Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegations from the Departments for their presentations. Obviously, we have been tasked with assisting in developing this legislation or least producing a report for the Minister. It is quite important that we heard from the delegations so that we could have some insight into what these sectoral plans are likely to achieve. I favour targets but that is a separate matter. We have been told that our national ambition will be more or less demonstrated through the sectoral plans so that is why it is really important that we get this insight from the delegations.

We all own this process and it is important we engage people as much as possible, not only in how we construct this but doing it in as public a way as possible. If we are to go anywhere near meeting the targets, we will all have an input into making changes in the way people move, where they live and how industries like agriculture function.

The targets to which we made commitments in 2020 are only one step and may change. If they are going to change, they will change upwards so our ambition needs to be ambitious. We were told by the EPA last April that, based on the current Government policy, there is no conceivable scenario whereby we will be able to meet the EU emissions targets based on a 20% reduction on the 2005 levels to 2020. We already have a larger challenge and, each year, we have a challenge because the clock has not stopped ticking.

Clearly, agriculture and transport are the major areas.

Our economic ambitions for the food we produce conflict with the targets we have been set. I accept that we have a good environment for producing food. However, there is a conflict in meeting the targets while at the same time using food production as a major driver of economic growth. We are trying to open markets in China and elsewhere. I cannot see how we square that circle. While I am aware that forestry is not included as a carbon sink, what counterbalancing measures could be implemented in the forestry sector and what should we do in that regard?

We recently met representatives of the NESC. Rory O'Donnell raised a number of interesting points in regard to institutional arrangements. Have the witnesses considered the different institutional arrangements to which he referred in order that we could have a robust mechanism for feedback from industry? Perhaps it would be worthwhile sharing the NESC document with the witnesses for their consideration. We need to find a way of delivering and if it is going to be an internal process among Departments without external engagement with the various sectors, I do not see how we can involve people to the extent necessary.

In regard to transport, none of us want a permanent recession but some of the decisions made recently, such as the change to carbon taxes, have in fact gone in the other direction of being less attractive. We have been told that €6 billion is to be invested in projects. Will these projects be climate change proofed? The Dublin interconnector will be a game changer in terms of moving people from their cars to public transport. Are we likely to see that kind of ambition and will these initiatives be carbon proofed? On the one hand we are asking people to leave their cars at home but on the other, subventions are being reduced for Bus Éireann to service small rural areas. I find it difficult to square that circle. Regardless of how nice the legislation may look on paper, it will fail if it does not allow us to meet our obligations. That is the litmus test for legislation. It should be a vehicle to change people's attitudes and behaviour.

A considerable number of the people who signed up to energy saving schemes, such as retrofitting homes, had the money to match grants. The difficulty we now face is in dealing with a cohort of people who do not have several thousand euro in matching funds. It will be a task to design a scheme that gives people sufficient incentives to get involved. I have on numerous occasions asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government about the progress made on these schemes because it appears to be taking a long time to move from one scheme to another where there has been a notable fall-off in numbers.

We speak about ambition in regard to sectoral targets but I am concerned that we are not moving very fast. If we pick the right mix and make the right investments in meeting our targets for 2020, there could be a cumulative effect, but if we are dragging our feet at this stage, it is likely that we will run into difficulties as early as 2016. Are the policy choices being made by the Government likely to conflict with our obligations? What is the worst case scenario in terms of not meeting those obligations and what are the financial risks? Nothing gets people's attention like the possibility they will be hit in their pockets. If people realise the potentially serious impact of these obligations they may be more likely to change their habits.