Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

We are now getting to the core. To be fair to Deputy Cuffe, he has been straightforward in this regard. He has indicated that companies like the aluminium plant operating in the west of Ireland should be forced to bear a higher burden. However, I disagree with him. I do not believe that throwing up to 1,000 people out of work in Ireland is a good response to climate change. There are different ways to deal with the issue of climate change.

Having done all the other things, such as imposing a requirement on Irish business through the trading scheme that they will have a cut, imposing certain requirements on the ESB so that it will bear a burden and imposing a requirement on the other 108 companies in the scheme that they must bear a burden, there still arises the requirement from the day-to-day business of ordinary households. Deputy Cuffe is on record as saying that he agrees with and would impose carbon taxes. I disagree with him on this because, based on our experience, the proof is that they did not and would not work.

This legislation is far from being the totality of the response to Kyoto. The emissions trading scheme, ETS, is one part of it, while a series of measures across all Departments, agencies and policies is another part of it. They will contribute 8 million tonnes in cuts in carbon. The ETS will contribute 3 million tonnes in cuts in carbon, which will deal with a portion of the balance of 3.6 million tonnes. It is not the totality of the scheme.

The general issue about purchasing credits is not only part and parcel of the entire Kyoto process. The legitimacy of purchasing credits is recognised by Sir Nicholas Stern in his report, which is a very fine document. I have had two conversations with Sir Nicholas Stern on this issue and again spoke with him about the issue in Paris recently. The purchase of carbon credits and the creation of a carbon market is one of the ingenious responses that comes out of the Kyoto Protocol because it helps to put a price on carbon. In particular, it helps business to face its responsibilities.

A particular point is lost on Deputy Cuffe. The German Institute for Economic Research recently found that Irish businesses are the most energy-efficient in Europe and are among the cleanest in Europe. The idea that one can simply impose the full burden on business is foolhardy, which is the point made by Deputy Durkan. One cannot expect business to carry the full burden because if one forces business to carry the full burden, one creates a chaotic situation. We have already had a situation in the recent past where one of the companies which is moving its production from this country to another instanced the very high cost of Irish energy. If we were to go in the direction advocated by Deputy Cuffe, we would drive more business out and drive our energy costs up. We would meet our Kyoto targets, but we would do so by simply closing enterprise down, which is not a response and is not argued for by Sir Nicholas Stern. The case he is arguing is that economic and environmental sustainability are two sides of the same coin. He is arguing that one can have economic progress without paying an excessively burdensome cost. Deputy Cuffe is suggesting that we actually pay an excessively burdensome cost.

Returning to the specifics of the amendment — I accept that there is a typing error in the amendment — I have already made the point that this is framework legislation that facilitates the NTMA to move in a certain process. It stops the nonsensical situation that applied heretofore where each and every time the NTMA wanted to purchase carbon credits we had to come into the House. For these reasons and reasons I have outlined on Committee Stage, I am not disposed to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context