for recent man made climate change. Climatologists are in agreement, it doesn’t matter or make a difference if other people with PhDs in other areas disagree and wave their PhD while voicing their opinion because they don’t have any evidence to the contrary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&t=36s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP&index=3
@SteoG: Thank you for your response, even if it is peppered with snide observations, to each his own,I have followed your Youtube links to discover potholer54 and I quote
“I am a former science correspondent with an interest in reporting the facts, not the media hype.” hardly a peer reviewed expert on anything
Dr. Ronan Connolly
B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with minor in Mathematics (University College Dublin, 2000)
Ph.D. in Computational Chemistry (University College Dublin, 2003)
Dr. Michael Connolly
B.Sc., M.Sc., H.D.E., D.E.E., Ph.D.
Dr. Imelda Connolly
M.A. (Education), Open University
Ph. D. (Computer Mediated Communication), National College of Ireland
M.A. (Ethnomusicology), University of Sheffield
Dr. Patrick Moore
B.Sc. in Forest Biology in 1969, Ph.D. in Forestry
not exactly slouches are they?
You direct me to a scribe, thanks, again I ask a link please to peer reviewed publication that disproves their claims
@John Kennedy: As I said you are dazzled by a PhDs. As I pointed out and a fact that seems to have escaped your comprehension not one of those eminent people is qualified in climatology. The burden of proof lies with them to disprove the science. Not the other way around. They have failed to disprove anything. Do you understand what burden of proof means? Their claims are pointless and go against the scientific consensus. Do you want us to turn the world on its head for all the crazies.
Potholer is a science journalist and former geologist who explains the science and provides the sources with links and references to the peer reviewed studies. If you were an honest earnest researcher with a little bit of initiative you can find all the peer reviewed science on the matter with Google.
@SteoG: I take it that’s a no then, incidentally why do you feel the constant need to belittle, I never claimed any of these people were climatologists, I simply stated they were no slouches and not without some qualification in the scientific field, rather like your scribe the geologist.
“Their claims are pointless and go against the scientific consensus.” Really?.
@John Kennedy:
How exactly do you think people like ethnomusicologists are qualified to talk about climate science??
If you needed to have your spleen removed would you go to an ethnomusicologist because, well, they have a masters…?
@John Kennedy: You claim that these people are providing something that can explain away the scientific consensus. They can’t they are making an assertion without evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.. Look up burden of proof. So really what you are saying with your contention with the music teacher et al is that scientists have it all wrong and if 99 out of 100 scientists come up with the same answer from studies and experimentation and 1 scientist comes up with a totally different answer then we should dismiss the 99 and go with the 1 who got a different answer and if that single scientists expertise is in a totally different field to the topic then he is the one who has the correct answer. Really? What kind of world would we end up with? So if we take that to its logical conclusion all the explanations in science would be wrong. I think you are really being very silly.
I could provide plenty of links for you to follow up but I know that you won’t because you are think you have the answers from the music teachers, chemist and forestry expert.
An honest researcher looks at the credible evidence provided by the experts and looks at the people who are saying something different and weighs the evidence honestly and carefully. All that evidence is available on the internet but you cannot find it. You ask me. Strange that.
A lazy biased dishonest searcher looks for the articles that suit and appeal to their own biased world view it doesn’t matter who provides the answer or how pseudo scientific it is, and if a PhD can be waved then all the better. It does not matter to the lazy biased searcher what the PhD is in as long as it dazzles.
Potholer54 or the scribe as you try to belittle him as, is honest and is outlining the studies done by others, he is showing where the research comes from and pointing out the lies told by the climate deniers. You would know this if you were honest and even watched one of his videos. No skin off my nose if you don’t have the ability to research a topic honestly.
@G Manning: no we have not
@John Kennedy: All those people make money from climate change lies.
Stealth taxes promoted by George Lee on a nightly basis now. If Ireland was to go back to a Forrest dwelling people. It wouldn’t make any difference to the climate, so long as countries like China and USA continue to be major polluters. It’s all a scam. Remember the ozone scare or the year 2000 meltdown. They can’t increase usc. Paye.vat. Prsi, so let’s make up a new tax.
@Joseph Kane: so, because somebody else is crapping on the planet that gives us a right to do so also. Now that is wrong!
