Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I give the usual advice about mobile telephones. RTE will not cover the proceedings if they are on because they interfere with the sound system. I ask Members to bear that in mind and to turn them off.

We are going to discuss the topic of climate change with officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I welcome Mr. John McCarthy, assistant secretary, environment division, Mr. Owen Ryan, principal officer, climate policy, and Ms Caroline Lyons, assistant principal officer, climate policy, of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government; Dr. Rory O'Donnell, director, Dr. Larry O'Connell, senior economist, Mr. Noel Cahill, economist, Dr. Jeanne Moore, social policy analyst, of the National Economic and Social Council; and Dr. Frank McGovern of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I wish to draw the attention of witnesses to section 17(2)(l ) of the Defamation Act 2009 who are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If witnesses are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified or partial privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also advise that the opening statements may appear on the Oireachtas website post the deliberations here this afternoon. I remind Members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Before commencing I wish to say a few words. We have been asked by the Minister to initiate the process with a view to preparing and finalising legislation around climate change. We are going to invite a number of witnesses in the coming weeks and will build on those exchanges and their experience in order to provide a report to the Minister. We have received more than 40 submissions. We will consider them all and how to deal with them in private session later this afternoon. At the discretion of the committee we will invite some of those representatives who made submissions to appear before the committee and will engage in public debate with them in a transparent manner in order to provide the best possible report to the Minister when we conclude proceedings. It is fitting to begin with three key players - the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the National Economic and Social Council and the Environmental Protection Agency. We are mindful of the roles these organisations play in the whole issue of the environment. I invite Mr. John McCarthy to begin his presentation.

Mr. John McCarthy:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation and the opportunity to appear before the committee. Ireland, like most, if not all, developed countries, faces a significant challenge in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and making the transition to a low-carbon future. Transition is not a process where a one-size-fits-all approach will work - the policies and measures which are most likely to be successful in Ireland are those that best respond to our national circumstances as reflected in our greenhouse gas emissions profile, and the structure of our economy.

The extent of the mitigation and transition challenge is immediately evident in the demanding greenhouse gas emission reductions which Ireland must achieve in the period to 2020. For example, in the sectors of the economy not covered by the EU emissions trading scheme, Ireland must achieve a 20% reduction in emissions compared to 2005. This target is binding under EU law and compliance is not optional – it is absolutely paramount and national ambition on transition to a low-carbon future must include compliance with this fundamental mitigation commitment. In response to the overall mitigation and transition challenge, the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, issued a review of national climate policy in November 2011.

In presenting the outcome of the review to this committee at that time, the Minister addressed the need to build broad support for the steps that need to be taken if we are to meet our binding obligations under EU and international law, play our role within the EU and at a wider international level to combat dangerous climate change, and achieve our aspirations as a progressive and competitive player in the emerging global green economy.

In any briefing or discussion on climate policy development in Ireland, we have to face the reality that we have a somewhat unusual greenhouse gas emissions profile in a European context, due to a number of factors, including the high share of emissions mainly associated with livestock in the agriculture sector. On this point, it is important to clarify that this situation has not arisen because we have a carbon intensive agriculture sector – quite the contrary in fact, we have a very carbon efficient agriculture and food sector – it is primarily due to the scale of our agriculture industry in our overall economy. The significance of the agriculture and food sectors in Ireland brings a sharp focus to the parallel international priorities of climate protection and sustainable food production in a world with a projected population of 9 billion people in 2050.

The 2011 policy review pointed out that the consistent EU and wider-international focus on the long-term agenda to 2050 provided the context in which national policy will have to be progressed in the post-2012 period. It also proposed that the largely compliance-based policy pursued up to that point would not be adequate for transition over the longer-term. Transition to a low-carbon future is a much broader agenda and long-term planning will be key to its achievement, as well as building a solid foundation for effective engagement by Ireland in the emerging global green economy.

Following a very positive meeting with the committee in December 2011, and in response to a specific request from the committee, the Minister, Deputy Hogan, issued a two-year programme on the development of national climate policy and legislation. Since the programme issued in January 2012, considerable progress has been made, including a two-month period of structured public consultation which attracted a very encouraging response, and the receipt and release of two significant policy analysis reports from the NESC secretariat. The second and final policy analysis report was released together with outline heads of a climate action and low-carbon development Bill on 26 February 2013. Both the final report and the outline heads of the Bill have been referred to the committee for consideration and provide the substantive background for today’s briefing. Therefore, policy and legislation are at the core of what the committee has been asked by the Minister to do.

In issuing the programme for the development of national climate policy and legislation, and subsequently, the Minister has made it clear that he sees a central role for this committee in the policy development process. The report which the committee is to prepare will be one of the key documents that will inform decisions by Government in adopting a national policy position on transition to a low-carbon future, including appropriate institutional arrangements, and finalising the introduction of primary legislation.

That is a brief overview of the background and progress to date under the current policy development programme. I wish to turn now briefly to a few more general points of relevance which the Minister has made over the course of the programme, and some brief points of information in regard to the EU and wider international context in which national policy is being developed.

In working through the policy programme we must recognise that Ireland already has challenging greenhouse gas mitigation target for 2020. As I mentioned earlier, the target is binding under EU law. Last February the Minister spoke in the Dáil and advised that the proposed primary legislation, that the Government intends to bring forward, will be unequivocal on compliance with existing and future State obligations under EU law and international agreement to which the State becomes a party.

Ireland has consistently and constructively supported EU leadership in seeking to mobilise an effective global response to climate change. A key objective in initiating the policy and legislation development process was to ensure that Ireland maintains its acknowledged place among the progressive member states and progressive parties under the UN climate convention. We gave practical expression to this at the recent Informal Council of Environment Ministers in Dublin under the Irish EU Presidency, at which a number of critical EU and international climate issues were tabled for discussion. I will come back to that later.

During the address last February the Minister emphasised that climate protection and economic competitiveness are not mutually exclusive. They can and must be progressed in parallel on a basis that is balanced and complementary. The core national policy principles must reflect a mature balance between our commitments as a responsible society to sustainable development and our ambition as a competitive economy.

The economic rebuilding, in which Ireland is engaged, is a real opportunity to identify areas where a more environmentally sustainable long-term orientation of the economy can and must begin. Recently the Government affirmed its commitment to further developing the green economy by identifying opportunities for sustainable economic growth in its policy statement entitled Delivering our Green Potential. In developing a national approach to a low-carbon future, an unprecedented opportunity arises to address and seek to balance the challenge of greenhouse gas mitigation and the prospect for new growth as the emerging global green economy matures. Both perspectives are critical to an outcome that will reflect a credible balance between commitment to environmentally sustainable development and ambition for economic growth and social development.

A specific issue for Ireland, and one which is hugely relevant to the national climate policy development process, is the fact that a gap exists in international and EU policy and legislation regarding accounting for greenhouse gas emissions and removals related to the use of certain lands, including agricultural land. In an Irish context, the issue is critically important. Approaches to resolve the gap gives rise to matters with profound economic implications for Ireland. Ongoing international efforts to address the policy gap are welcome. Irish engagement is focused on ensuring that proposed solutions are structured to facilitate and encourage development and growth that is sustainable on both environmental and economic grounds.

I shall take the opportunity to update the committee on climate policy development within the EU. This is an active and critically important time for EU policy development. The climate and energy package adopted in December 2008 provided a well established and well understood climate policy framework for 2020. Feedback from major stakeholders has made it increasingly clear that investment cycles, particularly for major infrastructure, need certainty over much longer planning horizons. Long investment cycles, particularly for energy infrastructure, means that projects funded in the near term will still be in place, and in use, up to 30 or 40 years' time. Investors need certainty and reduced regulatory risk.

Against that background, the European Commission recently published a Green Paper on a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies. It represents a key step in EU policy development. It provides a basis for a focused debate on shaping the 2030 framework for climate and energy policies that is in the broader context of structured and cost-effective transition to a low-carbon, competitive and secure European economy. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the Green Paper proposed that the EU needs to adopt a 40% reduction target for 2030 in order to remain on track to achieve the overarching EU objective of an 80% to 95% reduction by 2050.

At an informal joint meeting in Dublin last month, EU environment and energy Ministers welcomed the Green Paper as a timely and well focussed policy initiative. The political importance of providing certainty on a 2030 climate and energy policy framework was strongly supported. That was done in the interest of investment, economic competitiveness and growth, and EU leadership in the international negotiations under the UN climate convention.

Publication of the Green Paper triggered a period of stakeholder consultation that will run up to the beginning of July. The European Commission has signalled its intention to issue an initial response to the consultation before the end of 2013. We are unlikely to know the final shape of a 2030 framework for some time. However, the level of ambition proposed in the Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy and energy efficiency has provided a clear signal for member states in terms of 2030 milestones. It is consistent with a cost-effective pathway to a competitive, low-carbon European economy in 2050.

