John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)

We all recognise that climate change is a reality and that its effects are being seen across the globe. We all have a part to play.

The international framework for addressing climate change already contains legally binding targets through the Kyoto Protocol. Ireland is fully committed to meeting its target under the Kyoto Protocol, as was made clear by the Minister, Deputy Roche, in his speech to the House. It may be difficult to achieve that target but I hope we do.

Ireland's Kyoto target was the product of years of negotiation, beginning in the mid-1990s and culminating in the ratification of the protocol by Ireland in 2002, together with other European Union member states. This Bill does not acknowledge this process.

The implications of this legally enforceable right proposed in the Bill would be to force the Government to adopt policies that ensure Ireland's emissions are 30% below 1990 values by 2020, no matter what the consequences. What would this mean in the context of Ireland's growth, its existing industries and employment and its foreign direct investment policies? The implications of this Bill are stark. The effort to eliminate sources of emissions would mean serious damage to Ireland's economy, its agriculture, heavy industry such as cement and alumina production and the food processing sector. This would be the real world implication of this Bill. Ireland would be the only country in the world to allow wholesale destruction of its economy to satisfy somewhat arbitrary and legally binding targets.

The Minister stated in his contribution that Government policy on climate change targets is based on international commitments made and ratified. This Bill is not based on any existing commitments. The Kyoto Protocol is the only such commitment that exists. Ireland has its target under this protocol and is fully committed to meeting this target.

It sets a dangerous precedent to enshrine such targets in legislation, especially when targets are not based on any international agreement. There is no precedent for such an approach. Deputy Boyle referred to the National Pensions Reserve Fund as an example of a precedent. There is no comparison. One piece of legislation commits the Minister for Finance to invest a set percentage of gross national product into a fund for pensions; the other sets targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases completely in excess of what is appropriate or possible for the economy.

The Climate Change Targets Bill is fundamentally flawed in that it does not take into account the nature or structure of the economy. Where will the Green Party find the extra 30% reduction?

See this speech in context