Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

As our party's leader said, carbon emissions and Ireland's failure to meet its Kyoto obligations is one of the most serious areas in which Deputy Cullen has failed to deliver on what is required from a Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The climate change problems include some of the biggest issues facing this country and the world. In reality, the only thing that may be said about the Irish position is that it is being ignored by the Minister.

As regards the recently proposed emissions trading regime, while many of the problems involved have originated from the EU, with such a large allocation of credits being given free to industry, uniquely this country has made matters worse, in a number of different ways. No proper public consultation was involved, as is required under EU rules, so that the level of allocation to be given to the traded and non-traded sectors could be decided on. Not surprisingly, under this Minister, the maximum possible allocation has been given to large industry, leaving other sectors such as transport, farming and domestic areas of the economy trying to pick up the pieces to provide some kind of reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions. In reality, what we have is a massive multi-million euro subsidy to companies such as the ESB and Cement Roadstone Holdings.

Certain of the provisions, unique to this country, are incredibly damaging to Ireland's long-term prospects of reducing its carbon emissions. The "use it or lose it" provision, which this Government and this Minister has decided to introduce, will encourage power generation companies to maintain in use the most polluting power stations during the life of this emissions trading system, contrary to the purpose of the emissions trading Bill. The proposal to use negotiated agreements, which the Minister strongly advocates and supports, will do nothing to help a proper reduction of carbon emissions but will do everything to help big business escape the consequences of a possible carbon tax or emissions trading system.

With regard to the emissions trading system, the blind faith the Minister has in forestry sequestration to solve the problem, goes against the scientific advice we have to hand which shows that it is very difficult. Far from being the "magic wand" that will allow Ireland to meet its Kyoto commitments, what we have is the worst Government in Europe as regards breaches of emissions regulations; and it has no proper plan to address the issue. The climate change strategy set out in 2000 has clearly gone adrift. There is no sign that any of the reductions talked about will actually be put in place. The only reductions of any sort introduced in recent years followed the closure of the IFI plant, which was a high-energy user. That appears to be the full extent of the reduction plan to date, to shut down Irish businesses that emit carbon.

What is required to tackle Ireland's Kyoto commitments is constructive thinking from this Government. Responsibility for that comes from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is clearly failing in his duty. That Ireland completely fails to deliver in its energy policy renewable and other wind energy resources which we have in such great abundance is the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, but also the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is not pushing the Government in that direction. On transport policy, the utter failure to do anything other than provide for private car use, is in flagrant breach of what should be done if we were attempting to solve the climate change problems we face.

The Minister's submission to the Department of Finance on the issue of carbon tax states that one of the revenue uses that could be availed of would be to buy the credits on the international market under the joint implementation agreement set out in the Kyoto protocol. This is a case where we would actually use the carbon tax to fund further carbon emissions and is contrary to common sense.

See this speech in context