In parallel with the 2030 Green Paper, the Commission also published a consultative communication on the international negotiations under the UN climate convention. The objective of the communication is to stimulate a debate with member states, EU institutions and stakeholders on how best to shape the international climate regime, in anticipation of a new climate treaty being finalised towards the end of 2015 and to come into effect from 2020.

EU environment Ministers, at the informal Council meeting last month, welcomed the communication and the consultation that it initiates. Recognising the need to close the gap to the international objective of limiting the increase in global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the Council highlighted the importance of EU leadership. It also underscored the need to move away from the developed and developing country distinction, and to secure an agreement under which all major economies commit to take action according to their current and future capabilities. The parties to the UN Convention have entered a critical preparatory period for the 2015 conference at which we expect that a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol will be agreed. EU leadership on mobilising an effective global response to climate change, that Ireland has consistently supported, will be critically important to a successful outcome.

This is an important time in the development of national climate policy and by that I mean in terms of the evolving policy context at EU and international level and the pursuit of a long-term vision of ourselves, as a progressive society, with a competitive, low-carbon economy. We have made good progress since the programme for the development of national climate policy and legislation was issued in January 2012. We welcome, in particular, the broadly constructive response of stakeholders to the process so far and the debate that the committee will now facilitate over the weeks and months ahead.

As the Minister said when he initiated the policy development process, there are no easy answers to the challenges we face. His intention is to ensure that the ultimate decisions on the way forward will be taken on the basis of a fair hearing, for all stakeholders, and will enjoy the broadest possible base of support. He identified the central role that the Oireachtas joint committee will play in the policy development process. He attached particular importance to the critical issue of reaching a clear national understanding of how we meet our binding EU and wider international mitigation commitments, as well as pursuing our national objectives in a low-carbon global economy. I hope the briefing will help the committee's preparation for its deliberations.

With the permission of the Chairman, I ask my colleague from the EPA, Dr. Frank McGovern to talk about the challenge and opportunity dimensions for the climate agenda in a little more detail.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McCarthy.

Dr. Frank McGovern:

I thank Mr. McCarthy and the Chairman. I shall briefly outline the roles of the EPA, the science behind our understanding of climate change, the challenges and solutions and some conclusions.

The EPA's role in climate change includes the provision of annual reports of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions by sector and removals by sink; national projections of emissions based on national and European policies and measures; implementation of the EU emissions trading scheme and other market mechanisms; the co-ordination and development of climate change research; provision of scientific and technical input and advice to the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government, other Departments and State agencies; informs policymakers, stakeholders and the public on environmental issues and solutions and promotes good environmental practices; and engages with EU and UN bodies dealing with climate change.

The key message on climate change which I wish to convey to the committee today is that climate change is real and poses a global and local threat for social, cultural and economic developments, and it will radically change Ireland's environment and economy. Global actions are needed to address the drivers of climate change and Ireland must play its part. A transition to a low-carbon climate-resilient economy is essential for Ireland and there are many benefits and opportunities in doing this. The policy development process needs to act now to address the challenges of meeting our 2020 emissions targets, as mentioned by Mr. McCarthy. There is need for a positive environmentally sustainable vision for Ireland that is underpinned by effective policies and measures and a dynamic implementation process, and a robust monitoring, reporting and verification system is required to support this.

The science is robust. Since the 1850s, we have understood the role of greenhouse gases in keeping the earth so warm. It was Carlow-born John Tyndall who worked out this and indicated why these gases, which are minor constituents in the atmosphere, are so important. These gases are now referred to as greenhouse gases, with carbon dioxide being the most important of them.

The more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped. This potentially changes everything we have taken for granted about our environment and our climate. Currently, the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases are higher than they have been in human history and higher than they have been for over 0.5 million years. We are outside any of the natural cycles that we have known in terms of these gases. The consequence of this is that ice melts, oceans warm up, sea level rises and weather patterns change, coastal lands flood, storms and rainfall become more intense, droughts are prolonged, heat waves are hotter and ecosystems change or disappear. It is a complex world and its climate system is complex, and Ireland needs to be prepared to meet the adaptation challenges, including dealing with extreme weather events.

There are two figures on one page of the presentation. The figure on the top right-hand side is recorded global temperatures from three sources: the United Kingdom Met Office, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States of America and NASA. The record goes back as far as 1850. Two facts are immediately apparent from the record. One is that it is highly variable in that there is much noise, in terms of the signal going up and down over short and longer time periods. There is obviously a strong trend. The trend has been that the global temperature is increasing, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, in its last report, stated was unequivocal.

The data have been slightly rearranged in the lower chart in the presentation, only showing the hottest years, which are in red. All the hottest years have occurred in the first decade of this century or in the last decade of the last century. The driver of this temperature increase and other indicators such as loss of sea ice is the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The graph in the presentation is complex, but it shows emissions of greenhouse gas or carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, represented by black dots, from 1980 to 2012; and then some emissions pathways for global emissions. The red pathway is the one that we are currently on. If we keep on this pathway, it brings the globe to a temperature increase, relative to pre-industrial levels, of between 4°C and 6°C. Many of the members will be aware of the World Bank report which indicated how catastrophic it would be for agricultural production and other human systems if we approach such temperatures. The next line shows a temperature warming of 2.6°C to 3.7°C. That would have major implications for the global climate systems. As Mr. McCarthy pointed out, the view of the United Nations and the European Union is that we should keep our temperature increase to below 2°C, and that is indicated by the blue line and the yellow line. We must fall in a pathway between those two lines if our temperature is to be kept below 2°C. That means that CO2 emissions must effectively go to zero before the end of this century. That is a global perspective. However, similar thinking in terms of CO2 must be considered here in Ireland.

The key challenge is that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is recognised as the main driver of climate change but there are other important players. The two key sources of excess carbon dioxide are: fossil fuel use; and land use change and poor management of land and biomass. They contribute approximately 75% and 25%, respectively, of the excess carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere.

The other key players are methane, nitrous oxide and industrial gases. Their sources include food production and a range of industrial processes. Methane and nitrous oxide are very important in terms of the Irish emissions inventory due to the size of the agricultural sector in Ireland. The key challenge is to break the link between energy and fossil carbon, to ensure that food production and land use is sustainable, and to not allow the release of powerful industrial greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

For Ireland, there are immediate challenges. There is a great deal of information in the graph in the presentation. It shows the EPA projections of our emissions up to 2020, both with measures and with additional measures. The brown bars indicate the projections with existing measures and the yellow bars indicate them with additional measures. The committee will note that, according to the official EPA projections, in both scenarios Ireland will exceed what is allowed under the climate and energy package in 2016 or 2017 unless additional measures are taken on board. These additional measures are urgently required for Ireland to achieve its 2020 emissions target.

There are opportunities. There are major win-wins for society, the environment and the economy. High greenhouse gas emissions are an indicator of poor management and sub-optimal performance for many systems. The more greenhouse gases one produces, the less efficient and less profitable one is in one's business, farm and home.

Globally, non-fossil fuel energy sources can address our collective energy needs. Ireland has major renewable potential, including in wind, solar and biomass. Ireland's agricultural system is efficient but can be better. Good management of land, livestock and resource, including farm waste, is essential.

Sustainable management and approved resource use can increase returns. Targeted innovation, learning and research is essential at all levels and across Government to enable the required low-carbon transition in Ireland. We also need a vision, which can be that Ireland is a global leader in sustainability.

Climate change is real and poses a global and local threat for social, cultural and economic development, and it will radically change Ireland's environment and economy. Global actions are needed to address the drivers of climate change and Ireland must play its part.

A transition to a low carbon climate resilient economy is essential for Ireland. There are many benefits and opportunities in doing this. The policy development process needs to act now to address the challenges of meeting our 2020 emissions target. A positive environment sustainable vision for Ireland is needed, which is underpinned by effective policies and measures, a dynamic implementation process and robust monitoring, reporting and verifications systems.

Dr. Rory O'Donnell:

Our December 2012 report to Government, "Ireland and the Climate change Challenge: Connecting ‘How Much’ with ‘How To’", sets out the NESC secretariat’s analysis of the climate-change mitigation challenge and proposals for a pragmatic approach involving early action along three tracks. I understand that the joint committee has been provided with a copy of this report.

This introductory statement draws particular attention to our thinking on the institutional arrangements which we believe to be necessary and which differ somewhat from those in the heads of Bill. We have discussed these with our colleagues of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and look forward to discussing them with the joint committee.

