The nationalist far right surged in the recent general election in Finland. The tactic of those involved was to promote a whole new level of misinformation and outright lies about climate change and the necessary policies to tackle it. Greenpeace and others have dubbed it Finland's climate election. There has been similar climate scepticism as part of US President Donald Trump's call for the US to abandon the Paris Agreement. Thankfully, we heard a different and more progressive American view expressed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms Nancy Pelosi, in this Chamber earlier.

The strong scientific consensus is that we have 11 years to make serious changes to our economies in order to stave off the worst impact of global climate change. Reducing and phasing out our carbon emissions over the next 30 years will allow us to sustain most of our way of life while limiting, although not undoing, the further harm that our economies will cause the planet. This is not a solution to climate change but it is the least worst course of action that we must now take. Those worst affected by climate change will be the people living in countries which are particularly exposed to droughts and floods. Equally, those with least wealth here in Ireland are at the greatest risk of any failure to meet the challenges head on. That is where the populists have lied in the faces of those they pretend to represent. They have stoked hysteria about food prices and demand to retain petrol-burning cars. They claim that climate change is exaggerated so that elites can impose further austerity on ordinary people.

Making changes to our economy will be difficult. That is why the Labour Party and the trade union movement have argued for a just transition model, to use the opportunity to eliminate energy policy and to ensure that the State actively supports the creation of good jobs to replace those that will be displaced. On foot of events in recent weeks, it is clear that some populists here intend to campaign against climate policy as a tactic to scare voters without any consideration of the dire consequences that this might have on reducing our capacity to mitigate the harm of climate change. They are warning people of the high cost of climate action policies while claiming that climate action can be somehow achieved free of charge. They are warning people of the loss of jobs and income that will follow from failing to control climate change.

The membership of this House should rally together in respect of the following question. Will the Government confirm that it is committed to the just transition approach which has been outlined by the trade union movement and supported by my party and which will mean setting up robust funds to assist people with home insulation, to mitigate the increased fuel costs and to support job replacement in industries that will be displaced as we make the necessary adjustments? When will we see the Government's climate action plan?

I confirm that the Government supports a just transition on climate change. I am not sure it is exactly the model that Deputy Howlin supports but the Government absolutely supports the principles of just transition. We anticipate that the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Bruton, will bring forward the all-of-Government climate cation plan in May. I agree with Deputy Howlin's broad assessment regarding the politics of climate change and I have previously commented on that in this House.

I do not think it is quite the case that the populist, far-right Finns Party surged. It got a similar share of the vote as it got in the elections five years ago. In many ways, the election was a draw because the Social Democrats won 40 seats, the mainstream, centre-right party - Fine Gael's sister party - won 38 seat and the Finns Party won 39.

The politics of climate action are difficult as we saw in France, where climate action kicked off the yellow vest protests. A Government lost office in Australia because it was taking climate action. There have been difficulties in Canada where the Government has taken climate action. As is often the case, everyone agrees about the need to take climate action but the fact that it requires changes in lifestyle, can increase costs and have impacts on people can make it difficult. It is used by populist parties to make themselves more popular, to create fantasies about elites and all those matters to which Deputy Howlin referred. In most of the world, that is the populism of the right; in Ireland, it is the populism of the left - not the Labour Party, but Sinn Féin, Solidarity-People Before Profit and others, the parties that could not sign up to the cross-party climate action plan because it might cost them votes or they might lose out on the opportunity to exploit an issue for the sake of populism.

No.

The Taoiseach should read the reports.

We do not have a far right in Ireland. We have a far left but the far right and the far left are like a horse shoe: when one goes so far in one direction, one pretty much ends up in the same place.

One of the recommendations of the cross-party committee on climate action was that we adopt a just transition model and have just transition task forces. There are ways in which we can realise them. In the midlands, as Bord na Móna restructures and moves away from peat to become an energy and a waste company, it is about making sure people not only get decent severance packages and pensions but also get the opportunity to retrain and take up new employment in other areas. As the Deputy says, it can involve helping people to make the change and we do that already by providing subsidies for electric vehicles and the Better Energy Warmer Homes scheme.

However, we must also be honest with people. The cost of renovating and insulating every home in Ireland is €50 billion. No Government of any hue could find that kind of money so people will have to bear most of the cost of insulating their homes themselves. The Government is not in a position to buy everyone an electric vehicle so people will have to bear the cost of changing their vehicles. That is where Government models come in. It can introduce a carbon charge or tax to make things that damage the environment more expensive but on the flip side, it can use subsidies, the fuel allowance and the welfare system to compensate for that to make sure it is just.

Our view is that everything gathered from carbon taxes should be used to assist those will be impacted by it - not by giving everybody a cheque in the post but by ensuring that the most vulnerable are completely protected. We can do that by ensuring their houses are insulated and they have alternative fuels but that is for another day.

On Monday, the International Energy Agency urged the Irish Government to publish more transparent emissions target. The agency is right to point out the lack of definition regarding our climate action commitments. The climate action committee called on the Government to introduce annual carbon budgets, to cap the annual level of carbon emissions in each sector of the economy and to reduce these caps year on year. Will the Government confirm now that it will introduce transparent carbon budgets for the economy beginning with this year's budget?

I cannot confirm that but it is something we are considering as part of the whole-of-Government climate action plan. I appreciate where the Deputy is coming from in saying that all the revenues from carbon tax should be ring-fenced to assist the most vulnerable whether it is through the fuel allowance or helping them insulate their homes and so on. I understand where he is coming from. There is a difficulty with that model and this is something that arises so much in policy making. When all the money goes to the most vulnerable, the people who lose out the most are the ones who are just above that threshold. We see it all the time in public policy - people who earn just a bit more than the threshold for a medical card or social housing. That is the difficulty with a model-----

The notion of giving everybody the same is not right.

True, but ring-fencing all of it for the vulnerable and forgetting about the people just above the threshold, the middle class and low-income families is not just either. That is why we do not agree with Deputy Howlin's assessment.