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

Both witnesses referred in their submissions to the words "have regard to". They both suggested that "must be consistent with" would be stronger language. There are 25 items in total which the Government must be consistent with or have regard to, whichever language ends up being adopted. I hope it is the stronger formulation. This effectively makes them all equal. Could they cancel each other out? If there is no pecking order attached to the need to "have regard to" various items, does this essentially mean we may as well have complete disregard for the actions that are needed? I would like to ask Professor Sweeney what concerns he thinks we should be determined to have regard to. He mentioned the IPCC report. I would have thought the Bill should contain strong language requiring the Government to have regard to the levels of carbon in the atmosphere, which is currently rated at 350 parts per million. Should that be included in the Bill? Moreover, is there a role anywhere in this legislation for concrete measures concerning the importation of liquid natural gas, LNG, data centres, fossil fuel infrastructure or the role of the State in harvesting renewable energies?

The fourth observation in Professor Sweeney's submission concerns carbon leakage and states that "unilateral action by Ireland is irrelevant in this context since emissions are only counted at national level". He also refers to trade law and border adjustments at EU level. Does that mean that if we export live cattle or processed meat products and do not count the associated emissions, they are counted at some other level and put back on our shoulders?

Professor Sweeney also noted that firms from countries with stricter climate laws than Ireland's are seeking to locate here, where environmental obligations are less onerous. Would he care to say exactly which countries or companies he is referring to?