@Joseph Kane:
Is that the ozone hole that was fixed after we banned CFCs?
@Brendan Cooney: what volume of crapping are we doing in relation to India and China and yet are expected to pay outrageous carbon taxes to play our huge part ?
@Quentin Moriarty:
Actually China is leading the world in terms of renewables.
That aside, our per capita emissions are vastly ahead of either China or India.
@The Great Unwashed: emissions from China and India combined in comparison to Ireland today
@The Great Unwashed: how many times have you been in China, let me tell you that after 2 days you will have a sore throat. Problem is simple. Too many people
@Brendan Cooney: that’s not what he is saying he’s saying with countries like China and USA are spewing its toxins into the environment etc our efforts are practically futile. Yes all do our bit… emphasis on ALL! Try rewarding people instead of taxing them to the hilt.. Its easier for them to do this and definitely more lucrative for the greedy rich!
@Joseph Kane: The ozone layer was improved because governments banned the CFCs that were the most damaging to it. The Y2K “meltdown” was avoided because hundreds of thousands of programmers changed millions of lines of computer code.
It’s amazing what you can achieve when you set your mind to it, rather than nay-saying everything…
@Joseph Kane: Ireland is actually the largest exporter of cattle in Europe, and fifth largest in world, partially because we’re one of the least densely populated countries in Europe. Considering that cattle farming is one of the foremost contributors to environmental degradation, as well as greenhouse gas emissions, we can definitely do our bit.
These scam taxes will push huge numbers over the edge. Time to remove ffg …
@Willy: a big play on people’s conscience so they will be happy to pay another 5 PERCENT over without feeling any anger at doing so. Then that will be the thin edge of a wedge as they increase the rate annually.
@Willy: True! Remove FFG and vote Greens !
@Dotty Dunleary: Greens are dead,have some mercy and bury them deep.
@Cathal: recycle them….
If you think a few cycle lanes and electric cars will save the world then think again!
No amount of taxes on fuels will work, just ask the French! It just hits those struggling to make a living driving a Taxi or running a small farm etc.
These taxes are usually proposed by those like the author here who has spent most of his life in education and some fringe political party, not in the real world!
And no amount of bringing your empty beer bottles to the recycling centre or your used plastics will make even the tiniest dent in the problem.
The real issue is massive over population in the “developing world” the use of oils, plastics, etc is on such a massive scale that it causes as much damage in a week as we do in a year!
Look at that starving whale in the Philippines which had 40kg of plastic in its stomach. This region is a massive centre of environmental damage.
@Dotty Dunleary: good comments
@Dotty Dunleary: so your solution is to do nothing
Wow, McGregor fake retires and no comments allowed….wonder why?
@G Manning: A massive reduction in hot air and BS from him will reduce carbon emissions from Ireland..
@G Manning: Varadkar comments will appear and Dobby will get stroppy.
“The raised revenue from increased carbon taxes will be used to assist in developing newer renewable energy technology”- Leo at the conference last Sat
(Jump for joy anyone living in rural areas reliant on cars for transport )
Let the government hammer Ryan air for polluting the atmosphere with direct delivery of toxins through emissions and other countries may follow suit
No one wants to approach this issue
Airlines have a massive role to play
@Quentin Moriarty:
Ryan Air , Air Lingus and dozens of other carriers need to be told that cheap flights are a thing of the past . Will that happen ? of course , as soon as pigs fly
@Quentin Moriarty:
So are you in favour of carbon taxes or not? You seem a bit conflicted.
@The Great Unwashed: nit
@The Great Unwashed: not at all conflicted.
The old dear who needs to heat her house with coal might never step on an aeroplane yet she is paying carbon taxes to offset the massive damage done by said craft.
Increase VAT on all flights by 5 percent rather than hitting those who need cars and would like to heat their houses in winter at a reasonable and fair cost .
@Quentin Moriarty: Spot on .
Why not a 10% increase in VAT .
Watch this space because this Fine Gael government would much prefer to hit the easier targets.
@Quentin Moriarty:
Carbon taxes would also apply to aviation fuel.
@The Great Unwashed: no raising of carbon taxes as I said previously. It’s a stealth and easy tax
Leave fuels alone
Raise VAT on airline ticket sales exponentially
excellent article, neo-liberal governments will alternate people from been climate-conscious with this spurious carbon tax.
