Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

The EU Heads of Government set a mandatory, self-imposed target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and adopted a negotiating position to require developed states to establish a 30% reduction target. Are we a leader or a follower? We were involved in that process and it is disingenuous of Deputy Cuffe to suggest otherwise as he is aware that Ireland was one of the first countries to respond positively to the proposals. For example, I responded very positively at the first European Union Environment Council meeting held after the commitment was made and was the second or third speaker when the issue arose. I encouraged progress at a time when other member states were experiencing difficulties with the commitment. In Nairobi, during en marge meetings, many member states were strongly of the view that Europe should not propose a 30% commitment or give a unilateral commitment of 20%. The Taoiseach has supported the commitment in the European Council and I have supported it in the Environment Council.

Should Ireland be more ambitious and impose higher domestic requirements than those in place elsewhere in Europe or the world? While I do not question Deputy Cuffe's sincerity, I do not believe such an approach would be wise. Reading reports today on the UK budget, I noted that Britain's targets for 2050 are not as ambitious as those proposed by the Deputy. He has suggested writing into law a mandatory target of achieving a reduction in carbon emissions of between 60% and 80% by 2050. While his proposal is probably laudatory, it is also foolhardy. He is asking us to provide in law for meaningless targets to be met. The 60% target the British Government is considering including in the carbon Bill before the House of Commons is set against a policy of rebuilding nuclear power stations. Its policy is contingent on and self-enforcing of nuclear power.

It is not sensible for Ireland to be more ambitious than the most ambitious group of countries in the world, namely, Europe. We have a moral responsibility to encourage the European Union in the direction it is taking and we have given the Presidency and Commission strong support in this regard. However, I do not agree with the approach adopted by the Deputy and I am surprised that any other party in the House would do so. To frame in law the targets proposed would disadvantage Ireland and would not achieve any great purpose as it would allow countries which compete with us for foreign direct investment to portray Ireland as a no-go area.

This debate requires balance. Last week, we saw the extremist view of one side of the argument on a Channel 4 programme. We also have extremist views on the other side represented by the henny-penny school of environmentalism. If anything will destroy the logic underpinning the Kyoto Protocol and undermine the necessity to move forward on this issue, it will be extremism. There can be nothing more unwise than to enshrine in law impositions which would be destructive of Irish industry, particularly when they are far in advance of those proposed by the European Union. It makes no sense to introduce legally binding targets to be achieved 40 years hence when none of us will be in the House to speak on them.

The proposal goes further than the most ambitious targets. As I indicated, even the United Kingdom, where the carbon Bill is part and parcel of a process of preparing members of the public to accept the development of nuclear power, has not gone as far as Deputy Cuffe's proposal. His suggestion is impractical.

The Deputy indicated his proposal is informed by a moral imperative. While adopting a moral attitude on this matter is praiseworthy, we also have moral responsibilities to the 2 million who work here and the millions of others who will look for jobs here in the next ten, 15 or 40 years. We cannot push them onto the rack with some form of ideological commitment to a project such as that the Deputy proposes. While I do not for a moment doubt his sincerity, in practical terms his proposal is mad and does not make sense.

Deputy Morgan appears to believe I will not agree to publish a progress report. I indicated on Committee Stage that I will consider inserting in the national climate change strategy a provision to hold a debate. The strategy is the appropriate place to make such provision. The national development plan set a precedent for this approach as it includes a provision to hold a debate in the House. It offers a good way forward and I am prepared to make such a provision.

See this speech in context