Our report argues that the Irish Government and people should commit to the ambitious goal of becoming a carbon-neutral society by 2050. Achieving this would mean that economic activity in Ireland would, overall, make no addition to the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Our work has led us to the view that fresh thinking is needed on the climate change policy challenge, both at national and international levels. Aiming for that point, carbon-neutrality, on the horizon, we believe that it is time to focus on "how to" achieve deep decarbonisation. On the one hand, nobody knows how fast a large economy can decarbonise - if by "know" we mean knowledge of both technological possibilities and how to get policy adopted and implemented at international level and within states. On the other hand, as discovered during our wide consultations on this project, there is a huge amount of innovation and fine-grained knowledge on decarbonisation in firms, public bodies and civil society organisations. In conducting our work, we were repeatedly struck by the ambition and capability of organisations to understand and reduce their carbon footprint. This "how to" project of decarbonisation is already a core skill for many Irish organisations such as Glanbia and Bord Bia, who assist farmers to increase efficiency and reduce emissions; Glen Dimplex in its smart electric storage heating system; Kilbarrack fire station, Ireland’s first carbon-neutral fire station, and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland’s work in supporting local authorities and communities to move towards sustainable forms of energy use.

Our emphasis on "how to" does not imply a rejection of targets in climate change policy. An intelligent use of targets and indicators, focused on concrete action in the near term and which are demanding on the stakeholders in a given area, has a critical role to play. Targets on "how much" are effective only if they are part of a process that explores and improves the ability of organisations, technologies, farms and households to reduce emissions, increase efficiency and use clean technologies. At national and international levels, to get more real commitment and effective action on "how much", it is now necessary to put greater effort into finding out "how to" technically, politically and organisationally.

We have identified five strategic building blocks for Ireland’s carbon-neutral future: an energy system built on wind and other renewables, using a smart grid and integrated into a clean EU energy system; an energy-efficient society that uses renewable forms of energy for heating; a sustainable transport system; a world-class agrifood sector working within a carbon-neutral system of agriculture, forestry and land use; and an approach to resource management that gives Ireland a competitive and comparative advantage in a resource stressed world.

Much of our report is focused on how Ireland can make progress on these demanding building blocks. This is an enormous societal challenge. It requires a total transformation of the energy and transport systems underpinning global economic activity. Success depends on discovering and disseminating profound technological and behavioural changes in consumption, travel and heating.

To move Ireland towards becoming a carbon-neutral society, we propose a pragmatic three-track approach. All three tracks should begin immediatelyand proceed simultaneously. What distinguishes them is the kinds of action required in each. Track one is strategic and institutional under which Ireland must frame its ongoing engagement with EU and UN processes, create effective institutional arrangements and identify its strategic approach to decarbonisation, energy policy and green growth. Track two is to explore and experiment; in a number of areas it is necessary to consciously explore policy possibilities and experiment, building policy and organisational networks to test and scale new possibilities. We have identified six track two exploratory projects: working towards carbon-neutral agriculture; the smart grid; electric vehicles; the electrification of heat; biomethane and anaerobic digestion; and carbon capability. Track three is design and implement; where early action makes sense and is feasible, it is necessary to design and implement policies. In our two reports to Government we identify the scope for such action on energy efficiency, transport, agriculture, taxation and power generation.

Real political commitment across Government and strong leadership are a critical first requirement for the success of this transition. Our work suggests that to progress this agenda, Government needs to undertake a number of political and institutional steps, including embed the transition to carbon-neutrality, particularly the five strategic building blocks, within the core agenda of economic recovery and development ensuring that the allocation of resources reflects these new priorities and imperatives; create and direct a new policy process and entity, which we will discuss further later; continue the transparent process of periodic review of Ireland’s overall progress on carbon-neutrality, centred in the EPA and involving the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht; actively engage with, and contribute to, new international thinking on designing more effective 21st century climate arrangements, identifying what distinctive contribution Ireland can make based on its resources and capabilities.

We focus here on the new process and entity that Government should create to drive this agenda. In broad terms, it should perform the following functions: assist central government in formulation of a new carbon-neutrality strategy and broad sectoral-departmental plans and targets; drive and oversee progress on the five strategic building blocks of Ireland’s transition to carbon-neutrality; deliberate on the progress and challenges in each of the main carbon-neutrality building blocks and project areas, as advanced by the relevant Departments, agencies and networks; and provide these agencies and their networks with upward reach or a clearing house to get the system to remove roadblocks whether technical, legal or political.

The main authority of this body would be Government’s power to convene the relevant actors and sanction those that resist engagement. Its central role is to ensure and organise the joint explorationof successes and failures and to push the agencies and networks to continually advance the boundaries of knowledge and practice on "how to" decarbonise. The new entity needs to have sight of the important innovations, progress and obstacles at the level of firms, agencies and localities that are critical in making progress.

In a number of other policy spheres there is increasing success in Ireland in creating interdepartmental and inter-agency entities that have this exploratory and problem-solving orientation. Some relevant models include the Food Harvest 2020 high level implementation committee, the recently established State bodies group on SME finance, the marine co-ordination group and new arrangements to govern the water framework directive. Most of the human resources that are needed are already in existence in Departments and agencies such as EPA, SEAI, Bord Bia, Coillte, Teagasc, IDA, Enterprise Ireland and in firms such as the ESB, Bord Gáis, Glanbia and many others.

We believe the new process and entity should be structured around three elements, as illustrated in figure 1 on page 5 of this introductory statement.

The first element is a national steering and oversight board, chaired by a high level actor, preferably a Cabinet Minister, and containing senior figures with a relevant track record of business and organisational achievement. It must be in a position to challenge Departments and provide the policy frameworks and resources that enable action to be taken in agencies and networks. The second element is a small technical reporting and monitoring group to work with the agencies in formulating framework goals, metrics and targets for each of the project areas of wind energy, the grid, energy efficiency, food, bio-fuels, smart travel, forestry and so on and assist them in reviewing progress. The third element of the new process and entity is the public agencies and Departments and the networks they animate. It is here that most of the action and real innovation will occur. The key feature of this kind of institutional arrangement is linking the front-line problem-solving of the agencies and networks with high level review and revision. This design reflects the way in which the Montreal Protocol which successfully addressed the international problem of the ozone layer is institutionalised.

We believe, based on our interaction with many actors in Ireland and elsewhere, that there is a new willingness in Ireland and internationally to rethink climate change policy, to focus more on "how to" bring about real and lasting reductions in carbon emissions. In the countries that are leading progress, the climate change challenge is increasingly seen as an opportunity rather than just a problem. For Ireland, becoming carbon-neutral presents an opportunity to address the critical issue of energy security, to reduce costs, create jobs in the green economy and tourism sectors, achieve better public health, quality of life and well-being. The new policy process and entity we have outlined will be capable of uncovering these opportunities through close collaboration with firms, public bodies and communities, while also identifying the costs involved. Our report argues that Ireland has an opportunity to be a real leader by building an institutional architecture suited to the nature of the climate change policy problem and the major ways in which progress on the issue of "how to" achieve decarbonisation can be achieved.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Dr. O'Donnell. I will now take questions from members.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentations. While I welcome the opportunity to have an input into this process, I have some concerns which I will try to set out in a concise manner.

In terms of how we, as a committee, and the representative bodies organise our work and ensure transparency, given that this is an issue of national conversation, should these hearings not be held in a format similar to that used in considering the protection of life during pregnancy Bill in the Seanad Chamber? It is important that we get this issue part of the national consciousness. The three contributors have referred to the ambitious targets we are required to meet. However, they will not be met by those of us present at this meeting. The public must also be engaged in this process. I would, therefore, welcome feedback from the delegates on the issue of public engagement.

On the advice given to the Minister that we should not set targets, I understand the Minister has stated that that is the advice of the Attorney General. It would be useful, again in opening up the debate on this issue, if the joint committee could have sight of that advice. Mention was made of Ireland becoming a carbon-neutral society by 2050. The targets of a 20% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050 are high. Ireland has, through the offices of the Minister, called on the European Union to set out clear targets. It appears that the logical thing to do would be to also provide for this in Irish legislation. In other words, in calling for the setting of clear targets by the European Union there is a requirement on us to also set out clear targets in domestic law. Perhaps an official from the Department might comment on this suggestion.

Also on targets, there is a long road to be travelled between now and 2050. An issue of concern to me from the commencement of this process is that if we do not set clear five year targets by way of a roadmap, etc., given that Governments come and go - as the maximum term of office of a Government is five years, we could have two or three new Governments in ten years; we once had three new Governments in two years - we could end up having in place a Government that was not as committed to tackling the climate change problem as another, leaving a lot of ground to be made up between before 2050 and the possibility of us meeting a carbon cliff. It appears logical that we should not kick the can down the road on this issue and leave open to any Government the possibility of deviating from the targets set at any time in the future. This is a matter of shared responsibility. Each Government and all of us need to do what is required between now and 2050 to achieve carbon-neutrality. I would welcome a comment from the delegations on this issue.

