Who said this? "Ireland has made only limited use of economic instruments to address pollution issues . . . Even if the Irish budget situation has improved, environmental expenditure will increasingly need to be covered by charges levied on polluters and resource users."
It may sound like the Green Party, but it was actually the OECD, which represents the 29 richest countries in the world, including us. And one of the recurrent themes of its recent review of Ireland's environmental performance is that we need to make much wider use of fiscal measures to achieve results.
The ESRI has been beating its drum on this issue for the past 10 years, with few measurable results. What its reasoned arguments ran into was the breezeblock wall of the Department of Finance's irrational opposition to doing anything more than tweak the tax system in minor ways that make little difference.
The OECD's explicit endorsement of a more interventionist approach might help to dig the mandarins' heads out of the sand.
They will, in any case, have to come to terms with implementing the Government's National Climate Change Strategy, which calls for a phased introduction of carbon taxes across the board.
This "radical blueprint for decoupling economic growth from the growth in greenhouse gas emissions" - as the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, branded it - is designed to meet Ireland's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to limit the increase in its emissions to 13 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010.
The Department of Finance may take some comfort from the collapse of the Hague climate change summit, but not for long. With the conference due to reconvene in May and the European Union committed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, whatever the US decides, Ireland will have to embrace "eco-taxation".
Take transport, the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse emissions. In this sector, which has already seen 100,000 new 00D cars registered before the end of October, the OECD recommended that the emphasis should be on taxing vehicle use through road tolls and higher fuel prices, rather than vehicle ownership.
Its report was not, of course, advocating that VRT (vehicle registration tax), excise and VAT on new cars should be abolished; what it argued was that the existing balance should be altered so that the external costs to society in terms of congestion and pollution should be reflected in higher taxes on the use of vehicles.
In his last Budget statement, the Minister for Finance said the introduction of a benefit-in-kind (BIK) tax on off-street commuter car parking spaces was being studied by an interdepartmental group. However, because of the complexity of the problem, it was not expected to be a Budget item this week.
Two years ago, the ESRI proposed that a much more effective way of discouraging private car commuting would be to levy a daily charge on parking spaces, rather than an annual BIK tax.
In their paper, Ms Sue Scott and Mr Bernard Feeney said this could be done by bringing these spaces into the commercial rates system.
The rates would obviously have to be levied at a premium, with the cost apportioned out as a daily charge to individual users. If such a regime were adopted, commuters would think twice about driving to work.
Even if they used public transport two days a week, it would have a dramatic effect in reducing congestion.
In its report, the OECD drew attention to the fact that fuel prices in Ireland are "relatively low compared to neighbouring countries" - whatever motorists might think. On the basis of the polluter-pays principle alone, as well as the need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, taxes on fossil fuels should be increased.
"Wider use of economic and fiscal measures to encourage use of cleaner fuels and cleaner energy should be given more consideration," as the OECD diplomatically put it.
One obvious move would be to respond to annual pre-Budget submissions from the LPG Association for a real differential with diesel.
"We need to look at the relative pollution content of fuels and adjust tax rates accordingly," says Ms Sue Scott, who is planning yet another ESRI seminar on green taxation next spring. "We're not talking about massive increases in revenue from motorists, but about better targeting of charges to reflect the damage done."
And while welcoming last year's exemption of free public transport passes from BIK, she said that giving fuel rebates to public transport operators was "the wrong way to subsidise them".
Instead, the limited State subsidy for Dublin Bus, for example, should be based on the number of passengers carried or on passenger miles.
But whatever he does about that or about BIK on parking spaces, Mr McCreevy really must review the tax status of company cars, which account for up to 40 per cent of new car sales. A whopping increase in BIK on such free gifts would encourage firms to find a less environmentally-damaging way to reward employees.
