Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The proposed amendments seek to include, in some fashion, domestic greenhouse gas mitigation targets in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek to include a definition of "low-carbon" which has effectively been borrowed from the Government's national policy position on climate action and low-carbon development, as published in April 2014. It goes without saying that I stand over the vision of low-carbon transition outlined in the national policy position document. Further to an amendment introduced on Report Stage in the Dáil, section 32B contains an explicit reference to the need to have regard to the Government's policy on climate change. However, I do not accept that the content of the national policy position should be replicated in statute. This is because Ireland is already subject to legally binding greenhouse gas mitigation targets up to 2020. Negotiations at EU level are ongoing to agree mitigation targets for all member states up to 2030. This process of target setting is likely to continue up to 2050. Accordingly, putting in place our own statutory mitigation target for 2050 now would be likely to cut across and interfere with the EU's target-setting process. The result would either be that our target would be below that of the EU, rendering it redundant, or that it would be above the EU target, indicating that it is not a least-cost option thereby putting Ireland at a competitive disadvantage with our EU neighbours.

Amendment No. 3 calls for the insertion of a mitigation target for 2050 in order to secure an aggregate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 80% by 2050. As already stated, I am opposed to setting a quantitative target for 2050 separate from that to be set for us as part of an EU target-setting process. Moreover, I believe that a single economy-wide target for the State is quite inappropriate, giving our unique emissions profile. This profile is characterised by a large agricultural sector where mitigation potential is low.

Amendment No. 39 calls for the inclusion of a target of close to 100% decarbonisation of transport, construction and energy sectors, and carbon neutrality in agriculture by 2050. This is a grossly unreasonable expectation in respect of any country. If it were taken seriously, it would decimate the economy and society. Although substantive decarbonisation of approximately 80% may be achievable outside the agricultural sector by 2050, the marginal abatement cost of achieving close to 100% decarbonisation by 2050 would be truly enormous, even assuming it would be technically feasible in light of the state of low-carbon technologies currently available.

Accordingly I cannot support these amendments and call for their withdrawal.