Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"1.—The Minister shall establish a new subhead in the Book of Estimates on expenditure to be incurred as a result of obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.".

Having been ruled out of order on Committee Stage, I resubmitted this amendment in a form which ensured it would be in order. It seeks to have the Minister account, through the usual accounting mechanisms, for how the Government intends to meet, in expenditure terms, its commitment on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming under the Kyoto Protocol and, more important, how it intends to raise the funds to meet this commitment. Although modest, the amendment will be important if it forces the Government to take seriously its responsibilities in this area and helps Deputies to see at a glance what precisely are the accounting mechanisms being used to meet what is likely to be an expensive commitment under an international treaty.

In his Budget Statement the Minister referred to the establishment of a carbon fund and indicated that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government would introduce a Bill to this end in 2006. I have asked questions on the position with regard to the allocation of moneys to a carbon fund in the current financial year. Will the Minister provide a response because there appears to be considerable uncertainty in this regard?

The establishment of a carbon fund is inherently the wrong mechanism to address this issue because the moneys required to meet our international obligations must be raised in a fair and proportionate manner. Given that the respective contributions of various sectors, whether energy use, transport, industry or agriculture, towards preventing Ireland from meeting our international obligations on greenhouse gases is being measured, it should be easy to introduce mechanisms which would determine the contribution of each sector to the eventual financial obligations the State will be required to meet.

That said, irrespective of the mechanism chosen — this will be a source of considerable debate — the assumptions underpinning the Minister's comments in the Budget Statement grossly underestimate the likely cost to the State of meeting our Kyoto Protocol obligations. The Minister appeared to assume that in 2008, when the bill for Kyoto starts to come in, we will pay in the region of €15 per tonne of carbon load. If the prices were being established in 2006, the price would be €40 per tonne. Given that carbon load prices are linked to world oil prices, the price is likely to increase in the years prior to 2008 and thereafter. Furthermore, an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol is likely to be concluded for 2012 and onwards. The Government has, therefore, underestimated by a factor of three the likely costs of breaching our targets under the Kyoto Protocol. If the Minister were to use ESRI estimates of the probable cost of such breaches to the State, he will need more than a carbon fund to meet Ireland's liability.

I ask the Minister to accept this simple amendment which would improve overall accountability in this area in the years ahead. I would like him to make further commitments and accept he is underestimating the future costs to this State and that the mechanism he has chosen is unlikely to work.

My colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, attempted to establish an all-party committee on long term energy policy and I would like a collective approach to be adopted by this House in terms of how we can address the issue of paying for our international obligations. Not only will this increase until 2008 but, as I already indicated, a future agreement will probably establish a harsher regime from 2012. There are even indications that the United States, which opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, may be party to the latter agreement.

With 25% of its energy needs already being met from renewable resources, Sweden's Government has decided to move to an oil-free economy by 2020. Given our poverty in terms of renewable energy, such ambitions are unrealistic in an Irish context. However, if we were to develop a common political approach to the medium to long-term prospects, my party and I would feel more confident that these issues were finally being treated seriously. In terms of taxation, the OECD noted that Ireland has the fewest fiscal instruments for environmental intervention. If the Minister wants to leave a legacy from his second budget and Finance Bill, he could make significant progress in this area and might find some on this side of the House who are prepared to work with him in that direction. Unfortunately, this Government has been obstructionist by refusing to acknowledge the scale of the problem and has not come up with workable long-term solutions to meet the commitments for which this society is collectively responsible.

See this speech in context