Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I respect the Senator's views and look forward to hearing further from him. We want all-party agreement on this subject. That was the reason for the establishment of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. The Government has published this Bill without consultation and appears to be rushing it through the Oireachtas. I hope there will be time to consider it adequately on an all-party basis. Such an approach should be the sine qua non if the national interest is to be served. We want to delay the passage of this legislation until such time as an all-party approach is agreed because it will impose lasting obligations on future Governments of every hue.

We are concerned that the short-term targets, which exceed EU and other national agreements, will have significant cost implications for our economy. Without a binding international agreement, competitor economies will scale up their industries to take advantage of our stringent targets for reducing emissions. I am not an expert on this matter but I understand that proceeding along the lines laid down in the Bill could have the effect of reducing the national herd by 40%. Ireland has clean grasslands and we are good producers. If change can be introduced at the margins by way of technology, let us do so but we should not hinder the growth of the herd or tie the hands of our great producers. If we ended up importing meat, we would increase our carbon footprint because of transport considerations.

I do not want us to weaken or limit our negotiating position in any way. The Bill does not propose any policy or initiative to reduce carbon emissions. We would seek changes in order that it reflects our policies as set out in the NewERA document. The Bill requires full and careful consideration. It would set out in law three non-binding targets. Greenhouse emissions would have to be reduced by an average of 2.5% per annum until 2020, 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 compared with 1990 emissions. I respectively suggest we are running ahead of ourselves with these targets. They will have no impact on other legally binding targets such as the Kyoto Protocol and the EU 2020 targets.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would be required to produce a national climate change plan which would set out detailed measures on reducing emissions. An expert body would be established to advise the Government on functions under the Bill, including national mitigation and adaptation plans, sectoral plans and annual transition statements. The Bill would place an obligation on public bodies to act in accordance with national climate change plans and off-shoot mitigation and adaptation strategies.

Three inescapable facts must be faced when considering the issue of targets. First, we rely on expensive IMF and EU emergency funds to run our State. Little progress appears to have been made in this regard but I hope there will be mitigation at some point. Second, we have to reduce the deficit to agreed levels by 2014. The only way to achieve this goal is by growing the economy because tax increases and public spending cuts alone will not make the full adjustment. Third, if we are to increase growth we will need to become more cost competitive and make Ireland a better place to do business and create jobs. Weakening our cost competitiveness in the period to 2014 would set back economic recovery.

Without an action plan to match these targets, we do not know what effect they will have on an economy which is struggling to grow. While exports continue to increase, we must be careful to nurture further growth. The fact that section 3 states there will be no consequences for not meeting these targets means even the Government does not take the Bill seriously.

When it comes to the key issues and key reservations, which relate to agriculture and business, we are deeply concerned about the negative affect this will have on our economy. We cannot increase costs when trying to grow and encourage more job creation. This could raise energy prices and threaten agriculture, and I have spoken about the national herd. We want to make progress and do the right thing but in trying to do so, we cannot lose sight of what is at stake. It comes down to business and agriculture.

Why not have proper consultation with the stakeholders, which has not happened? I do not believe that is how the Minister means to proceed. That is not his normal way. I hesitate to say it but I do not know what has possessed some people. Can we get back to basics and get all-party agreement? There was all-party agreement at the committee. Is that not right? Recommendations were agreed.