It will just make poor people poorer or make poor people cold.
If Fine Gael were genuine about carbon emissions they wouldn’t be undermining the PBP bill to stop new licences for oil and gas.
@Peadar Hopkins: the wealthy are never affected by hikes in carbon emissions ascot always passed to the consumer
And to a lesser extent those who live in cities w easy access to public transport
@Peadar Hopkins: the wealthy are never affected by hikes in carbon emissions as its always passed to the consumer
And to a lesser extent those who live in cities w easy access to public transport
The denial of climate change is not just ignorant, but “malign and evil”, according to Mary Robinson, because it denies the human rights of the most vulnerable people on the planet.
The former UN high commissioner for human rights and special envoy for climate change also says fossil fuel companies have lost their social licence to explore for more coal, oil and gas and must switch to become part of the transition to clean energy.
Let’s all believe Mary as she sprouts out more virtue signalling from her walled compound in Zurich. Supported by her 3 pensions
@Joseph Kane: Mary Robinson is a paid shill, if you can afford her she’ll spout any old guff in her patronising manner.
Let us scientifically ascertain Irelands affect on climate change going forward before implementing pointless carbon taxes.
@Jaycee Laycee: that’s been done!! Time to act.
@Brian Gormley: Where can I find it Brian?
None of the NGOs or political parties are aware of it.
Its just more tax on the ordinary people who have to pay for everything to line the TDs pockets
There is allready a scheme to retrofit houses which is doing very well.
Disappointingly theres barely a single Young lad being trained in the scheme.
Nor schools advising kids to choose this as a career.
Also, Id like to see a study showing how green electric cars are? The impact of production and transport to market and disposal of batteries at end of life etc…..
Not green at all.
@Stephen Maher: That scheme for houses which is only for houses built before 2006 is very expensive(up to 10k) for the house dweller and will take forever to have a major impact. Over 90% of houses are still not insulated properly so many people will freeze in their own homes if carbon taxes go up!
@Stephen Maher: There’s very little spare money out there for home repairs, also no incentive for rental properties to have high efficiency rating, if you tie prices to house energy rating you might get more uptake.
Trotting out the “people have no alternative” trope again I see. People have choice. They could take the bus, train, cycle or walk in many scenarios. 50% of car trips nationally are under 2km (CSO). Stop looking through the prism of electric cars. They’re only a small part of the solution. No problem with temporary carbon tax exemptions for fuel stations in isolated rural areas. Direct rebates for blue badge holders. Etc.
@Oisín O’Connor:
Spoken like a true urbanite. Many people in rural Ireland don’t have a choice.
@The Great Unwashed: there are examples above of how to ease the burden for rural people who have limited choices. There should be an emphasis on limiting how efficient/cost-effective it is to drive small distances in urban areas.
I can’t see anything in your proposals that’s a better alternative to carbon taxes. 5 of the 7 recommendations require massive investment, the other two seem to be cost neutral, but you haven’t identified where the money for investment will come from. I’m very disappointed in the approach by PBP and SF to this issue. “Polluter pays” is a fundamental principle.
@Brian Gormley: that’s all fine and dandy therefore we can raise the price of fuel by 20 cent overnight and remove motor tax completely .
The consumer then gets some relief and the extra “carbon tax” can be ring fenced for that investment .
Now you have a polluter pays model until the government start increasing the price of tyres,car parts for more handy revenue
No one in rural Ireland are using a pony and trap anymore
@Brian Gormley: the major polluters are multinational corporations.
@Brian Gormley: then tax the polluters the oil and fossil fuel industry. Green party so weak on that. They amount to 70% of pollution. A carbon on ordinary people will have no effect on climate other than push some people into fuel poverty. We need radical measures young people get it
@Leah Speight:
If the fossil fuel companies are taxed they’ll just pass the cost on to the consumer, so it pretty much amounts to the same thing as taxing the consumer directly anyway.
The government dont want to act as they have too much of a vested interest and too much money to lose!
We need to return to the day when air travel was expensive. A single flight from Shannon to new York is doing significant damage to our environment , the equivalent of hundreds of hours of travel by a diesel or petrol powered car.
