Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I have always considered myself to be close to the Green Party. I am a red-green in the great tradition of many of the Green Party members in Germany, for example. The idea of a socialist-green alliance is a good one which makes sense on an ideological basis. It is very disappointing that the Green Party in government has failed to deliver in many areas of environmental protection. It is appropriate, therefore, that the Labour Party is holding the Government to account on this issue.

The Labour Party would like the Minister to provide answers beyond the somewhat cursory response provided in the amendment. We would like him to indicate what he intends to do on the specific issues we have identified and on which the Government has failed to deliver. These include the early enactment of climate change legislation, the quality of our rivers and water supply, the state of public beaches and hazardous waste sites.

The issue on which I will focus is climate change legislation. When will we see a climate change Bill? I note the amendment again promises - this is becoming tedious - that the heads of a Bill will shortly be published. Senator Hannigan referred to the timeline in this matter. When one examines the history of the promises made on climate change legislation, one sees just how poorly the Government is delivering on this commitment. There is political consensus across all parties and among the Independents on the need for climate change legislation which sets binding targets for carbon emission reductions for this and future Governments. There is clear agreement on this matter. As long ago as 2004, when Friends of the Earth launched in this country, we set the introduction of such legislation as a major priority. I declare my interest as a board member of Friends of the Earth Ireland.

In 2007 Friends of the Earth, with a range of other non-governmental organisations, launched the "Stop Climate Chaos" coalition which had, as its primary focus, the need for legislation on climate change. In October 2007 in this House I introduced the Climate Protection Bill 2007, the first climate legislation to be introduced in either House. The aim of the Bill was to set targets for reductions in emissions and it set a target of achieving a 3% reduction in each year from 2010 to 2050. At the time 2010 appeared sufficiently distant to enable us to introduce preparatory steps in advance. The aim was to have a 60% reduction on 1990 baseline levels by 2050, a target that was in line with Kyoto Protocol targets. The Bill place duties on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to produce an annual report to ensure these reduction targets were met and provided for a vote of no confidence in the Minister where he or she failed to deliver. At that point, the Bill was not voted down and has remained on the Order Paper for nearly three years on the basis that we will see the heads of a Government Bill which will do more or less the same as my Bill proposes.

In 2009 Deputy McManus introduced in the other House a climate change Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. That legislation would set somewhat more ambitious targets of 80% reductions in carbon emissions by 2050 and 30% by 2020. It would place firm duties on the Taoiseach to deliver the required reductions and report regularly to the Oireachtas and proposes the establishment of an independent climate change commission. Activity increased subsequent to the introduction of Deputy McManus's Bill. In October last year the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security published a comprehensive report on the case for climate change law and again produced the heads of a draft Bill which draws on best practice in other jurisdictions and would provide for binding targets over a number of years, as well as the establishment of an independent commission.

The environmental pillar of the social partners called for the introduction of climate change legislation and made a strong case in a document it published this week which I am sure the Minister has read and which argues that Irish legislation should follow the Scottish example of inscribing an ambitious reductions target for national emissions of at least 40% by 2020 using 1990 as the baseline level. The pillar has given us a clear framework for the legislation which it argues is essential. It states the 3% annual reduction target until 2020 is dangerously weak, that the legislation must have a binding 2020 target and that Ireland is responsible for an extremely high level of emissions. It also highlights our obligations to developing countries, an issue to which I will return.

Despite the consensus achieved, the high level of activity in this area and the various drafts of climate change legislation produced, we have still not seen the promised heads of a Bill from the Government. Not only is there agreement on the need for legislation but consensus has also been achieved on its content. The legislation must set targets, including targets for 2020 and 2050. Two weeks ago the Stop Climate Chaos coalition argued for a 95% reductions target for 2050 and a 40% reductions target by 2020. While there are some differences in the various drafts of a Bill as to what should be the targets, there is a clear consensus on the need to set targets for 2020 and 2050. There is also consensus on the need for an independent commission on climate change which would monitor and assess our progress in addressing climate change and provide advice for the Government and public bodies on how best to achieve the targets set.

The need for political accountability is another aspect on which there is agreement. Perhaps my suggestion two and a half years ago for a vote of no confidence was a somewhat radical one, but there is certainly other ways in which political accountability can be ensured, for example, through placing the duty to meet targets firmly on the shoulders of the Taoiseach as our 2009 Bill does and as the Oireachtas committee has argued.

There is consensus that this is not just a matter of domestic concern because Ireland's excessive emissions have a direct and ongoing effect most strongly on developing countries, much more strongly than on developed countries. Again that is widely recognised. Stop Climate Chaos has called for the Government to ensure it provides finance for developing countries to deal with climate change. This funding should not be taken from the overseas development aid commitment to reach 0.7% of national income. We must recognise our obligations on a global level as well as our national obligations to reduce our emissions. There is widespread consensus on the content of the Bill and the need for a Bill. There is growing international pressure and we know we have obligations not only to our fellow developed countries but also to developing countries. The European Union is pressing us to do this; it has been done in other countries.

Why has such consensus emerged? Legislation is seen as vital because this is a matter that is too important for political promises. Statutory commitments must be enshrined in law in order to bind not only the current Government but also future Governments. Legislation expresses all-party agreement in the best way. Nobody is opposed to the principles of the Bill. There may be some disagreement as to how ambitious the targets should be, but there is public consensus that targets must be set. Based on the Kyoto agreement we are obliged to meet our targets. The political commitments we gave in the Kyoto Protocol were simply not met and political promises on matters such as hospital waiting lists and school building are broken all too often. We know that political commitments alone are not enough. Other countries have already passed climate change legislation, notably our nearest neighbour, Britain, which passed legislation containing binding targets. The sky has not fallen in, but the sky may well fall in if we do not meet these targets because we all know the terrible consequences of global warming if we allow it to continue at its current rate.

In 2005 Fianna Fáil was described by a certain Deputy as "a huddle of gangsters spending taxpayers' money in a carbon casino, plotting the most conniving scams to dodge even the woefully inadequate Kyoto targets". The speaker, of course, was the Minister's colleague, Deputy Sargent, speaking in the Dáil. Judging by what has happened since, relationships between Fianna Fáil and the Green Party have improved, of course. However, we need to ensure the Green Party and Fianna Fáil are held to account and that we are not simply spending money in a carbon casino by offsetting and not meeting targets. The best way to ensure we meet our targets is through binding legislation.