Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have been in construction all my life. When I was elected to the county council I brought up the carbon footprint for county councils when they are doing their works for the year and budgeting their works for the year. They ask people their carbon footprint when they are building a house, yet our government bodies do not look at it when they are doing the budgets for the roads. They often take the yearly budgets and might use a quarry 30 miles away when there is a quarry in the works they are doing. If they use the carbon footprint, it would make sense that they use a local quarry that would have the certified stone. However, they look at the bottom line, an accounting line. They will say they are paying €6 per tonne there for stone and it would cost €6.50 for it from the local person, so the government does not do its own work either on its carbon footprint. I have watched budgets being given by a local authority and the Government to quarries 30, 40 and 50 miles away from the project. It comes back to "do as I say, but not as I do". We can make all the regulations in the world, but if the Government and the local authorities do not look at themselves first why would one look at somebody else and try to enforce something that is not being enforced in the Government? That is the fact. I see it in every budget from the county council and in my own building.

I am still building every day, thank God. It keeps me on the ground. It keeps me up on a first-day basis with the price increases and transport costs across the country. I see it at first hand each week. I am a lover of older buildings if they can be saved. If buildings are beyond repair, I am also for people building new sections onto the back of old buildings and keeping as much of the old structure as they can. I also support materials that come from buildings being recycled and reused, but under the current licensing laws any infill that comes from sites must go to a licensed infill. Much of this infill can be reused. There are blocks, limestone and sandstone from buildings that are being taken down, but the criteria of the planning mean one must take them to a licensed infill. That material is costing so much more to make on the other side, whereas it can be re-crushed and used on roads and for rebuilding stone buildings. We can do a great deal of work with buildings that are being taken down, but the laws in place for the councils and for planning permission do not allow for this. To me, it is common sense. In addition, if, for example, someone wants the limestone from a property that is being taken down and that person moves the limestone to the other property, they will be in trouble with the county council because they are in receipt of imported goods from another site. Again, this is perfectly reusable material that can be used on another site.

This is where I see it going around in circles. I have experience of doing anything from extensions to hotel renovations such as Dromoland Castle and Adare Manor - I was involved in those projects - as well as industrial commercial projects. I can see what one hand is saying and what the other hand is doing. I would like to see the local authorities take a direction that it is not just down to price in their budgets when they are doing their roads or their retrofit building. It is down to a certified quality material within the area where the work is being done and then it can budget out from that. It might cost more locally, but there is less carbon footprint than in bringing stone 30 or 40 miles over already inadequate roads to get to a road that is being replaced. I have raised this issue many times. What can the SEAI do to bring that type of legislation for local authorities whereby they have to use the carbon footprint?