Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)

A Cheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat as seans a labhairt ar an mBille tábhachtach seo. Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Eamon Ryan, urlabhraí fuinnimh, agus leis an Teachta Cuffe, urlabhraí taistil, a chur tús leis an mBille seo, Climate Change Targets Bill 2005.

The chief scientific adviser in the UK, as has already been stated by others, has contended that climate change is a more serious threat than international terrorism. I ask the Minister of State to take on board this particular scientific view and recognise that the response to climate change needs a cross-departmental strategy. We have had from the Government the usual pigeon-holing of the issue as a matter which applies only to the Department of the Environment and Local Government. We can see from this party's spokespersons, from Deputy Boyle on finance, Deputy Gormley on foreign affairs, Deputy Gogarty on education and myself on agriculture and food, that this issue requires a cross-departmental approach. This has not been forthcoming from the Government.

What is evident is a failure in word and deed to respond to the challenges facing this country and generations to come. The Government does not have a strategy after 2012, and it talks of Kyoto but is waiting until other groups decide what to do. The Government might then at least verbally indicate that it will consent to that agreement. I was astonished to hear the Minister of State contend that the Government will not support this Bill because it is legislation. What about the Waste Management (Amendment) Bill 2003 and other legislation which have set down measures put forward as Government policy? There is no basis to argue that this cannot be advanced through legislation.

The Swedish Government has done exactly what this party is proposing, and that country has a very successful economy with viable social protection. Government officials have spoken of child care, and Sweden is considered the place to go for this and a place to learn about the issue. The European Parliament has agreed a post-2012 strategy, and only a fortnight ago it agreed by an overwhelming majority to adopt a number of policy recommendations. This is in view of the conference that has been discussed, the 11th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change under way in Montreal.

I will not list all the recommendations being put forward, but among them is the reduction of emissions by 30% by 2020 and between 60% and 80% reduction by 2050. This is the exact goal which the Minister of State is attempting to rubbish. The proposal to extend the scope of the buildings directive and updating the biofuels directive may hurt the Minister of State's friends in the Galway tent. The Minister of State is apparently unaware of these measures and does not care about them.

I wonder who the Minister of State expects to pick up the tab for this problem. A newspaper headline has explained that there will be a €600 million bill to face the taxpayers for what will be the Government's inaction on climate change. Does the Government expect the taxpayer simply to turn over and pay this because the Government has decided there is no other option? Another report states that Dublin City Council will spend €150 million on flood prevention. That is only the city, and this amount can be multiplied for the rest of the country. Who does the Minister of State expect to pay for this? Will the Government put its hand in its pocket or will it expect the taxpayer to do so? The taxpayer certainly wishes to know the answer to the question.

Who will explain the issue of international problems coming about as a result of climate change? We in this country must take responsibility for this, as we have added to the problems. Another newspaper article details a looming water crisis as Himalayan glaciers melt. I went on a charity walk in the Andes, 500m high, where glaciers there have been melting at a rate detrimental to countries and cities along the coast, from Lima to Valparaíso and other parts of Chile, to Peru, Ecuador and Argentina. People in those regions face only 25 more years of fresh water. How will this affect agriculture and people's daily needs? This is not about food, but water.

The irresponsibility of this Government has been shown in stark relief. In spite of feigned concern and crocodile tears, as well as the Minister speaking of the sentiments being correct in the proposed legislation, what the Government is doing is exacerbating the emissions problem. It is breaking agreements relating to the Kyoto Protocol and will punish the taxpayer for this inaction. It is also protecting the polluters and people building houses currently at such a low standard that people will be sentenced to fuel poverty in the years ahead. The Government is soft-pedalling to favour the climate chaos villains, those who benefit from not paying their dues on the pollution issue.

The Government is refusing to give leadership on the matter. Opportunities are being devised in other countries for research and development in areas of energy conservation, renewable energy and public transport initiatives. These countries, including Germany, Sweden, Finland and the US, will benefit. The Minister of State does not want to know what these countries are doing and the Government is smug in its aura of Celtic tiger self-satisfaction. It thinks everybody else is out of step.

Although they may not say so, the reality is that even the largest corporate companies are addressing the issue, with one oil company proclaiming that it is "beyond petroleum". The companies are thinking about an era after oil, with climate change being dealt with through innovation. The Minister should get on board this particular initiative. Unless a ceiling of 550 parts per million of CO2 equivalent and a plan of an 80% reduction in emissions is agreed, how can this Government tell China, for example, to respect limits? How can it tell the UK not to go down the nuclear power road? If the Minister of State turns up on Monday night at the Mansion House for the civic climate change forum he will hear some reality.

This Bill is the key to unlocking many opportunities for enterprise in terms of energy conservation, for farming in terms of biomass, wind energy and other renewable energy, and for good planning in terms of zero emission housing, making public transport viable and reducing travel needs. These are all what the Government is not doing. Most of all, the Bill states we must plan if our children are to survive in the future. Those who reject the Bill — I am looking at the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe — will have to live with their consciences.

See this speech in context