Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that because I must attend another meeting. I thank the professor for his straightforward and relatively simple explanation of the science of climate change. As parliamentarians, we are regularly confronted by people, sometimes within these four walls, who tend to be deniers of climate change. The old standard is that they look back to the Ice Age and they indicate how different things were then, and they look to hot events that took place in the past. The professor's explanation of the change in average temperatures is one of the best and clearest explanations we have seen for some time. If we are to be successful as parliamentarians in attempting to show leadership about climate change, we must bring people with us, and we must move to some extent away from academia and into the vernacular, trying to talk about the practical implications of climate change. In one sense we must draw a line under the science.

Climate change is there and it is happening. The professor's rather simple explanation of the average temperature rising suggests the only reason for it is the level of industrialisation that has taken place in society and the impact of CO2 emissions, among other harmful gases. That is a fact. We need to quickly bring into focus the impact of all this, as the professor has done. His final slide boils down the work that we have to do as parliamentarians, which in the first instance is to inform and create the dialogue and discussion. I recall previous work that a committee in this House did on the failure of the Lisbon treaty. A rather wise journalist appeared before us and explained in clear terms that the Lisbon treaty was lost because people did not understand it and they were not talking about it or the implications of it because it was not boiled down to relatively straightforward conversations that could be had in the pub, the shop or where people congregate. The point was made that if we are not talking about it in here, it is unlikely people will talk about it outside. This is why I was anxious to see somebody like the professor appear before the committee who moves on to some extent from academia and science to the causes and effects. The effect is clear. In the past ten years we have seen such extreme weather events, such as storms and flooding, which created enormous difficulties for people.

Much of the time we wish and hope we will have a hot summer, but when we get a hot summer it is much more extreme and prolonged than we are used to. We are now deeply concerned with the impact on our capacity to provide water for citizens or the impact on farmers to be able to grow fodder to get them through the winter period. While it is good to have a nice July and August, the extremes bring into really sharp focus the serious effects. It is incumbent on us to hammer home the message that these events will happen more regularly and the weather patterns will change, according to the predictions. Someone must talk about the science but it is incumbent on us to talk about the effect which we see happening.

Again, I welcome and thank the professor for his relatively simple presentation. For far too long climate change has been locked up in scientific investigation, mapping, logging and so on, which is all wonderful work, but it has not found its way into the general dialogue. It is starting now, as a result of people realising that something must be happening, this is not normal and the changes in weather patterns have a negative impact. We must move to the next stage, in this committee and in this Parliament, and take difficult decisions which will require leadership from the Government and the Opposition to implement them in such a way as to address or mitigate, to some extent, the really negative impact of a continuation of climate change.