Kate O'Connell (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming at this late hour. I will follow on from Deputy Cullinane said.

It was stated the ETS was being managed. Is it being managed at a European level? Is that what Mr. Brady meant? I am going backwards from where I had intended to start. The big polluters are expected to be managed under the ETS, while everyone else will be subject to a separate metric. There is unfairness for the real person stranded in a village in County Waterford without a bus service. He or she will feel a huge sense of unfairness.

I refer to the ETS model, for which I am not blaming the witnesses, unless it was their idea. The whole point of it is to reduce carbon emissions, but, technically, one can buy one's way out of it. Based on my reading of the system, if a company is profitable enough, it can buy its way out, until it is no longer profitable. All the while, the environment is heating up. This is an economic response to an environmental problem. I do not mean to cause offence, but it is a typical accountant solution to a social, environmental and human issue. The ordinary man in County Waterford will be expected to put on an extra jumper or walk, but someone with a large company with ETS-graded emissions can buy his or her way out. That is where we are going to fall down when we try to sell it to normal people. It is similar to what happened when turf-cutting was banned on bogs in the midlands. While I agree in principle with stopping people from cutting turf because peat is great at trapping carbon, it was very difficult for people to see a power station down the road pumping out peat smoke when they were not allowed to cut turf for domestic use. People are logical. They knew that the black smoke from Rhode power station was the same product as that which was coming out of their open fires. I have a serious moral issue with this set-up because the big guys can get out of it until their profitability narrows to the point where they cannot buy their way out. I personally do not see that as a solution to climate change.

Deputy Aylward referred to farmers receiving more credits for the planting of trees and products that trap carbon. I am not sure what he asked as I came in half way through, but is consideration being given to the carbon trapping potential of hedgerows, wild set-aside land or grassland? They all trap carbon and are being maintained by farmers who are the custodians of the countryside. Will they receive money for the grass also, or will it just be for the trees? If not, why not? Can anyone answer that question? Will farmers be given some money for the rest of the green stuff with which they deal which also absorbs carbon dioxide?