Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the deputations all for the presentations. I assume everyone here accepts the science of climate change. I believe if the deputations were able to be honest – they probably cannot say what I can say – they would agree that the national mitigation plan is rather depressing. It does nothing to get us to where we need to be.

The projection given by the Environmental Protection Agency in the presentation is frightening. I assume that it is scientifically absolutely accurate. Anyway, it is frightening to look at the graph and see how we came from 1990, when we were at a given level of CO2 emissions per tonne. The level went up during the boom and then back down again during the recession. We are beginning to climb again. The last figure we have is for 2016. Where do we need to be by 2050? The target is 5 megatonnes. How the hell are we going to get there when it has been said here today that it is not possible to set out a plan to 2050 and that it is a working document? I can see why it is not possible.

One thing that illustrated this to me above all in recent weeks was the excited announcement by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine of a new deal with China for thousands of cattle and thousands of tonnes worth of dairy product. That was followed quickly by the discussion in the Dáil and the debate among farmers on the fodder crisis. We had a fodder crisis because climate change meant that it had rained heavily not only this winter but the previous winter as well. We had a fodder crisis because the big producers bought up all the fodder when the climate responded as it did. Thus family farmers cannot manage to feed their cattle and cattle are dying. Yet, these family farmers have admitted to us that they are coming under increasing pressure all the time from the Department and their own organisations to breed more cattle and dairy cows because the market is dictating the pace.

I can see why the market is attractive. Certainly, it is not attractive to family farmers in this situation but it is attractive to mega-producers. We need a plan whereby Departments speak to each other and whereby the economy has some level of grip on what is happening with climate change.

I come from the left and therefore I have more interest in a planned economy that does not allow the free market to reign supreme. I believe that at some point the free marketeers are going to have to sit up and take notice. Otherwise they are going to destroy the planet and bring us to the point where there is no return from climate change. That is why I am keen to see a Minister and Department that scream at other Ministers and Departments to stop doing this and explain we need to talk to one another, join the dots and plan this out together. I realise the deputations must be extraordinarily frustrated and angry that this is not happening because they are all scientists and they all know what is going on.

I wish to put some specific questions to the Department. Why does the national policy position not mention industry, manufacturing, waste and other types of energy emissions? Why are these left out altogether? I am not going to make any assumptions about it. Can the Department representatives expand on the point a little?

I am keen for the discussion about transport to be teased out a little. I hear other Deputies referring to the need for non-diesel buses. To be honest, however, the real problem is the amount of private cars on the road. The level of emissions from private transport is far higher than emissions from public transport. If we could reduce private use of cars on the road to a fraction of what it is at present, we would be doing ourselves a major favour in respect of our emissions. One need only be on the M50 early in the morning to see gridlock on a four-lane motorway in both directions and then understand that the private use of cars is far out of proportion. The reason is bad planning. When industry, homes and estates are built it is clear planners and developers do not take into account the need for transport hubs to be nearby. Such considerations may be in the development plans of county councils – when I was a county councillor I recall working out the plans for transport hubs - but the plans are never implemented in a reasonable way that takes private cars off the road in large numbers. Will the EPA representatives and others comment on that point? Perhaps they do not see it as the role of the agency to comment.

I know it might be seen as a gesture but would the organisations represented here, including the Department, support the Bill on climate emergency measures to leave fossil fuels in the ground? The Bill will be before the committee in July. Does the Department see that as a positive measure in contributing to reducing CO2 emissions and sending out a signal that we need to wake up, smell the coffee and take this seriously? There is nothing in the plan to show us that we are plotting and managing what has gone off the radar in terms of our emissions. The EPA graph says it all. Everyone should look at it because it is startling.