Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I am glad we are debating this topic. A criticism from Opposition benches was that having generalised debates avoids an obligation on the Government to set down specific targets, which would put it under pressure to try to meet them. Whether that be on subjects such as yesterday's debate on youth issues, the motion on which was very broad, or today's debate on climate change, the preference of Opposition parties would be for a Government motion on these areas, perhaps relating to the Government's White Paper on Energy, on which it would set out clear evidence and targets in terms of ambitious thinking in this area. That would enable us to hold a Government to account in time on commitments made and so on. That would be preferable to having general discussion on an issue, even when it is an issue of this importance. I want to be clear that irrespective of whether it be Deputy Stagg or any other Opposition Deputy, I do not believe any Member has a problem with debating climate change. We need to debate it over and over again to try to change a mindset. Our job is to promote action, offer leadership, set targets and be ambitious.

In terms of this issue I, for one, am glad that the Green Party is in government. I have no faith in Fianna Fáil, as a party leading the Government, to offer leadership in this area. All I have to do is judge it on its record over the past decade when a huge opportunity was presented to bring about ambitious change in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I contend also that my party, a big catch-all party, has not perhaps offered enough insistence and leadership in this area, but that must change. This role is not solely the remit of the Green Party, but by having a Green Party in government, I hope there will be an insistence on offering leadership on this issue at the Cabinet table. From my point of view as Fine Gael spokesperson on energy, I intend to hold the Green Party to account in that area and to push it in the right direction.

In a few weeks time an important conference will take place in Bali. I want to split my comments into two areas, one is the international aspect of this issue and the other is our responsibilities nationally. The conference in Bali will be the 13th United Nations Climate Change Conference. It follows 12 months of active debate and awareness raising about the fact that is now climate change. What the UN will attempt to do in Bali is to find agreement on a structure that will lead to a post-2012 global strategy to combat climate change caused by human activity. An international agreement needs to be found to follow the ending of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. This is necessary to move from what has been the first effort at international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Agreement to a much more comprehensive global effort and commitment on emissions to effectively save our planet from the irreversible consequences of climate change.

Using the correct lingo, the challenge facing the conference in Bali has been described as putting a roadmap in place for a future climate deal. That type of US language is, I hope, an indication that the United States will take this seriously in terms of the commitments it will make at a multilateral level in the future.

The key factor in any new deal at the UNCCC is that all the key contributors to CO2 emissions would show a willingness to buy into a new way of thinking on the issue. Otherwise the effectiveness of any new deal will be limited in the same way that the Kyoto Protocol has been. Without countries like India, China and in particular the United States signing up to an ambitious commitment to reduce CO2 emissions, we really are at nothing. The US contributes almost a third of global CO2 emissions and the rapid economic growth in the giants that are China and India is resulting in huge increases in energy production and industrial emissions. Without commitments from countries such as India, China and the United States, we are going nowhere. However, there are some causes for optimism in that regard. At the G8 summit in the summer I believe we saw the first real willingness to talk seriously about putting a framework in place post Kyoto, and that must be recognised.

I want to outline the facts, as many previous speakers have done. For many years when we have heard and even now when we hear environmentalists warn that Cork city will be flooded and that sea levels will rise by 20 ft, many of us have dismissed those people as extremists or as deliberately exaggerating to try to make a point. The reality is that such a theory is now a fact. The world is getting warmer, the more CO2 that is in the climate, the warmer it gets. The significance of the consequences that will confront us if we do not reverse the level of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere is not an abstract theory but a practical reality.

The fact is that the globe is warming. The ten warmest years in history in terms of measuring the warmth of the global atmosphere have occurred in the past 14 years. It is also a fact that there is no scientific dispute on the general consensus on what is happening. The only scientific argument now is how quickly it is happening and how dramatic our response must be to reverse or limit the change. Earlier this year scientific evidence of global warming, as set out in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, put a face on the human reality on what is likely to happen if we do not act in a significant way.

The measurement or target that seems to have been set for us, which is generally accepted by most experts in this area, is that we need to try to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2°C, if possible. If we can do that, we can potentially avoid the kind of catastrophic situation against which many are warning. The challenge being laid down by the IPCC to achieve that target is one the enormity of which most people have no idea. What is being asked of the world essentially is that we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. What in essence that means for the developed world, for countries like Ireland, the United States, France and Britain, is that if we are to achieve that globally, we will have to reduce our emissions below 1990 levels by 60% to 70% or maybe even 80%. With the level of growth and population increases in the developing world, we will need to take more pain than the people there, if we are to allow development happen at the same time as reducing emissions. The enormity of the challenge is made even more significant when one considers what is happening in the worldtoday.

In 1960, the world's population was 3 billion. By 2000 that number had doubled to 6 billion people. Within 40 years the rate of population increase had been equivalent to the time it took over ten centuries to reach 3 billion, and by 2040 it is estimated that the world's population will be close to 9 billion people, all needing heat, water, light, power, transport, housing, jobs and so on. There are close to 7 billion people on the planet and we are way above our emission targets. This means the challenge we face on an international basis needs to be hammered home again and again. I believe the people are leading the politicians on this issue in the western world in particular and are ripe for change. The politicians and policy makers, in many cases, are dragging their feet. If we give leadership on this issue in an ambitious manner, we may be surprised at the positive response from the public.

I hope we will have a detailed debate on the White Paper on Energy in the not too distant future, which will give me an opportunity to highlight what Ireland can do in an ambitious way in this area over the next five to ten years. If we are going to lobby, as I believe we should, at international level for ambitious change, we need to ensure we are not seen as hypocrites. Ireland's performance over the past ten years has been an embarrassment in terms of promotion of renewable energy sources and as regards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This year we are putting aside €270 million to buy our way out of the problem. Imagine what could be achieved if that type of funding was directed at renewable energy sources and alternatives in terms of public transport and so on, which is the type of thinking we need to have.

See this speech in context