Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I support the amendment. Nobody speaks of the Kyoto Protocol without using the words "we" or "our". There is talk of our obligations and what we must do. We should find a more inclusive definition of we, which includes more than just environmentalists and policymakers. The public should take the obligation on board. The public must see the obligation in financial terms. That is the reason this amendment is good.

The public can, with this amendment, take on board the choices that will be put in front of them on the likes of carbon trading, for example. We are better than this, and we can persuade public opinion with regard to choices the public makes in reducing the amount of carbon emissions and the obligation of the public to do this. The public is capable of taking this on board. However, it must be seen in black and white terms. This amendment provides the opportunity to move to such terms, where people understand the exact obligation we are taking on board.

It has been stated that leadership is always about loss, that is, it is not about giving people things but outlining the changes they must make. In this context, we must find a way of delivering loss in terms of the choices people are currently making against the choices they can be persuaded to make in the future. It would be in the interest of people to make these choices. The sooner we move to a point where everyone takes on board the idea that a personal obligation exists, the less it will cost us financially in the longer term.

See this speech in context