Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is a very interesting debate. I have about a million questions but I will condense.

I will pick up on a couple of the key points mentioned relating to the four areas. I want to focus in particular on the idea of just transition. We have heard of that "just transition". It is probably regrettable that we did not take the opportunity to embed principles of just transition in our legislation as, for example, was done in Scotland. There is the idea of just transition being fast and fair but by not having proper principles and definitions, I am worried that it has become, in some cases, almost used as a reason for stalling action for sectors to change. In other ways, it has become a top-down idea, for example, we go to companies, be they Bord na Móna or anybody else, and go top-down in terms of their revised business models, rather than going from the ground up and saying these are the communities that will be affected by the very necessary changes. Maybe these communities have completely different and new ideas of what a sustainable future for them might be. I ask the witnesses to talk to us a little more about those just transition principles from the ground up. We know there is specific funding from Europe for just transition but we also need to give much more of our own funding to it. I would be very interested in hearing about that idea of just transition principles from the ground up.

It is also important to talk to rural communities and not just, for example, the major agribusinesses or companies within a rural area. Sometimes, there is an alignment but at other times there will be a situation that what might suit a major agribusiness in an area, or an industry lobby, might not actually reflect local concerns. We have also seen that a lot of the time, when it comes to making shifts and changes, we hear a very strong narrative of needing to take everyone with us regarding, for example, very large businesses that have very environmentally damaging practices, some of which even relate to the nitrates derogation. We have seen this "take everyone with us" narrative, yet when it comes to those in rural communities who are concerned about the environment in a wider sense, or about biodiversity, they are being more or less told to step aside or shut up at times. That is what we come up with.

We get this narrative on planning that comes through, which basically says that we want to bring business with us but when it comes to those who have a joint concern about biodiversity or the local ecology and climate, they are almost being asked to step aside. That is a concern I have because I see this even in the quite concerning comments from the Taoiseach recently about this idea of limiting objections to those who live in the immediate area, even though they will be accused of NIMBYism. What we have actually seen, and I saw it in some of the projects Mr. Stanley-Smith spoke about, is that those who care about biodiversity and ecology to the point where they are doing this labour of work in trying to make sure there are better decisions are also those who, if they are empowered, listened to and engaged with rather than demonised, are our champions on very good climate action. I note that when Wind Energy Ireland representatives appeared before the committee, they were asked for their views on planning. They said they did not want to see an end to the right to judicial reviews. They want to see better resourcing, including public resourcing for environmental impact and NGO resourcing, to make sure they are able to make better decisions faster. It is around making better planning decisions rather than truncating those decisions. Again, how powerful would it be if that was the approach taken to encouraging and empowering local engagement on environmental issues?

On budgets and funding, the idea that the carbon tax will pay for this is a problem we have sometimes seen but it is a very limited amount of money. Its goal was meant to be to ensure that massive fossil fuel companies did not profit from social and environmental damage. That is why it is interesting that António Guterres, the head of the UN, directly called yesterday for windfall taxes as a more effective way of ensuring that companies are not profiting from social damage. The problem is when we get these little scraps of money and pilot projects. This is also a significant issue in the area of social justice where there are local communities who do pilot projects, those projects work and make a brilliant difference, people say that is wonderful, and they then apply for another pilot project two years later. How can we have a better scaling up if there is a brilliant pilot project, for example, the pilot project around hedgerows in County Clare, which was very good? What is the channel to root something that really works at local level, and that the PPN has been part of and knows works, so that it becomes a national policy with the proper resourcing that goes behind it? Is that around ensuring that PPNs are feeding into more Departments in a formal way, which was mentioned? Is it around ensuring that there is no ceiling on resources?

I have a last question that goes back on a practical level to the Chair's point on carbon budgets, megatons and all of that. If we have that frame that was mentioned, where the rates in the budgets and the financial limitations of local government are kind of seen as the hard line rather than, what is the general thing, the economic existing inside society, which exists inside real planetary boundaries, then we just see this idea of the financial budget and whatever flourishes we can add in the meantime in between. If we look at carbon budgets, however, and things like tree removal, we know we have sometimes had the phenomenon of tree removal simply due to insurance costs. It is the idea that we have to lose a 60-year-old tree because it would lower the insurance premium or because of the maintenance costs. Is there potential for both carbon budgets and - something we know the National Parks and Wildlife Service is looking for - the idea of biodiversity scorecards becoming an outside frame in which the policies are being made at local level? Is that maybe something that would give strength to those discussions that really measures what we lose when we lose, for example, an area of trees along a river?