Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister mentioned the polluter-pays principle. That often seems to be somewhat at odds with some of the narrative on de-risking. I recall there was tension at the COP between de-risking versus loss and damage, on the basis that de-risking often involves the routing of public finance into exactly the private actors, for example, very large energy companies and banks, that had driven and profited from a lot of the current climate crisis. The idea is that they would change policy but the public would take the cost of that shift.

It is interesting that the Minister mentions regulation and incentivisation. It seems there is a space where there is tension in terms of whether we are going to regulate by means of a polluter-pays principle or incentivise through de-risking, which is routing public money. The Minister mentions that funding might be better routed to support countries to keep the oil in the ground or to put it towards loss and damage. He mentions the island states. Some activists from island states have been very clear, even in the use of analogies with the post abolition era whereby slave owners were given reparations to help them make the transition but slaves were not. This is a very important piece. There are serious choices rather than putting the emphasis on regulation and incentivisation. De-risking itself comes with some risks in that it might take public moneys away from areas such grant-based funding for loss and damage or incentives for countries to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

I have two specific final questions. The Minister mentions the importance of keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Has Ireland's credibility with the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance been damaged? It was stated that Ireland has closed the door on oil and gas and that we are leading the way to help other countries move against it, but we have just put in place an advantageous planning process in respect of commercial liquefied natural gas. That relates to the extraction of liquefied natural gas, including fracked gas. I tabled an amendment to explicitly exclude fracked gas from such infrastructure, which was not accepted by the Government. We are not talking about any State terminal that might exist in the future. We are talking about that fact that there is a specific provision in the planning legislation which allows infrastructure, including commercial infrastructure, for liquefied natural gas to benefit from a fast-track planning process. Does that weaken our credibility as members of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, given that we are continuing to contribute to the international trade in liquefied natural gas, which includes fracked gas?

The Minister mentions that the nationally determined contributions, an important point, will really be hashed out in the next year. In regard to conflict, is he in favour of the carbon emissions from military activities being included in the auditing of countries when nationally determined contributions are being assessed?