Sir, – The Irish Times has recently carried a number of articles highlighting the stark reality that ordinary Irish households simply cannot afford the cost of retrofitting their homes. These pieces reflect a truth that many of us have been raising for years – yet Government policy continues to lag painfully behind the lived experience of working and middle-income families.
Regrettably, this comes as no surprise to those of us who had these concerns when retrofitting started. In 2021, I wrote to the then minister for the environment, Eamon Ryan, expressing serious concern that the retrofitting programme, as designed, would fail the very people it purported to help.
I pointed out that grants, while welcome in principle, fell far short of covering the true costs involved, and that low-income households – those with the greatest need for warmer, more energy-efficient homes – were being effectively shut out of the scheme entirely.
Four years on, nothing of substance has changed. The ambition remains; the affordability does not. We are asking families already stretched by the cost-of-living crisis to find tens of thousands of euro for upgrades that the State has deemed essential – and then expressing surprise when uptake falls short of targets.
READ MORE
Climate action cannot be the preserve of those who can afford it. A retrofit programme that works only for the wealthy is not a programme at all – it is window dressing. – Yours, etc,
JOHN COLFER
Killester,
Dublin 5.
Sir, – Eamon Ryan’s response to the Economic and Social Research Institute’s review of residential heat decarbonisation in Ireland (“Don’t believe the negativity – Ireland’s retrofitting scheme for homes is not failing”, March 24th) is less a rebuttal than a change in the terms of the debate.
The institute’s analysis asks a straightforward question: is retrofitting the most cost-effective way to cut emissions?
Ryan replies by pointing to warmer homes, health benefits and long-term savings. All of these may be valid, but they are answers to a different question. Deep retrofitting can cost tens of thousands of euros per home, often amounting to several hundred euro per tonne of carbon saved, far higher than many alternative ways of cutting emissions.
It is difficult for readers to assess a policy debate when one side measures cost per tonne of carbon and the other measures comfort and social gain. Both matter, but they are not interchangeable. If retrofitting is to be defended, it should be defended on the same terms on which it is being criticised. – Yours, etc,
PAUL O’SHEA
Planet Before Profit CLG,
Shankill,
Dublin 18,
