David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We certainly will not be withdrawing these amendments. In response to the Minister of State' scripted response, I would say that targets are set in many areas. We had to set targets for how much waste could be sent to landfill. That obviously led to much more use of recycling and reusing of waste. Unfortunately, many of those targets were set by Europe and not by the State. We were dragged, kicking and screaming, to take action in respect of some of those issues. However, targets were set and met. A number of local authorities in the State were brought to court for not reaching those targets and being in breach of European legislation.

It is not fair to say that legislation is not a place for setting targets. It certainly seems to be the norm in Europe. On issues such as energy and climate change, one of the strengths of the European Union is that it tries to set targets to ensure that countries live up to their obligations.If we do not do so then what do we aspire to and what do we mean by a low carbon economy? At least my party has tried to define it. Fianna Fáil has tabled a similar amendment, which I should have acknowledged in my earlier contribution and which Senator Barrett supported.

The Government has not defined what such an economy means. As a result it will not matter what happens in five years' time because it will claim to have achieved its targets. To claim that reaching at least an 80% reduction by 2050 will destroy the economy is scaremongering of the highest order. I am not sure who wrote the speech but it probably was civil servants. I disagree with the claim and think its nonsense.