The public are to be hammered with a carbon tax and it won't be returned as promised, the Taoiseach confirmed today.
Leo Varadkar has gone back on plans to hand back the tax in rebates if homeowners cut down on the use of fossil fuels.
The major announcement came to reporters just before the start of UN Climate Change conference in New York this afternoon.
He also revealed a massive change in Government policy on fossil fuels.
Ireland is to stop oil exploration off our shores.
It will be phased out with no new licences being issued, while the search for gas will continue on a scaled-down level.
The Taoiseach announced the Government at last be putting its money where its mouth is on its Green agenda.
He announced that the imminent carbon tax hikes of up to €10 a tonne will be ringfenced for Green-friendly projects in the Budget.
And Mr Varadkar made the promise that it will amount to “billions” in funds that will be specially earmarked for these specific climate action projects.
But the promise of those who pollute the least getting rewarded through cheque rebates is now not going ahead.
Mr Varadkar has been picked to speak later this evening as one of 60 world leaders at the special conference at UN headquarters in Manhattan.
He will set out Ireland’s stall as a supposed leader in the battle against climate change.
Building on the aspirational climate action plan published by the Government earlier this year, Mr Varadkar is now coming on strong with a Green agenda in New York this week.
He told the world leaders that our taxes on carbon will be put aside specifically for Green projects.
However, he has crucially ruled out there being any tax dividend back to the greener consumers among us.
There will be no carbon tax cheques in the post as was previously promised.
He said: “You know, that's something we considered.
“We looked at the possibility of what they call this fee and dividend model where you raise money from the carbon tax, and then you give it back to people in the form of a cheque in the post.
“That is possible.
“But like the water conservation grant, it is quite expensive to administer.
“ And there are a number of downsides to it as well, in terms of determining how much each household will get for example.
“So it can be done but it's quite expensive to do it, quite tricky.
“So the alternative that we went for was to give the money back to people in a different way, to give the money back to people in communities, specifically to take actions that will reduce our emissions.
“So for example, you know, insulation, LED lighting, greener farming, renewable energy, all of those things, and we think on balance, that's the right way to go.”
