THE Budget is "not even pale green" from an environmental perspective, with no action taken even in areas where there would be little or no cost to the Exchequer, Prof Frank Convery, director of the Environmental Institute at University College Dublin, said.
He said the Minister for Finance had missed an opportunity to "plug a very destructive hole in the system" by linking urban renewal tax incentives to conserving historic buildings. He could also have exempted listed buildings from the increased levels of stamp duty, Prof Convery said.
The Budget had given no tax breaks to farmers whose land would be covered by the EU Habitats Directive, and no extra funds to the Department of Arts and Culture, which is responsible for nature conservation, to meet the additional costs of designating Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), he added.
Prof Convery also noted that fertiliser was still exempt from VAT the ending of this exemption would at least encourage farmers to use less, thereby saving rivers and lakes from pollution and over enrichment, he said. This would not penalise farmers, as they could claim back the VAT.
He said the Budget had done nothing to adjust the "environmentally destructive bias in favour of the private car". Multi storey car parks and company cars remained deductible for tax purposes, but there were no write offs available to those who use public transport.
"The opportunity to tax energy, and recycle the proceeds in the form of further reductions in PRSI and tax on the lower paid, has been passed up in spite of the fact that there is clear evidence that the environment and employment would both gain from such a strategy," Prof Convery said.
Neither were there any incentives to reduce pollution and traffic congestion in cities, he said.
"The Minister had the opportunity to raise diesel prices even more in recognition of its role as a major pollutant," Mr David Hickie, of An Taisce, agreed. Mr Hickie said he would also have liked to have seen a tax on parking places.
He suggested the shift to funding local government from motor taxes, instead of water charges, would encourage county councils to "become experts at finding reasons for raising motor taxation". It also removed the possibility of rewarding careful users of water.
Last year, he recalled, Mr Quinn had invited submissions on green taxation with a view to the 1997 Budget, but he was still "not prepared to give us any idea whether these proposals will be adopted". "The politicians cannot continue to duck on this one," he added.
Mr Dan Boyle, the Green Party's finance spokesman, said that by "kicking to touch" on environmental taxes, Mr Quinn had shown that he was not a radical, reforming or innovative Minister. "He is not a Minister with one eye on the future, but is a man with both eyes firmly set on the next election," he said.
