Oisín Coughlan

They're dragging their fields on their plan, and now it transpires they even have stacks of money that they could be using to spend money to help us get off fossil fuels.

So they've allocated 750 million to reduce the prices of fossil fuels for some of those hardest hit, those who scream loudest.

Not everybody, but I agree with Pad, we should be doing more for those most in need.

But where's the plan to help us get off fossil fuels?

And now, particularly when they have the money to help us do it, that's what's really frustrating.

No, I agree.

And so very roughly speaking, the carbon tax raises, the increases since 2020 raise about a billion euro a year.

So using the rough figures we have there, 60% of that is 600 million that is, they're allocating it all to retrofitting to social welfare supports for those who need energy price supports.

and for farming schemes.

They're allocating it all, but as Paz said on the control report, they're not spending it all.

They're only spending less than two-thirds.

So that is again deeply frustrating.

That sounds like between 100 million or more maybe a year in the Climate Action Fund and 400 million in the carbon taxes.

There's about 500 million that could be getting spent on climate action that isn't.

Now, it's not being misappropriated or anything.

It may end up paying for education that's overspending or whatever.

So it's not being misappropriated.

But it's frustrating.

And we do need a broad tax base.

But carbon tax is supposed to serve a particular purpose.