Head 10 of the Bill provides for reporting on progress to the Dáil. It would also be useful to include at that point in the Bill that such a report from the Taoiseach be made on an annual basis. Overall, given that we are asking the public, businesses and the local authorities to engage in this process, it is important that it is opened up from the start and that people are made aware of the importance of this issue. The process must be transparent and people must be convinced that they are part of it. If we are not transparent in how we do our business, including in publishing the Attorney General's advice and reports on the matter to the Dáil, we will not capture the public mood and good in the way we need to do.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we proceed, I understand we are to have a Powerpoint presentation on the heads of the Bill by the Department. I invite Mr. McCarthy to make that presentation, following which he can respond to the issues raised by Deputy Brian Stanley. I will then invite other members of the panel to respond.

Mr. John McCarthy:

In some respects the Title of the Bill is double-handed in that the words "climate action" reflect the challenge of the need to take action on the issue of climate change, while the words "low carbon development" represent the opportunity side of the equation in terms of how we transition to a low carbon economy and, ultimately, balance the climate change action and low carbon development dimensions.

In terms of orientation of the Bill, head 3 clarifies the unequivocal commitment not only to existing obligations of the State under EU law or international agreement, but also future obligations. That relates back to the emerging discussion on 2030 targets to move us beyond the 2020 targets that we already have in place.

The value and importance of head 4 is that it places a statutory responsibility on the Government of the day to make arrangements, primarily by way of plans, for a national low-carbon roadmap and sectoral low-carbon roadmaps which will be the basis for setting out how to achieve the transition to a low-carbon climate-resilient and environmentally-sustainable economy in a cost-effective way. In making sectoral plans and, ultimately, the overall national low-carbon roadmap, there is a requirement built in to take into account the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, objectives, commitments of the European Union on greenhouse gas mitigation, any commitments that the State has given under EU law or international agreements, our overall national emissions inventory and the projections profile produced each year by the EPA as crucial ingredients in the overall process as well.

The national low-carbon roadmap is gone into in a little more detail in head 5. The importance of this head is the manner in which it sets out that the national low-carbon roadmap is the vehicle for setting out the national vision for transition to a low-carbon economy and to address and specify the policy measures required to ensure compliance with existing obligations and targets. As that evolves over time, it will take account of future obligations and targets. The work the NESC secretariat has done, which Dr. O'Donnell outlined to the committee, is a significantly important feed into the process of shaping that overall national roadmap and the sectoral roadmaps that will contribute to it.

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and other relevant Ministers will be required to take a long-term view in preparing their sectoral roadmaps and the national roadmap. In the discussion earlier, we placed an emphasis on the importance of long-term time horizons and planning so as to ensure that investment decisions that are made now are the right investment decisions for the medium and longer term. Provision is also made for the Minister to consult the expert advisory body on the matters arising under that head. The requirement will be for the national roadmap to be made within 12 months of the passing of the Bill and at least once every seven years thereafter.

The relevant Ministers will be required to make up the sectoral low-carbon roadmaps, which will be the constituent parts which will ultimately make up the bulk of the overall national low-carbon roadmap and which will develop the national vision in their own individual sectors. They will set out the specific policies and measures to be adopted to achieve emissions reductions. In anticipation of the legislation, sectoral low-carbon roadmaps have already been mandated to be prepared over the course of 2013 in agriculture, energy, transport and buildings.

Heads 6 and 7 deal with the expert advisory body. This is one suggested shape for a body that would advise the Government and Ministers on climate change. Dr. O'Donnell outlined what NESC has had to say about slightly different institutional arrangements. No doubt this is something that the committee will consider in the course of its work. In the heads of the Bill, in heads 6 and 7, the expert advisory body envisaged a high-level body comprising members with a broad range of expertise rather than a stakeholder or representative body. It is envisaged that the experts will play a key role in advising Government and individual Ministers on the mitigation and adaptation steps that need to be taken on the pathway towards a low-carbon economy.

Head 7 is designed, at one level, to set out the specific functions of the body, but it is also designed to give as much flexibility and right of initiation as possible to the body concerned while still maintaining the clear role of Government and the Minister and other Ministers in policy-making. The aim is to try to ensure the highest quality of advice based on the most up-to-date science and taking account of all other relevant factors, and to ensure that is available to Government and Ministers as they exercise their functions. A specific requirement will be for the expert body to take into account, in discharging its role, the obligations of the State under EU or international law.

In terms of reporting in heads 8 and 9, head 8 requires the expert body to prepare and submit an annual report to government by the end of June each year in which the expert body would set out a summary of its findings and recommendations on the national inventory of greenhouse gas emissions prepared by the EPA and the projections to target, recommendations on the most cost-effective way of achieving the overall objective of transition to a low-carbon economy. It would also report on how to secure further compliance with our EU and international law commitments. That is the annual reporting requirement in head 8.

In head 9, provision is made for the expert advisory body to initiate what we call a periodic review at any time where it is of the opinion that scientific or technological advances, or developments at EU or international level, might warrant a review. For example, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, produces its various reports every number of years, that may be something that may well trigger the expert advisory body to produce a periodic report to Government.

Head 10 relates to reporting and accountability, and specifically annual transition reporting to the Oireachtas under which the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and other Ministers responsible for the individual sectoral roadmaps would report at least once a year to Dáil Éireann in order to ensure the essential accountability for progress on achieving our transition to a low-carbon economy. The head provides that the Minister would also have to report on compliance and further progress towards compliance with relevant EU and international obligations.

Head 11 relates to the duties of public bodies. Public bodies will be required to consider fully and integrate the objectives of the national low-carbon roadmap in their strategic planning. In effect, it is a vehicle for trying to ensure that the national low-carbon roadmap is given effect by relevant bodies in their individual areas of activity.

Head 12 makes provision for the making of regulations. Further work will be required on heads 11 and 12 according as the legislative process proceeds.

If the Chairman wishes, I can respond to some of the points.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please do.

Mr. John McCarthy:

In terms of the format of the process, I suppose I would not want to be seen to be imposing any format requirements on the committee because in sending both the NESC report and the heads of the Bill to the committee, the Minister was anxious for the committee to have as much freedom and space as it requires to put in place whatever arrangements for consultation and engagement it considers appropriate. However, I would say - it was a comment that ran through a number of the opening statements - what we are talking about here is a fairly significant societal shift if we are to get to where we need to be in 2020 and 2050. It requires fairly extensive engagement in order to ensure that both the product of the committee and the policy product that the Minister and Government ultimately approve has as broad a base of support as can possibly be achieved. A balance must be struck between engagement and a capacity to do one's work efficiently, but I would emphasise that what we are talking about here is a societal shift of a fairly significant order of magnitude.

In terms of the Attorney General's advice, I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that the Attorney General's advice is generally not published. I am not sure that such advice can be made available.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been in the past. There is precedent.

Mr. John McCarthy:

I am speaking purely from my own knowledge but we can certainly explore that for the Deputy.

On the issue of the overall level of ambition to which the NESC report points in terms of a carbon-neutral Ireland and the issue of why there would not be a target for 2050 enshrined in the legislation, Deputy Stanley, if I understood him correctly, was referring to the European Union's objective for 2050 and why that would not be reflected in Irish law.

The EU's objective is to support achieving an 80% to 95% reduction in emissions globally. This is not a binding commitment which the EU has taken onto itself; it is an objective. In the same way as with the 2020 targets for the EU there are a range of targets for individual member states. When an overall EU target is set in legislation at EU level and cascaded down to individual member states, each member state will have a different target taking into account its individual circumstances. One cannot automatically translate a global target to the EU and equally one cannot automatically translate an EU target as an identical target for individual member states. At present the EU has a target for 2020 of an emissions reduction of 20%, but individual member state targets range quite dramatically across a spectrum because individual national circumstances must be taken into account.

The heads of the Bill as they have been set out seek to anticipate carbon budgets and milestones in the sense they provide a statutory requirement to take account of and respect not only existing targets, but future targets which may be set at EU or international level. At present we have a target for 2020 and, as we outlined at the outset and as confirmed in the most recent projections from the EPA, it will be very difficult to achieve this target. I mentioned that the process of establishing a 2030 target at European level is already under way with the publication of the 2030 Green Paper. No doubt this will lead in due course to the adoption of a target at EU level and individual member state targets on foot of it. In the heads as they have been set out we have tried not only to include a requirement to achieve existing targets, but also future targets as they develop.

