Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Deputy Naughten makes a good case for the farming sector.

We should start by acknowledging that the farming sector is challenged by our climate change objectives. However, I would make a distinction between the vested interests of the agrifood business and the family farm. The Deputy spoke about how we needed to deal with the increase in the herd over the past ten years. It has been incredible. Not only are we exporting to markets around the world, but we are creating those, too. An Bord Bia sent people out to the Middle East and China to get their middle classes interested in foods they never ate before, for example, dairy produce and beef. Those markets were created to fill the bank accounts of a certain cohort in our society who gain the most from doing so. It has not benefited our farmers. If it had, why would they be outside the meat factory plants or blockading the Dáil and why would the Beef Plan Movement have begun? Farmers have been left behind. Continuing with the same policy does not help them.

I will move on to the science and argue against what is being said. It is possible to treat biomethane as a special case in how we budget and plan for reductions. The Government addresses this in its Bill, but that approach does not deal with the science. In fact, there is no difference in impact on the atmosphere between methane from fossil fuels and biomethane. There is not a special place for biogenic methane in terms of what it does in heating up the planet and how nature reacts to it. It is the same gas. Two separate cases have to be made. One is for the carbon budget and not touching the beef and dairy industry, but the other is for nature and science. There cannot be a special place for biogenic methane in the Bill. One of the problems that arose during our earlier discussion with the Minister is that these matters are not being dealt with seriously. There are flaws in the Bill, and one of the most serious is that biogenic methane has a special place. Therefore, we are back to square one.

A key issue that needs to be addressed is being given an opt-out clause. This will be viewed through carbon budgets rather than in terms of the science. We can fool one another. We might even fool the EU about our emissions if we do enough offsetting and carbon trading, but we will not fool the planet, nature or the science. What bothers me about this approach is that we are viewing the carbon budget as something we must play around with to mask the reality, that being, there is no difference between biogenic methane and fossil fuel methane even though we are pretending there is to suit the industry. That is dangerous, and it only suits the high end of the industry, not the family farm. We need a just transition. That is why many amendments have been tabled on the centrality of the just transition. We need a just transition for farmers.