Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

I want to clarify matters. I think the Minister agrees that I can amend the amendment by the insertion of the words "per annum" after "Kyoto units" so that it is clear that we are talking about 3.6 million Kyoto units per annum. Where did these 3.6 million units come from? They came from the Minister. We know where we are at the moment. The Minister indicated that it is his intention that approximately 8 million tonnes will be found through the ETS and approximately 4 million tonnes will be found through the carbon reduction measures he says will be implemented. A total of 0.7 million tonnes are not accounted for, but the Minister is satisfied they will be met by way of carbon reduction. He said that the requirement to purchase will be 3.6 million tonnes. Where are we going? This is not about closing anything down. This is about how we are at the moment. Is the Minister saying we will go above our existing, very high level of emissions, which is 25% or 26% above 1990 levels? I do not hear him saying that, although the import of what he is saying is that we will go above even the 25% or 26% level at which we are at the moment. If we are not to go above the 25% or 26% level, the 3.6 million tonne limit is not unreasonable and I do not see any reason he cannot agree to it.

If we are to even stay at 25% or 26% above 1990 levels, which is very high, and the Minister's carbon reduction measures work, we will remain at 3.6 million tonnes which must be bought. I will return to this, but my basic point is that the Minister can accept this amendment because it follows his own logic. This sticks exactly with the figures the Minister gave us in respect of what must be bought. I cannot understand why he cannot accept a limit he said would be the upper end of the requirement to buy.

See this speech in context