A question was asked about policy changes, future government changes and how policy changes. It is very difficult to put something into legislation which ties the hands of future policy makers and Governments. The democratic process means that through elections governments change from time to time. It is important the heads enshrine a provision for accountability so there is clear understanding of targets set at European level and cascaded down to individual member states including Ireland, and a mechanism for accountability to the Dáil.

Reference was made to avoiding kicking a can down the road. The process in which we have engaged since the Minister published the programme for the development of climate policy and legislation in January 2011 has been very much focused on getting to grips with a can which cannot be kicked down the road. We have a very demanding target for 2020 and, building on what Dr. O'Donnell stated, while a considerable amount of discussion and debate has taken place on how much and the targets dimension, the attention must turn to how we are to achieve the targets which have been set and those which will be set in future. We have a 2020 target and this process is very much focused on providing a roadmap to achieving this target, but also takes into account what is likely to come down the road and what the world is likely to look like in 2030, 2040 and 2050, so what we do now and the policies we put in place now do not just serve to meet a 2020 target, but are stepping stones to achieving further targets down the road. The 2030 target process is already under way with the publication of the Commission's Green Paper.

Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations which were quite informative and well explained. I agree with Deputy Stanley that the failure to put in place 2050 targets or objectives at global, EU or member state level hollows out the Bill and reduces its strategic impact on Irish environmental policy. It is a step back and is disappointing. We have always portrayed ourselves as an environmentally friendly country wishing to embrace the global movement in this regard.

To summarise the Bill, grandiose terms, challenges, opportunities, obligations and mitigation have been mentioned, and it has been said that cost efficiency should be the theme running throughout. Ireland's vision to 2050 has also been mentioned. We will have a 12 month timeframe to finalise this and afterwards will be assessed every seven years. The witnesses spoke about how Departments can apply specific visions to their policies. Is the timeframe for Departments the same as it is for implementing the Bill? An expert body will advise on the process and there will be an annual report and review of our international commitments. The expert body will also have periodic reviews with more reporting to Dáil Éireann. Will it report to this committee?

Aside from this, the EPA presentation mentioned the urgency of action required. The NESC mentioned specific objectives which must be enshrined and, to be fair, makes suggestions on mechanisms which can be put in place for this to be achieved. Will these mechanisms form part of the policy which will emanate from the various processes which have been put in place under the heads of the Bill? What cost analysis has been carried out in this regard? Costs will be involved in establishment and implementation but a cost benefit may accrue. Has any cost measurement being done on what the State might derive from implementation?

Will the witnesses provide specific details on the timeframe for the Bill to be published, brought before the Houses and approved? Is it possible to have just one report per annum thereafter which would include a report to this body, being an all-party committee? Only two years ago an all-party committee produced a Bill which went to the Government which included targets for 2050 and objectives specific to Ireland and cognisant of other international targets.

What has changed so drastically in the past two years that an emission of this nature has been inserted in the Bill? Nothing has, or else I have not heard of it.

Mr. John McCarthy:

I thank the Deputy. Sometimes, the words "targets" and "objectives" are used interchangeably. In some people's minds, they are different. Targets are often referred to in terms of legislative provisions that are legally binding, justiciable, etc. The National Economic and Social Council, NESC, has undertaken development work that will lead to a national low carbon roadmap, which must be taken together with the Bill. Instead of specifying targets in legislation, the intention is for the statutorily based roadmap to be the vehicle for setting out the overall national ambition. I would not want members to have the sense that the absence of targets in the legislation means that we have no vision for 2050. The sectoral roadmaps being prepared for agriculture, transport, energy and buildings are based on the work of the NESC. There is a clear overall ambition for the energy, buildings and transport sectors, that being, as close to zero carbon as can be achieved. The objective for agriculture is carbon neutrality. The energy, buildings and transport objectives are in line with the EU's low carbon roadmap to 2050. It is in the sectoral roadmaps, which will ultimately form the national roadmap, rather than in the legislation that the national ambition will be set.

I agree with the Deputy regarding the urgency of action. This issue was mentioned in each opening statement. Even for 2020, the urgency of action is abundantly clear from the EPA's projections, which were published in recent weeks. As members will have seen from one of the graphs in Dr. McGovern's presentation, the emissions reduction target for 2020 is 20%. Even in the best of the two scenarios displayed, we will only achieve a 10% reduction. We need new policies and measures to address this gap of at least 10%. Given the evolving debate on 2030 and onwards, the emissions reduction ambition is only going in one direction.

The sectoral Departments are the owners of their sectors. They know them best. It will be a matter for them in their sectoral roadmaps to address issues of cost benefit analysis and appropriate paths to 2050. This reflects another of our themes, in that, while this is challenging, it is also an opportunity that we need to grasp if we are to be in the right place in terms of reduced emissions by 2030, 2040 and 2050.

Under the roadmap, it was envisaged that the heads of the Bill and the NESC report would be before the committee by the end of 2012. Members received it in late February, approximately two months behind schedule. We envisaged a report back from the committee by the end of June. We are in discussions with the Chairman and have indicated that we are happy to provide further latitude, given the fact that we were a couple of months late in providing the material. The intention was to finalise the heads by the end of the year, but that timeframe may stretch a little in light of the delay. Subsequently, the Bill will enter the drafting process. It will then be a matter of how quickly it passes through the drafting process and is laid before the Oireachtas.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentations and for the documents that have led to this point. There seems to be a conflict in the advices of the current and previous Attorneys General. The Government does not publish that advice, but it was the basis for not including targets. It is important that we understand the reasons for the decision. Were they purely financial? Was it a question of protecting the State against the possible cost of not reaching our agreed international targets?

The clock is already ticking on 2020. It will not wait for the legislation. As outlined today, more than legislation is required. Practical implementation, good institutional arrangements and a means of tracking progress and making changes are necessary. In terms of policy choices, the 2011 NESC report recommended that we consider measures that have a cumulative benefit. The downturn in the economy has caused a reduction but perhaps we should consider the retrofitting of homes and so forth, measures that would have a benefit beyond 2020. Is this matter being tracked? The home retrofit scheme has almost collapsed and people are being alienated by policy decisions, for example, not ring-fencing the carbon tax. People can see a relationship between one and the other. Choices have a bearing on our culture. Accepting that the clock is ticking, are we climate change-proofing policies and financial decisions? We may need to reverse some policy decisions, even those made in the past year.

The three main sectors are agriculture, residential housing and transport. The changes in the public transport system that we are considering might have short-term gains, but they will not produce the long-term modal shifts that we require if we are to encourage people to use public transport. This is the "How To".

As milestones have to do with policy choices, I will not press the issue, but we in this country have made an industry of writing reports. Given the amount of material that we are supposed to read on this subject, several trees must have been chopped down. An element of simplicity will be necessary. Policy nerds, so to speak, should not be the only ones tracking changes. We must have simple mechanisms so that people can buy into them. This change will not be imposed - people must buy into it. This element is essential if we are to create a culture of individual responsibility.

I do not know if that can be put into legislation or if culture can be changed that way. Policy choices are going to be part of that.

The opportunity will be in finding different ways of using smart grids and producing energy. We tend to take a very short-term approach, and just recently, we saw where much money was invested over a number of years in a particular company doing some pilot work in the Atlantic. Before getting to a point where it delivers, it may be cut off at the knees because we take shorter-term policy choices. How would the new institutional arrangements being discussed impact on that? There was talk of this being driven by a Cabinet Minister. Is it envisaged that this would be a cross-departmental arrangement as well as across institutions? There is no point in the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government having responsibility for climate change if the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is doing something at variance with that.

Mr. John McCarthy:

To follow up on the Deputy's last point, she is correct in that an adequate response to climate change cannot come from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government or the Custom House because we all know the key sectors for emissions giving rise to climate change are in transport, energy, buildings and agriculture. Although some elements of the building trade are controlled by the Custom House, the rest are not. That was a significant factor in the approach the Government decided to take to require the sectors and the Departments leading the sectors to prepare roadmaps for the sectors. It is a fundamental principle of environmental integration that in policy development, account should be taken of the environmental aspects, including climate impacts. That is the appropriate area, as the Deputy correctly points out, for planning in those sectors, including climate planning.

The clock is already ticking for 2020, as the Deputy mentioned. As I stated earlier, even in the most optimistic of the two scenarios presented by Dr. McGovern, there is still a significant gap between where those measures will take us and where we need to be in 2020. The retrofitting of homes is led by our colleagues in the energy Department and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI. It is still going on and being funded, and there is a smaller ongoing programme in retrofitting public housing stock for better energy efficiency, which colleagues in the Department are leading.

