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

I thank the Minister for his contribution. I want to start with the big picture. The Minister stated that the IPCC report is based on the latest climate science and it has observed unprecedented changes in the climate system. We would all agree with that. Late last year, Professor Kevin Anderson gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Climate Action that what we really need is an average cut of 12% in emissions, not the 7% provided for in our legislation. We need to listen to the science.

I met the Minister at COP23 in Bonn. The number of COPs says it all. We are now having COP26 and things have never been worse on the planet in terms of the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and the overheating of the planet. The evidence is there in terms of the fires, droughts, famines and sea levels rising, etc. The Minister and I met several NGOs on the issue of banning exploration for fossil fuels. That was in the lead-up to a bill that was being prepared by the Minister and one I had submitted. The Minister has done that and stopped the issuance of further licences. I welcome that. Is it not the problem here that the planet suffers from the top 100 multinational companies being responsible for over 70% of the emissions and that they are untouchable even by something like COP in Bonn, Paris or Glasgow? I would like the Minister to comment on that.

The Minister spoke about bringing it back home. He said that one of the most effective ways to influence others is to ensure our actions at home are consistent with our advocacy abroad.

I will bring something to the Minister's attention. In 2019, I asked at the then Joint Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment for a comprehensive review of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, grant scheme to ensure that it enabled the maximum number of low- and ordinary-income households to undertake retrofitting of their homes and pursue maximum energy efficiencies. This would have helped ordinary people to reduce emissions. I do not know about other members, but at my clinics on Mondays and Fridays, I have queues of people who have been turned down by the SEAI because of its rules. They are on low or medium incomes but have been turned down in their attempts to get their attics lagged or their homes retrofitted in any way because some form of retrofitting was done in the past. That past could have been five or ten years ago. We are leaving the poorest behind. If we want to transform the debate around climate science, surely these are the people we should be looking after.

I am again requesting a complete review of the rules and regulations of the SEAI grant scheme, how the grant moneys are doled out and how the rules are blocking the poorest from being able to be energy efficient at home. That is what is happening. I have plenty of cases that I can bring to the Minister's attention, if he wishes to look at them.

If we are to do as the Minister says and lead the way at home and be consistent, then curbing the proliferation of data centres, banning LNG, moving to free and frequent public transport and, most importantly, retrofitting people's homes so that they are not burning as much carbon to stay warm through the winter would be consistent with what we will be trying to do in Glasgow in the coming weeks. I am interested in hearing the Minister's comments on my first question and the specifics of the second. It is not Schull or Goleen, but it is Ballyfermot and Crumlin, and people are suffering greatly from it.