Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

The context in which this debate is taking place, and indeed in many other assemblies around the world at the current time, is the Copenhagen summit which begins next week. Climate change and, more basically, adverse weather conditions are of course issues of immediate concern in this country in the light of the impact of the recent floods and concerns that we are indeed witnessing different and unusual patterns of rainfall which reflect global changes.

Most, if not all, of the weather we have witnessed in the past three weeks has never been experienced in living memory. The unpredictability of our seasonal cycle is also a new phenomenon. That is why it is so vital that the Copenhagen summit reaches a legally binding deal which is strong enough to tackle the challenge of climate change while being just and fair to developing countries. There are different interests at stake.

For the developed countries, which by and large no longer depend to such a great extent on manufacturing industry, many of the targets set revolve around reducing emissions from heavy machinery. For many developing countries, including some which have experienced significant industrial growth over recent decades, this is regarded as presenting a threat to their future development. Striking a balance between the two which has the best interests of the world's population as a whole at its centre will not be easy. There is also an onus on the developed western countries to set and implement binding effective targets for emission reductions, to develop new cleaner technologies so that the developing countries are not left to carry the main burden for the negative impact which earlier western and northern hemisphere industrialisation and use of carbon fuels has already had.

The problem of climate change must be also approached in a positive manner so that moving away from older manufacturing systems based on the heavy use of carbon fuels is not seen as an inhibitor to economic growth but as an opportunity to boost the use of newer and cleaner technologies that do not present the same threat to the environment and which are more sustainable both in terms of the environment and future economic growth. The key to this will be the greater utilisation of renewable energy sources which will not only have radical implications for the industrial economy but also for agriculture, with the potential for greatly increased production of energy crops and for entirely new economic sectors based on the production of energy from the wind and sea. There is great potential but it needs to be driven forward politically.

It is also important that the current recession is not used as an excuse by some developed industrialised countries to renege on their pledges under the Kyoto Agreement to supply aid to assist the developing countries in their efforts to combat the effects of climate change and to help limit their emissions as their economies grow. This is causing a major political rift between rich and poor states in the United Nations and threatens to derail a global agreement being reached at Copenhagen.

For example, as of May, while rich countries have so far pledged $18 billion in adaptation aid, less than $1 billion has been delivered. According to the UN, $50 billion to $70 billion a year needs to be invested immediately to help the poor countries adapt to extreme floods and droughts. Nearly every week we witness on world news the kinds of effects about which we are talking. While we are dealing with the devastating effects of the flooding here on individuals and the large costs involved in repairing the damage, we can empathise with the even greater scale of the devastation that has been visited on many developing countries in recent times. The communities affected have also found it difficult to recover because of the restricted resources in those countries and sometimes political factors which inhibit the supply of aid and reconstruction funding.

Apart from reaching concrete decisions at Copenhagen on the practical steps that need to be taken to address the environmental issues, there is also the question of what finance will be provided to help developing countries tackle climate change. There is also the question of how that finance will be controlled with many developing countries calling for a new mechanism into which they have more input than they have into programmes imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Otherwise they claim the developed countries will simply use it in the same manner as the IMF in order to impose restrictions and austerity on the developing countries which will undermine their ability to grow.

Apart from whatever is agreed at the Copenhagen summit, which will of course become binding on this State once ratified by the EU, there is also the need to press forward in this country with ambitious targets in, for example, renewable technology, energy efficiency and public transport. That of course requires significant public investment, but it is investment that will bear fruit in terms of future growth and jobs. There is a great opportunity to create badly needed jobs and that opportunity should not be lost. However, in the light of the Government's attitude in this regard, the question is whether the political will and vision exists to take those steps rather than sacrifice such a strategy to the current demand for massive cuts in public spending which while they may be thrifty in the short term will inhibit future growth and place this country at a disadvantage in making the most of the opportunities that arise once the current downturn comes to an end. If the Government does so it will have overwhelming support across the island and it should not miss this opportunity. We need to use that job creation potential to take people off the long dole queues.

What makes this debate even more relevant than it might otherwise have been is the impact of the recent floods, the effects of which are still being felt in parts of the country. All of us sympathise with those whose homes, farms and businesses have been damaged, in some cases beyond repair. Last Wednesday I visited Carlow and saw for myself the effects of the flooding there. The previous weekend I visited Cork and last night I was in Sallins, County Kildare, where I saw the devastation as a result of the recent weeks of rain. That pales into insignificance when one compares it with the devastation in Third World countries which have suffered as a result of total and absolute neglect by the developed world in dealing with the problem of global warming.

It is frightening to think of the damage which a relatively small change in normal weather patterns can have, how quickly infrastructure that has been built over so many years can be destroyed or badly damaged and how services which we have come to think of as almost guaranteed, including domestic water and electricity supply, can be threatened. That perhaps places in context the effects adverse weather has had in less developed countries which are less well able to cope with such events.

The impact of the flooding, therefore, apart from the immediate steps that need to be taken to assist those individuals and communities which have been affected, must also make us more aware of the potential that even worse conditions in the future might have. Would this country be able to cope with a more prolonged period of such weather? Are we taking the correct measures to ensure we will be able to do so? Part of the answer relates to concrete measures that can be taken now but it also relates to what will take place in Copenhagen if, as we are told, the impact of carbon emissions is responsible for changing weather patterns with further radical changes in patterns likely in the future. That is why it is vital that any measures that can reduce the harmful impact of carbon emissions are agreed and implemented. It is also important that those measures be implemented in such a manner as to ensure that overall sustainable economic development is not adversely affected.

Another issue that needs to be addressed regarding the flooding here relates to the building of housing developments in places, which while they may not have experienced flooding in the past ten, 20 or even 40 years, are historically known to be vulnerable to the impact of heavy rain on rivers, lakes and water basins. Reckless planning driven by the greed of unscrupulous developers was supported by a banking system that encouraged it and appeased by certain elements within the political arena here. Some of the developments in question were built even in places that have townland names which suggest that every once in a while they might expect flooding. One was even built on the bed of a drained lake. As someone said on the radio last week, people had never built in certain places for good reasons and yet planning permission was given in recent years for such developments. It would perhaps be worth re-examining some of those planning decisions and certainly it might be worthwhile revoking any which have been granted for similar places. I understand the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has also made that comment recently. Many of us who have been involved in local authorities have seen the anomalies between planning permissions granted in certain areas and the detrimental effect they have had on our landscape. In particular in some areas where the water tables were quite close to the surface, unrestricted planning permissions were granted.

Where people's homes have been destroyed in places where historical evidence might have decided against the granting of permission to build them, it also might be appropriate to ensure those people are compensated, perhaps by being given another dwelling by the developers involved. Developers who lobbied politicians by any method and were able to obtain planning permission are accountable, as are the local authorities who granted permission and, in some instances, An Bord Pleanála.

The necessity of a successful conclusion to the Copenhagen summit cannot be over emphasised. Developed countries need to ensure the real concerns of developing countries are taken into consideration and the necessary finance is available to ensure these countries are not placed in a more vulnerable position.

See this speech in context