Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It should be possible in an advanced society not to have to make a crude choice between economic development and environmental responsibility. I was present in another capacity at the United Nations conference on economics and development in Rio de Janeiro many years ago when the concept of sustainable development was launched for the first time. One of the images I still have of that experience is of the business council for sustainable development being accorded the status of a state by the assistant general secretary of the United Nations. At the same time many of the communities which were affected by rising ocean levels had no representation. For example, the small atolls and islands, many of them still in the technical ownership of imperial powers — France, Germany, Holland — and the people of Oceania, held their press conferences on the Greenpeace boat. Some of them discussed the issues of sea levels rising by a relatively modest amount. They were the people who had to decide. Some people had taken a decision that they would all commit suicide rather than abandon their homes.

The discussion I remember at that stage was that one would always have to strike a balance between the views of the most powerful, who made the extreme demand that nothing should stand in the way of open-ended economic growth and economic expansion, and the most vulnerable who had little power and were locked into a simple existence. Matters have changed. I say that because ten years earlier when writing about this I had said that those who make the case for an irresponsible and open-ended economic expansion in different parts of our planet have had an old intellectual history as well. It was Bacon who said, "I lead to you Nature and all her children in bondage for your use", and again as nature, "We must gouge out her secrets". We have moved on.

There is a moment at the beginning of empire and at the beginning of expansion of colonisation and at the beginning of international greed and capitalism in which nature and environment are perceived as entities that can be mined for their possibilities in terms of consumption. We have moved on and the current atmosphere is one in which there is far greater responsibility in evidence both in governments and in communities. Often the debate is about the how of responsibility rather than whether people should be responsible. This is welcome.

It is worth reflecting on that period from which we have come. I suggest, certainly in the discussions that led to the adoption of Kyoto and the discussion which is beginning on what will succeed it, this is one in which there has not yet been a full acceptance of the principles of interdependency, that is, these North-South divisions which are primitive divisions in relation to economic structures, nor has there been a sufficient acceptance of the principle of mutuality. It is still the case that those with the least power with the most vulnerable ways of life are those most affected. If one was to look at the communities that are most deprived of rights on the planet they are probably the Bedouin peoples who live in the atolls which I mentioned. There is also an insufficient acceptance of the principle of equality which is difficult to define in this discourse and this argument. It is not acceptable to those who are at an earlier stage of development and moving out of less than sufficiency. They will argue that they are entitled to push themselves through the stages of growth that were enjoyed by developed economies. Therefore, any reasonable version of equality in regard to carrying the burden of interdependent responsibility must require of developed economies that they carry the greater part of the burden.

Lurking behind all of this is a debate that has not taken place sufficiently, that is, the debate on the connection between science, technology and society. It is regretted that the great capacities of technology in producing efficiency and responsibility of an environmental kind have not been applied to the degree they might have in regard to the developed economies. A factor that must also be borne in mind is that international agencies associated with development, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, often speak about models of development that are examples of bad practice in respect of developing countries that have a long distance to go.

Turning to the specific issue of the purchase of carbon credits, we must work at our own partnership at home in respect of the relationship between elected representatives and the public. When I was a Minister in Cabinet, I recall the difficulties that ensued following my introduction of special areas of conservation. If there is one point on which I must differ from the Minister, it is the issue of bogs. I am in a position to know much about bogs and votes. Some of the Minister's colleagues in Cabinet are also in a position to know about bogs and votes, in so far as they set out to undermine everything I was doing in respect of the protection of bogs.

It is a fact that never at any stage did I outlaw the use of turf cutting with traditional methods. I went into it in detail. I did not even outlaw the hopper that might be used in a bog so everyone's lungs were safe. What I did outlaw was the turning of bogs into soup through the use of sausage machines that were effectively destroying the environment and causing damage that would not be rectified for millions of years. People from the larger parties were very quick to take advantage of that. I acknowledge that there was a price to be paid. I paid it because I lost approximately 1,000 votes for defending the bogs and putting a limit on sheep that were turning hills and mountains into slurry pits. Frankly, I know who is involved on whose side and on what issues in respect of conservation of bogs and peat. It is all history. Thankfully, the wisdom of the people was such that I was able to survive this irredentist and irresponsible challenge.

In respect of what is facing us in discussing an issue like this, the issue is not really one as to whether it was possible to purchase carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Let us not waste our time on that because it is there. That is a reality. The issue is what the fact that we are doing so tells us about our responsibility in respect of the situation we now face. We have a challenge and opportunities. How have we met them? Given that we are purchasing carbon credits — I assume that we are talking about the price per tonne quoted by the Minister if provision is to be made for €270 million — it is difficult not to conclude that if the price goes up, the figure that will be required of the taxpayer will be far more than this and could, in the period of time referred to, end up being three or four time's that figure.

To be fair, as I have previously said, no one is arguing that the Government is doing something that was not ever envisaged in respect of the treaty. One can talk until the cows come home, but if we were 13% above our 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level and were at 26%, we must ask ourselves whether——

See this speech in context