The Deputy spoke about simple mechanisms that will help in getting buy-in from people, and they are crucial. As I mentioned, we are talking about a fundamental societal change. One of the areas we must tackle in parallel with legislation and roadmaps will be how to put in place ways to assist various players, including the public, in taking a part in becoming more climate friendly, as we have done in the past with waste and other areas. It is a matter of how to get it into the public mind and how we can get traction, as we have seen with waste recycling and recovery rates shooting up over the past decade from a very low base.

The institutional arrangements were referred to in the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, report and I will ask Dr. O'Donnell to comment on how those institutional arrangements might work.

Dr. Rory O'Donnell:

Our focus in thinking about the institutional arrangements very much reflects our characterisation of the climate change policy problem. It involves, in broad terms, both the need for stronger political and societal will in all countries on the one side and innovation and the introduction of new technologies, along with fine-grain learning, on the other. The problem requires both as they are critical in thinking about the institutions, because if we drop one of those, there will be a simple solution that will either enforce political will and tie the hands of future governments or leave it to the market. Neither of those will work.

The entity we have outlined involves an attempt both to drive and to capture change where it really happens. In our study, we have observed and reported change in numerous organisations, such as Glanbia, An Bord Bia, Bewley's, Celtic Linen and other companies. These firms are innovating, and the question is what institutional mechanism would lead to a public entity being built in a way that pushes other organisations to innovation and assists them in doing it while learning from them. Hence the entity described in our note, which would have the elements of a high level board supported by a technical secretariat, both of which would be connected to networks which would tend to have an agency at its centre. Teagasc works with large numbers of farmers and food organisations; the SEAI works with firms, big and small, and communities; and other agencies work within different networks. Our institution is designed to reflect both the dimension of the need for drive and political will. As the Deputy said, the centre cannot solve problems it knows less about than front-line actors.

Our institutional design may be similar in many respects to what is in the heads of the Bill, but it differs in a number of others. I will elaborate on that if the committee wishes me to do so. The institutional entity we describe, as with that described in the heads of Bill, is more of the system than entirely independent. For example, it has the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the SEAI and Teagasc among its members. It has a role in assisting the formulation of both the national and sectoral roadmaps or plans. It is also similar in having an information gathering role and undertaking research, and it also has the right to create committees or teams to probe more deeply into specific problems.

Our proposal differs somewhat in a number of other respects. Whereas the heads of the Bill see the body being supported by EPA staff, we suggest that it be supported by a small, technical secretariat drawn from a range of agencies, including the SEAI, the EPA, Teagasc and other relevant entities. This reflects the need for this secretariat and its senior board to push a range of agencies and their networks, whether they are in farming, energy generation, transport, etc. The heads of the Bill describe the expert body as facing mainly towards government - if I understand it correctly - and delivering advice to the Minister and others, but we suggest a body that would be in one sense closer to government. For example, it could be chaired by a Cabinet Minister. Equally, it should also face outwards to agencies and networks, where the real action, innovation and rich knowledge reside.

Those two perspectives have subtle differences.

They could be combined. Indeed, as John McCarthy says, the note on head 7 says that the text is designed to give as much flexibility and right of initiation as possible to the body, while maintaining the clear role of the Government. We believe it is important at this critical moment to think openly, creatively and explicitly about the whole constellation of actors and entities, not leaving their interaction to chance.

We all know that national policies and strategies frequently disappoint. Although the policy advice and the idea seems good, something down the pipeline does not work. This can be for several reasons. One reason is that in some sense the front-line agency or Department that is due to deliver is not really brought in or does not understand what the policy is. Another reason is that although the policy looks good, when people try to implement it, there are glitches that make it hard to implement. In the traditional system of public administration it is hard to feed that information back up and to get policies, regulations and governing frameworks changed. We are very anxious that the entity that is created will create an architecture that gives the front line some upward reach into the system, what we call a clearing house, which helps to identify roadblocks, be they technical, legal or political, that nobody foresaw but which make it hard to implement the policy.

Those are the somewhat subtle ways in which the ideas differ, but we know that given the difficulty of making policy work and do what we want it to do, we must think very carefully about those issues.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and thank them for their informative presentations. Dealing with climate change is probably one of the greatest challenges we face today. When the witnesses went through the heads of the Bill earlier they spoke about setting targets. Targets can disappoint, as the witness correctly said a few moments ago. A roadmap would probably be the better way to proceed. Who will appoint the national expert advisory body on climate change? Will it have representatives from the agricultural community, the construction industry and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport? In the case of our road structure, for example, huge opportunities were missed when we were constructing the motorways throughout the country. I and others of a similar mind thought we should have constructed a light rail line alongside the motorways to encourage people onto public transport systems, rather than use their motor vehicles.

Dublin is gridlocked. I am from a rural area and it takes me longer to travel a 3 km stretch of road in Dublin than to travel the 100 km to the city. We should be examining ways and means of freeing up traffic in the city. All main routes connect to the city. Much of the traffic coming from Northern Ireland could be diverted through the midlands if roads such as the N55 were upgraded. It is an area that has been bypassed for quite a long time. In addition, will there be joined-up thinking in the various Departments?

The paper by the National Economic and Social Council describes a vision for the future. It outlines five building blocks, but the witnesses will be aware of how controversial some of those building blocks are at present across the midlands in respect of the first priority, developing wind energy. There are problems with wind turbines in the midlands. One will see meetings of up to 700 people gathering in a hall to protest. They are totally against the construction of those monstrosities in the countryside. The impact they will have on our tourism industry, people's homes, people's sleep patterns and so forth has been outlined to us repeatedly.

With regard to other renewables, we all witnessed what happened with the biofuel episode. It took off with a great fanfare of publicity a few years ago. However, there were no markets for the miscanthus grass and farmers who undertook producing that agricultural product were denied their establishment grants and so forth. There was a great buzz about that renewable crop at the time but nothing really happened. When the climate was not suitable for growing biofuel products farmers were denied the grants. It has left a very sour taste for getting people to adapt to change. This is something that must be addressed.

With regard to the wind turbines, there is little or no consultation by the companies that have been mandated to get them up and running across the midlands. That is the big problem with the general public. Representatives of the various companies have come here and met politicians on the issue, but there is very little consultation with the general public. A negative attitude is developing.

The EPA report talks about global action. What is required is a global treaty on the reduction of emissions. This must happen. There is huge public hunger for serious action on this issue and it is growing. We have heard the scientific case time and again and it is beyond doubt that action is needed. We have witnessed the erratic and extreme weather conditions in this country and, indeed, the poor people of Oklahoma are witnessing that as we speak.

There are huge challenges but there are a few questions I hope will be answered today. The cost of carbon tax will increase the cost of public transport. It should be designed to encourage people out of their cars and onto the public transport system. Even school transport costs have increased. It is a huge cost and it is impacting on the tourism industry as well. The policies have not been thoroughly thought through with regard to those issues.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their most informative presentations. This is probably one of the most important meetings of this committee because we are all charged with sustainable development and ensuring that we, as politicians, leave the earth much better than we found it. Hopefully, we will all strive to do that. How to do it and how much it will cost are the two big questions.

With regard to how to do it, we are looking to experts such as the witnesses and everybody else we can find to show how that can be done. We all want to do the best we can. That is what I will be trying to do anyway to lead to a progressive society. We cannot lose sight of having a competitive society either in economic terms. Developing a competitive society as well as a progressive and sustainable society is the balancing act we are charged with, and we want to know how best to do it. That is what this committee is about. I do not know how many times we will be able to thrash it out so perhaps the Chairman will tell me how much time we have to consider the issue.

Policy development is important. The word "transition" must be used because we cannot shoot all of the cows or get rid of all of the electricity. This is a transitionary period because one cannot make the changes all in the one day. We would like to meet our targets straight away. The EPA graph, using orange and yellow lines, showed that we will not meet the target by 2016 if we do not use alternative methods. As 2016 is not far away we must quickly decide how to make changes.

Can the Chairman confirm whether all of the submissions are available to the public?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No; we will discuss them in private session.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the submissions be made available afterwards?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, not necessarily.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will discuss the submissions in private session.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The submissions are valuable. We should make them available to the public because the committee seeks guidance from all sides. It is common practice to publish submissions.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would undermine the report. We can discuss the matter in private session.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I shall leave my questions on methodology until the private session.

We all must engage and convince people about rising global temperatures. Science has proven that global temperatures are rising but its hard to convince people when we have to put our coats on in May. People assume that we are play-acting. There must be scientific proof. Even though we know that global temperatures are rising the public think such claims are a joke. Scientific facts state otherwise. We need an educational programme like Reduce, Reuse and Recycle to bring all of the actors with us.

