Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

On the purchase of carbon credits to deal with the fact that we are overshooting our targets, is it not fair to say, in language that ordinary people understand, that what we are actually doing is paying for the right to pollute much more than we are supposed to? In that sense, paying for carbon credits to deal with our failure to meet targets is retarding the global effort to reduce emissions. Is that not a reasonable description of what we are doing? In that sense, it is pretty shameful from the global perspective of addressing climate change.

I am also curious about a Government decision about which the departmental witnesses may not be able to say much; perhaps the ESRI representatives might be able to say more. I am shocked at the Government's response - I had to run over to the Dáil to repeat this point to the Taoiseach - to the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development (Amendment) (Climate Emergency Measures) Bill 2018 sponsored by People Before Profit which seeks to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Scientists are saying that 80% of known reserves must stay in the ground if we are going to address the climate emergency. They refer to "known reserves", never mind exploring for more. They do not limit this to oil either. They are talking about known fossil fuel reserves, 80% of which must stay in the ground. The logic of that is that one does not go looking for more fossil fuels and one does not facilitate that search. The Taoiseach's response, in opposing that Bill, was to say that it will not make any difference to emissions. That is a bizarre statement, given what the scientists are saying. The Taoiseach said that it will not make any difference to emissions if we keep fossil fuels in the ground. They cannot both be right. Is it not obvious that if we allow exploration for fossil fuels and they are found, then more fossil fuels will be burned, more emissions will go into the environment and more damage will be done? It does not really matter much whether the fuel is gas or oil. Indeed, I would question the positioning of gas as a transition fuel. The process of producing fracked gas, in particular, also produces a lot of methane. Taken in the round, fracked gas is as damaging to the atmosphere and to efforts to deal with climate change as oil. Surely, paying for and establishing the infrastructure to facilitate gas as a so-called transition fuel is investment that could be going elsewhere. There is an opportunity cost involved in investing in infrastructure for gas and not investing in our universities to develop renewable energy technologies, for example. One comes at the expense of the other.