Dan Boyle (Green Party)

Some £4 trillion is £4,000 billion. If one adds another 20% to that, one gets the euro equivalent of €5 trillion. That is the opportunity a country like Ireland could dip into.

I heard previous speakers talk about the pharmaceutical industry and the effect that a Bill such as this will have but it ignores the fact that this legislation is about the non-traded sector. We already have a mechanism in place where the largest industries creating most of the carbon are being dealt with. This is a targeted and planned approach to deal with the rest of industry.

I hope that at the end of this Second Stage debate people inform themselves, do not take a knee-jerk reaction, find out what the benefit of this is, not talk about point scoring and talk about how this is an advantage to this country and is necessary for it not only in terms of environmental obligations but in terms of Ireland as a country, economy and a society benefitting from this legislation.

I emphasise this because most of the convincing I have to do on behalf of my party is not so much of those opposite but those behind me. This is very unfortunate because this is Government legislation that has been approved by the Cabinet and, at the end of the day, these arguments must hold sway. I am not convinced a new Government, if one comes about in a number of months, would fare any better with either the vested interests or the contradictions that exist between political parties.

Spain is exporting wind energy to France. It is unusual that Spain has managed to outstrip Ireland given our natural advantage in wind technologies. We have considerable catching up to do and find ourselves in a less than ideal position even though we have done remarkable work in renewable energy in the past three years alone. However, because of the obstructionist attitude of many in the political establishment since the Kyoto conference and the failure of successive governments to build upon the Kyoto initiative, we find ourselves in a disadvantaged economic as well as environmental position. Everyone in this House should think about that. It is not so much about the obligations the Bill will impose for the next ten, 20 or 40 years, but that we must think in that timeframe. We also need to think about the implications of not having had this legislation for the past ten to 20 years, which represented a major missed opportunity. Ireland could have been in Denmark's position not only in the production of energy but also in the production for export of the associated hardware and technology. We still have opportunities in wave and tidal power, but we have had to play considerable catch up in wind energy.

In terms of how the targets are met, and this is where many of the stakeholders have unnecessary fears, it is an either-or approach. While there is the 2.5% figure and the figures for 2020 and beyond, it is not a straight-line approach for each sector or in each year and there is flexibility in carbon reduction. It would have to be accepted as a success of this Government that the first carbon reductions have been achieved under this Government. We will achieve those mainly in the energy area. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels and the inefficient way we produce and use energy are the most obvious starting points in bringing us in line with where we need to be with a targeted approach. The agricultural sector has a role to play in this. There may have been some sectors where the success has been lower than we would have hoped, including in the area of bio-fuel energy. In the micro-generation area, however, I can see the agricultural sector being a net contributor and a net beneficiary in how the climate change strategy is developed in coming years.

I would hope the stakeholders would think in this way. The country should grasp the issue of climate change not only in terms of obligations but also in terms of the benefit for the country and for individual sectors in the economy. It is so disappointing and dispiriting to hear some of the arguments being made today. There has been an attempt to mislead and to regard the Bill as something to be opposed for opposition's sake. I have heard some stakeholders use the word "ideology". Ideology does not exist on climate change. Climate change itself exists. It is a scientific fact and something to which we as a species have contributed. It is something that we, if it is not too late, have the only opportunity to try to remedy, and because of that responsibility we should take it more seriously than to engage in the petty squabbling and ignorant debate which has destroyed this theme, not just since our participation in government but for the past 20 years.

I entered politics in 1991 as a councillor on Cork City Council, as did the Minister of State in Dublin. Then we were enthused by what was happening in the Rio de Janeiro summit of 1992 and the final taking of responsibility by the human race, world governments and individual citizens. It is now 18 years since that conference and I am still hearing the same arguments by people who have not taken the trouble to inform themselves and know there are no alternatives in this regard. During the Committee and Report Stages in this House I ask Members to inform themselves better because to remain ignorant will ensure that as a planet the biggest threat to us as a species and all who inhabit this Earth will become worse as a result.