I am helping to organise a conference with EUFORES at Dublin Castle from 21 to 22 June. Can the Chairman confirm if the details have been circulated to members? Mr. John McCarthy rightly mentioned that breaking the link between energy and fossil fuel is our main objective. The conference is on renewable and sustainable energy, etc., and all of the MEPs and actors in Ireland will attend. I hope that an invitation will be issued to members from all of the Oireachtas committees, particularly this committee. I want everyone interested in the matter to attend as all of the energy sectors will be discussed. Can the Chairman confirm when the invitation will be circulated? I think his committee has received an invitation. The conference will be a great way to inform everyone. People cannot understand why fuel is so expensive when we have so much wind available. Ireland has the best wind production in Europe so we should examine the option.

The clerk of the committee, Mr. Eugene Ó Cruadhlaoich, did an outstanding job in compiling the many submissions. Some of the submissions are similar. Can the committee provide a graph on commonalities? The committee would benefit from a compilation of common purpose contained in the submissions.

Dr. Rory O'Donnell, NESC, stated its recommendation is different from the national expert advisory group's recommendation on heads 6 and 7. NESC recommended that we get external advisory groups to deliberate as was done for the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer. Clearly it is up to the committee to recommend which group is used, the national expert advisory body or the new institution and oversight board recommended by NESC.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I shall refer to a couple of the issues in private session. I call Deputy Michelle Mulherin and Deputy Corcoran Kennedy.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join in the welcome to the delegation. I watched much of this meeting on my monitor, as I could not attend. To put this in context, we are constantly referring to experts to determine solutions. We can see climate change, but the cause is not uniformly agreed. I had the opportunity to attend a conference and participate in an element on peak oil. It was an interesting debate, as even people from oil producing nations, including the US, were present. We discuss renewable energy and the development of those resources in Ireland. According to every graph that was presented, and regardless of how one looked at it, sourcing energy from renewable resources around the world was virtually a pinhead. Even if some of the science might be lost on lay people, the global dependence on fossil fuels is tremendous. It can also provide context. One does not need to be a scientist to appreciate the consequences of the situation.

When discussing targets and this Bill, we should have regard to the experience of businesses and individuals on the ground. As Deputy Murphy stated, a dialogue is required, as a paradigm shift is necessary in terms of how we relate to the environment. We are becoming more aware of the fact that we live in an environment and that if it is impaired in some way on the other side of the planet it will catch up with us as well. This is the case in the global village.

We are bound to targets. I would never take from that position. We have an abusive relationship with what we extract from the ground and how we use finite resources. We must be more cyclical, as our needs will continue after those resources are gone.

Fuel poverty presents a significant problem. The refitting and upgrading of homes are under discussion. For example, oil-fired central heating systems have been installed and back boilers have been removed in some local authority housing in recent years. As I am sure members have encountered, the reason for the lack of carbon emissions is because people cannot afford to put oil in their tanks. A carbon tax is applied to coal people buy for their fireplaces. What will happen to these people? They should not go without. We would like people to be able to enjoy a basic standard. This is how we live. We must temper any measure introduced with the reality. While it is all very well to introduce carbon taxes, how will hard-pressed people afford them? I am not just referring to people in local authority or social housing but to other people who cannot afford to put oil in their tanks or to install new heating systems and are not in the vicinity of a gas supply or a fuel source with fewer emissions. These are real problems.

Transport presents a major problem. The forecourt is all about oil. Until it provides other types of fuel that have fewer carbon emissions – I am not just referring to batteries – we will not hit any target. This applies across the board.

We must show leadership in the development of renewable energy. Wind is the most advanced of the industries. Much of the misinformation that is presented as fact needs to be debunked. It is not just for politicians or experts to claim they know best. There must be a real and significant dialogue with people. We must discuss the possible economic benefits as well as the environment so that people can be given a vision of how life may look and can buy into the idea of, for example, the necessity of transmission lines. It is all very well to point to our considerable wind and wave energy resources, but people, and politicians in particular, are jumping on the band wagon at meetings. I accept that people have fears, but these can be allayed, discussed and put in context. However, when all that a politician does is put oil on the fire of fear, it shows poor leadership.

One is not abandoning people in saying they want to be able to flick a switch and have cheaper power but that in the long run they should opt for renewables. There must be a responsible conversation.

With regard to wind turbines, it is not easy dealing with people when they have been whipped up into a fury of protest. I will provide the example of several councillors who went to see a wind farm. They got out of a bus and could see a wind turbine a good distance away in the field. They turned around to the man who was facilitating the trip and asked whether it was noisy. The man asked them to turn around and showed them a wind turbine right behind them. Turbines do not turn if there is no wind; therefore, we cannot hear them. When the wind is blowing, we do not hear things so well. I am not saying people are not affected by them, but farmers are also affected when roads pass through the middle of their farms. People were affected when powerlines were routed through farms. The dialogue is on the issue of whether the people who bear the burden of the infrastructure, whether it be transmission cables or turbines, can be accommodated or rewarded. That dialogue does not just involve those who receive compensation for having something on their lands. It also involves the communities that bear the burden of the infrastructure to be used in renewable energy projects. They must be looked after properly.

Notwithstanding what has been said about the mistrust of politicians, people do listen and politicians have a platform. They must be informed and listen to people, not just hold up their hands and say they are with the people on this issue and that the big bad guys are out there. Politicians should not sell a lie about what it will take to achieve economic recovery and future growth.

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentations. There has been much discussion on the requirement for the Bill and its contents, but what we really need is action. We have been talking about this issue for decades and can see the reality around us. Nationally and globally, the impact of climate change is very evident. I live near the banks of the River Shannon and there are areas where flooding previously occurred only in the winter but now occurs in the summer and the winter. There are knock-on negative impacts on the environment, the economy and nature, with the demise of certain plants and creatures. I am thinking, in particular, of the corncrake. The officials will go back and expand on the heads of the Bill. Urgency and a great deal of clarity are required in order that people can see their responsibilities and how we will achieve the targets set. I wonder whether we are being ambitious enough. Is 2050 too far into the future? Should we pull back a little from that date?

The delegates referred to the responsibility of all of us to think not only of ourselves but also of other parts of the world impacted on by climate change. A presentation by Christian Justice Ireland reveals what African countries are experiencing. It is fantastic to hear about companies that are not waiting, that are taking the initiative in the knowledge that they must make changes by 2020. This is welcome and the example should be held out to other companies. These are creative individuals who can see benefits for their businesses, as well as benefits for the economy and the environment.

There are enormous challenges. I live in a county where I have been heavily lobbied by environmental groups about renewable energy projects and their benefits. Now, I am challenged by the fact that the same groups are returning and concerned about the wind turbines to which others referred. We have a major job of work to do in education. In this regard, I see an important cross-departmental role. On the one hand, we are reading papers on the potential of oil and gas exploration and fracking and, on the other, looking at wave and wind power and renewables. We are trying to get our head around the issue while trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It is an enormous challenge and we all need to lead by example in Government Buildings, Departments and the offices of Members of the Oireachtas. We should all take responsibility for reducing our carbon footprint in businesses and our homes. It has struck me that there are 166 Members of the Dáil, each with a constituency office. We can make a difference by learning how to factor it in in our everyday thinking.

With regard to education, we must go into primary schools. Young people educate other generations and I would like to see this aspect being built into the Bill. This is the first engagement and there will be plenty more. I thank the delegates for listening and look forward to the rest of the debate and the production of the Bill. Perhaps we might be given a timeframe for its production.

Mr. John McCarthy:

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. Deputy James Bannon referred to the expert advisory body envisaged in the legislation. It is not intended to be a representative body, with various sectors having nominating rights. Head 6(12) refers to a number of people from State agencies such as the EPA, the SEAI, the ESRI and Teagasc, being identified as members. The others have relevant qualifications, expertise and experience. It is a question of trying to populate the body with people who know the sectors involved and the challenges from a climate change point of view rather than asking directly for representatives of the various sectors.

With regard to transport and energy, the big picture issues committee members have mentioned concern the road network, public transport, wind energy and renewables, community engagement and a buy-in to the development of wind turbines. Senator Cáit Keane mentioned the extent to which Ireland was well located geographically, particularly for the production of wind energy. We are in a good location, but environmental issues and community acceptance are associated with it and we must chart our way through major societal shifts, supported by science, evidence and strong communication with the public and key stakeholders. Rather than talking at people, we can talk to them in a language they understand in order that they will see the role they can play.

