David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:“ “low carbon” means an aggregate reduction in CO2 emissions of at least 80 per cent (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050 across the electricity generation, built environment, and transport sectors; and in parallel, an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, including forestry, which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production;”.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 were submitted by Sinn Féin and are very similar. They seek to set targets rather than aspirations. We had some lengthy exchanges on Second Stage when I outlined the major flaws in the Bill, one of which is the fact that while the Bill is high on rhetoric and aspiration it is very low on setting targets. That makes a mockery of bringing forward a Bill on climate change because the whole point of doing something on climate change is to put in place targets for actions that will reach a conclusion and deliver something. If we do not do that there is no incentive to design a plan to bring about meaningful reductions.

It is interesting that other amendments tabled by me and Opposition Members that would embody and set targets within an agreed timeframe have been ruled out of order. That is a matter for the Cathaoirleach but I find it strange. When discussing the need for this Bill and in its report on what it should contain, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht set out clearly that this State needs to have targeted reductions in line with the international agreements the State has signed up to.

I read contributions on this issue in the Dáil even before this Government was elected and in other committees which have discussed the issue, and much of what I am saying about the need to set targets and the flaws in this Bill are precisely what both Government parties were saying was necessary to bring about a strategic, overarching but realistic and deliverable climate change plan. The Government seems to have turned all that on its head. Who is really driving this; civil servants, people in the Department or is the Government in the driving seat at all for this Bill?

The absence of such targets means that this Bill lacks any real power to ensure that meaningful steps are taken to address the issues involved in bringing about a reduction in CO₂emissions across the main economic sectors. Some groups and special interests lobby strongly against setting targets and that might have been part of the influence. It would be interesting if the Minister of State would set out in detail why targets were not set and why a Bill was designed that is high on aspiration but very poor and shallow in respect of tangible targets. That is a fundamental criticism of the Bill supported by many organisations outside the Seanad which have campaigned and lobbied for climate change action for many years. They also feel this Bill falls far short of what is necessary. That is the purpose of these amendments.