The cost of air travel needs to be multiplied but that won’t happen because this Government are as likely to target that as they are to target the IFA.
@Barry Foster: That will stop all those nasty travelling execs who want to bring jobs to the Shannon region!
@Dotty Dunleary: the execs could still afford it but the New York for a handbag or a weekend brigade might think twice…..harsh reality of climate change, we are in a dire predicament.
@Barry Foster: agreed look at the Flight Radar app. You’re head will fall off when you see the air traffic on any given day.
@Barry Foster: Could you point me to some evidence of damage to our environment as a result of air travel?
@John Kennedy:
John , where do you think those emissions are going? ….into space?
@Barry Foster: I have no idea, that’s why I asked, can you provide a link please?
@John Kennedy: air travel is the largest unregulated source of carbon emissions in the U.S.
You do know that contrails contain unburnt fuel particles
Forget your links. Google it and don’t be lazy
Ironic to see the words “economist” and “people before profit” in the same sentence. The only certainty these clowns can offer is that when their hair brained college bar schemes fail spectacularly, they can just blame capitalism and feel morally superior.
If there was ever a redundant party “people before profit” during a time when vulture funds are stripping the country clean. Homelessness at highest levels and they console us like a priest at a funeral in a hurry to get to the bookies .A bit like Niger Farage collecting a wage from the EU council
No matter what this country does, it won’t make one iota of a difference to climate change ! Fact 23 of the most polluted cities in the world are in India.
the likes of PBP and Sinn Fein are the only parties talking sense on climate change, you can’t tax away pollution you need to invest in climate friendly alternatives not but the burden on individuals who are already struggling
Based in SE asia now, you can see how bad plastic use is. You buy a bottle, that is then packaged in 2 plastic bags and then served with a straw. They give you strange looks when you pack it yourself in your rucksack and refuse the straw. Its a nightmare scenario and yes the local governments here should implement small steps like a plastic bag levy and paper straws. Its a start that could then develop over time.
As for Ireland, every little helps in my opinion. Just because this country is a mess doesn’t mean Ireland should revert back to littering and throwing plastic around like its nothing. I despise FG’s intentions though, they will do a carbon tax increase before doing anything remotely incentivising. They are doing no favours and should incentivise this time, maybe a reduction in property tax for those that use renewable sources. Everyone wins in that scenario
The main reason you don’t see carbon tax make much difference in Norway, is because despite being a major oil producer, more or less all its other energy sources are clean.
Hydroelectric power, mostly from waterfalls, but also from wave towers along the coastline, provides the country with about 80 to 95 percent of its electricity. There’s also natural gas power, yes, albeit on a small scale.
While getting an electric car here in Ireland does come with some incentives, the tailpipe of your Leaf or Tesla is still the chimney at the nearest ESB coal plant, until these are decommissioned.
Obviously, there are incentives to use clean energy here in Ireland too, what, with windmill generators popping up around the countryside, but I’m surprised to not see more hydroelectricity here.
More horse shit tax from a corrupt corporate governance..
In reality, it will mean more tax on people going out to work & another slush fund to buy votes.
Having said that, we all should share a deep sense of guilt at seeing the devastating floods in SE Africa & we should be doing more to help these poor people who are directly paying the price of climate change
When the UN climate report contains a single computer simulation that gets remotely close to being correct I’ll start worrying.
If Ireland is serious about reducing emissions there needs to be a 2.5% levy on all corporate profits to pay for more sustainable transport. Transport will be the hardest category to reduce emissions, i.e. compared to electricity, heating and agriculture.
Currently it seems the PAYE workers is meant to pay for all these improvements with carbon taxes.
Start with the government jet. Then ministers cars. Use public transport. Leaf by example instead of punishing the taxpayer.
There are natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth. However we are also having a significant and preventable/reducible effect. An effect that will catastrophically effect the lives of us and our children if we don’t take action now. Just because others (USA, China, India etc) are worse doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apply positive change. Leading by example has some direct benefits to our immediate environment and applies leverage to facilitate others to change. The biggest single change that we can all make is to eat less meat and animal products. Animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 20% of all greenhouse gasses whereas all combustion engines together represent approx 18%. It’s and individuals choice – we can save to planet one person at a time.
have your say