Deputy James Bannon referred to the global treaty on emissions reductions. This is a global challenge in that the issues involved will only be solved at a global level. The intention under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, is to reach a global treaty by the end of 2015 that will kick in in 2020, after the second Kyoto Protocol period has expired. It must be a treaty that will involve all countries making commitments in line with their capabilities. The first Kyoto Protocol period has just come to an end and some countries, including EU member states, have agreed to have a second period under the protocol to 2020. The Kyoto Protocol was built on architecture that split the developed and the developing worlds. It was a creature of its time.

As the international negotiations document the EU just published makes clear, there are now more than 30 that are still classed as developing countries which have higher economic activity per capitathan the lowest economicper capitacountry in the EU. That really underscores the importance of ensuring we build a new global climate treaty which reflects the realities of the world today rather than the realities of the world 20 or 30 years ago when the developed versus the developing country model was first introduced.

Within the developing world, there is still a very large number of countries which are least equipped to deal with climate change but which are most significantly affected by it. That was raised in some of the contributions and that will be a crucial part of the new global climate treaty, that is, how are developing countries, which are still developing countries and are not just labelled as such, to be assisted, both in adapting to climate change and in reducing their own emissions. As recently as yesterday when speaking at the Boston College ceremony, the Taoiseach pointed very clearly to the fact that in the past week, we have evidence that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have passed the 400 particles per million threshold - the threshold beyond which everybody in the scientific community accepts. We have now moved into even more dangerous territory. Again, the Taoiseach used the opportunity to exhort those graduating from Boston College and going out into the world to use their education in a way that ultimately passes on the planet to the next generation in a better condition.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We seem to have been unable to bring states like America, China and India on board.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to conclude.

Mr. John McCarthy:

Senator Keane mentioned the importance of the "transition" word which we have used consistently through the Minister's roadmap and through some of the presentations today. It is a transition towards 2050. We are talking about a fairly significant societal and economic transformation and it will not be achieved overnight but for a transition, we need to know where we are going, how we are going to get there and what is the most effective pathway. That is why the sectoral roadmaps Departments have been asked to prepare are so important in charting out that pathway in the individual sectors.

Another contributor questioned whether we were being ambitious enough in regard to 2050. As I said, 2050 may seem like a long time away - it is nearly 40 years away - but decisions taken over the next five to ten years will be crucially important in effecting change that will have long-term consequences. I think 2050 is a well-recognised and well-established time framework within which to operate but with milestones along the way, including targets for 2020. Further targets will be set.

Deputy Mulherin mentioned the carbon tax, which certainly has an impact on price. Stepping back from it again and looking at the bigger picture, when one looks at the overall price of oil and gas and the extent to which we are import-dependent for oil and gas - I should qualify this by saying the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources leads on energy matters, so I am not claiming to be an expert on it - that is the significant driver of what individual consumers and businesses pay. There is an issue around how we substitute for that import reliability, greater reliance on our own renewable resources and address some of the difficult issues with which the Deputy and other politicians are faced. How can we address them in a sensible evidence-supported way rather than in a way where scare stories and other issues get communicated as if they are gospel when that may not be the case?

Dr. Rory O'Donnell and colleagues from NESC might what to say something on the education dimension and the engagement with behavioural change but before I hand over to them, I would like to say that we put in place a fairly extensive education campaign in primary schools in regard to climate change over the past number of years. We worked very closely with teachers through the teaching centre in Blackrock and developed some very good resource materials, which are in schools and which are designed to ensure that in ten to 15 years' time, the people who have grown up out of the school system will have had an education in and a knowledge of climate change built into their consciousness from an early stage.

Dr. Rory O'Donnell:

Senator Keane asked which institutional design one would prefer. I am happy to provide a couple of pages describing our understanding of the differences, slight though they are, between the institutional ideas. I suppose at the heart of it is - none of us would claim to have this sorted - what institutional design best links the how much and the how to in a positive dynamic.

Other members raised some very important questions. Whatever way one looks at it, wind energy has to be a key pillar of any future for Ireland as a low carbon or a carbon neutral country but at the same time, Deputies Bannon, Mulherin and Corcoran Kennedy have raised really knotty issues. There is no question but that public acceptance could be one of the constraints which sets limits on Ireland's achievement of what is scientifically or naturally possible. We take that very seriously.

I will ask my colleague, Dr. Jeanne Moore, to say a little bit about some further work we are doing because we think that is very significant. It is a version of the point Senator Keane raised in that in the area of climate change, we do not yet have something of the clarity of reduce, reuse and recycle which we have in waste and which captured everybody. Not only did it capture everybody, it is really meaningful and it is a properly worked out concept. We do not yet have the equivalent in the area of climate change. My colleague, Dr. Jeanne Moore, might be better placed than myself to say something on both of those topics.

Dr. Jeanne Moore:

It is great to have the opportunity to clarify some of the members' points and to acknowledge the role of a culture change and a paradigm shift, which members mentioned, in regard to behavioural change but also in regard to the social acceptance of renewable energies. In regard to the latter, we believe that could be a significant issue for the future transition to a carbon neutral society. We have a background paper on some of the social and behavioural aspects of climate change and in that, we examine some of the current thinking. An important point, which Deputy Mulherin mentioned, is that the process and type of engagement with communities is key to increasing social acceptance.

To further develop this work, NESC has started a project which will look at the processes to design and deliver energy transformation in Ireland. As part of that, we will look comparatively at Denmark, Scotland and Germany to see what types of governance were in place, what types of social acceptance issues they had to cope with, and what types of community ownership models and community engagement models we can draw from and develop some insights for Ireland. We will develop that work this year.

On the broader point in regard to a cultural change, the key point for us is that raising awareness is an important part of societal engagement but while that is important, it does not ensure behavioural change. Behavioural change is changing the way we do things and that is quite a complex thing to achieve, but we know how to do it. We have changed the way people recycle and the way people reuse plastic bags when they shop but changing the way we do things requires particular pro-environmental practices to become routine. We develop new habits and practices so that they become everyday in society and it becomes a societal project.

Education is something members have been thinking about a lot.

One excellent example is the Green Schools programme, an environmental education and management system run by An Taisce, which has resulted in savings of nearly €9 million in recent years in terms of waste, electricity and water costs. In the last 15 years, over 2,500 schools have been awarded the green flag after an average of two years of consistent effort. We find this particularly interesting for a number of reasons. First, it is running in most Irish schools and has a strong educational and awareness-raising role for families as well as the children participating in the schools; second, it is reducing emissions through energy savings and through other areas of good sustainability practice; third, it does this through bottom-up innovation at school level, through regular evaluation and supports from the programme; and finally, the schools use their resources more effectively, thereby providing tangible cost savings. The Green-Schools programme provides a strong example of how to combine "how-much" with "how-to". It provides targets for energy savings along with innovative ideas for schools on how to reach those targets. We find that this initiative and others from the SEAI, involving communities and local authorities as well as private and public organisations, allow us to tell the story of how to enable behaviour change, which is what we need in order to get the societal buy-in that we so want.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will finish this part of the meeting.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the question raised earlier, regarding bringing countries like the USA, China and India on board, be addressed? How will that happen in a global context? Those countries are quite greedy and have put up a huge amount of resistance in the past. Has there been any positive movement in terms of getting them on board?

Mr. John McCarthy:

As a starting point, the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban in December 2011 reached agreement to which all countries signed up. That agreement was that a new global treaty would be agreed by the end of 2015, to kick in from 2020. It was agreed that all countries would subscribe to that new global treaty. The end of 2015 is two and a half years away. There will be three annual climate change conferences each December until then. The next conference will be in Warsaw. The last one, at which the agreement is supposed to be reached, will be in Paris, so there will be a strong European interest in that process. We have all heard the recent statements from President Obama and from Secretary of State, Mr. John Kerry, which recognise the importance of global action on climate change. It was interesting, in the response to Hurricane Sandy, the extent to which there was a very immediate link made, in the political system in the United States, between what was a very unique and different weather event and climate change issues.

There are encouraging signs there but it is a long two-and-a-half-year road that has to be travelled from now to Paris at the end of 2015. Interestingly, at the last UN Climate Change Conference in Doha in December 2012, the UN Secretary General indicated that in order to provide further impetus towards reaching that agreement at the end of 2015, he would be convening a special session at the UN in the autumn of next year for heads of state and government, in order to get buy-in and leadership at the highest political level among all UN member states. There is a way to go but, equally, there is a lot going on. Ultimately, the signs are encouraging but if we come back here in December 2015, I may be eating my words, or otherwise.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. McCarthy. Gabhaim buíochas don ghrúpa as bheith i láthair inniu agus as an gcúnamh a thug sé dúinn. I thank the witnesses. Cuirim sin críoch leis an seisiún seo. Cuirfimid an cruinniú ar fionraí agus tiocfaimid ar ais i gceann cúpla nóiméad. We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes now.