What I am suggesting is that public funds are being spent on measures that will not make any significant dent in our carbon footprint and the general public's comfort and energy use (i.e. the wrong measures are funded and the same dwellings will need to be revisited to do a proper job in the future)
Of course, and the government is fully aware of that. Again, that is not what the BER system was ever designed to achieve.
Likewise the energy grant system was not designed to target funding only where it's most needed or will add most benefit, it's merely designed to encourage those who can afford to carry out improvements to spend their money and do so. It's one of a number of similar measures that more benefit the more affluent section of the population who have a choice.
Just like grants for purchasing EVs, they do nothing to take the most polluting vehicles off the road, they just offer a small incentive to those who can afford to splash out €50k on a new car so that they might choose a greener option.
If you wanted to ensure building energy improvement funds are spent where they make most difference, you target only the worst performing buildings, the state pays for the entirety of the works, and the homeowner gets no choice.