Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their very inspiring opening statements. One of the most unfair aspects of climate change is that it is asymmetric. The people most responsible for it are not the people who bear the greatest consequences. That is both geographical and generational. Often people who are the root cause of climate change are people who look like me and are in their mid- to late forties - I am being generous to myself - and in the Western world. The consequences are greatest in the future - in your futures - and geographically in the developing world. Mr. Irfan said that eco grief or eco anxiety is felt by one generation more than others; I slightly disagree with him on that. Eco anxiety or eco grief is one of the reasons I am here - because I have my own kids and can see an extra 40 years into the future. That is what activated me politically a few years ago.

I was struck by a phrase from the Young Greens recently that I had not heard before. They said, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu." I was also struck by what Ms Doyle said about capacity building and making sure that the voice of younger people is actually heard in the room and at the table. The capacity piece is critical. As she said, not everybody has the opportunity to come to an Oireachtas joint committee and not everybody is able to handle it as the five witnesses present today have. I am sure that did not happen by accident. I am sure considerable preparation went in ahead of their attending today's committee meeting. How can we do that capacity-building piece? Maybe this curriculum subject is part of it. Where are the really meaningful opportunities to insert younger people's voices? I am concerned that we get a box-ticking exercise with people saying, "We had the youth voice in. Box ticked. Move on." I am not sure if that translates into action, be it in the council chamber, the national Parliament or the third level institution. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on that.

I know one of Ms Murphy's core recommendations relates to fossil fuel divestment. I praise the Trinity students on their big win. It was a real case of old-school activism and was inspiring to see. They got active, were visible and had a massive win. It was done in a way that forced them to be heard.

My second question is on the subject. One of my concerns is that it is segmented out. Senator Byrne spoke a bit about this. It becomes something that the climate-interested students go and do while the other students do German or whatever other subjects might be on at the time. I worry that by segmenting it out we do not actually do that capacity-building piece among the general student population that we need to do.

I will recap because I wandered a bit. What should capacity-building look like among students? Where do we need to concentrate to ensure young people's voices are heard in a meaningful way and not just as window dressing? Is there a concern that by segmenting it out, we give more of that eco anxiety to the kids who are already suffering from it while not actually building a broad base?