Dáil debates

Thursday, 11 November 2010

Fifth Report of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security: Motion

 

2:00 pm

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

It is ironic that even on one of its core principles, the need to address climate change, the Green Party will have achieved little in its period in government. It will point perhaps to the carbon tax that was introduced last year but as I pointed out at the time, it was merely another excuse to impose a new tax and had no impact on measures or programmes to address carbon emissions. A carbon tax if it is to work effectively should be revenue neutral whereas the measure introduced here was simply another means to increase revenue and in common with most of the other measures implemented, has fallen disproportionately on people who are already feeling the impact of the current austerity programme. Indeed it has been argued by experts in the field that an effective carbon tax, one that would reduce the use of carbon fuels would also reduce the amount of revenue from that source as logically if it was a success, then the use of transport using carbon fuels would fall.

The Green Party may claim that its introduction fulfilled part of its commitment to having the Government implement measures to protect the environment and to attain the ambitious targets set for the reduction in CO2 emissions, but there is little in it that will tackle the real underlying causes. Instead it has imposed an added burden in terms of taxation and will in no way help to change patterns of transport and overall fuel use.

For example, nothing in the manner in which it has been implemented will encourage people to use public transport rather than cars. It has been pointed out by people involved in the bus transport sector that if the Government was serious about encouraging a significant modal shift, it would not have imposed this tax on buses.

The other issue is that the tax has increased the level of fuel poverty. Taxes on domestic users of fuel, along with increases in the prices charged for electricity and gas, have significantly added to the cost of energy for households. Increasing numbers of people are unable to pay their bills or keep their homes adequately heated. This also leads to health problems and an increased burden on the health services, apart altogether from the impact on the households and individuals affected.

My comments may appear to diverge from the subject of this report and the proposed Bill but I make no apologies for raising the immediate consequences of introducing a carbon tax as a so-called climate protection measure at a time when ordinary people are being attacked on all sides. Pious gestures toward climate change count for little when the parties proposing them are sharpening their knives for an unprecedented attack on the lives of the ordinary people of this State.

I am pleased that the proposed Bill sets out fuel poverty as one of the issues to be taken into consideration when framing an overall strategy to deal with the issue of climate change. Among the other factors referred to in the section on carbon budgeting are the likely effects on the overall economy and economic competitiveness. It is a sign of the times that such issues are taken into consideration. During the economic boom they were rarely referred to in the debates on tackling climate change but the downturn means immediate economic factors are far more important and need to be taken into account.

Serious issues must be addressed. The level of carbon emissions needs to be reduced. Under the Kyoto Protocol, this State is committed to preventing CO2 emissions from rising more than 13% above their 1990 levels. Currently, they are over 20% above the agreed target. Not only does that leave us in breach of our international obligations, it also makes us liable to annual fines of up to €180 million. The proposed Bill sets a target for a reduction of 80% below 1990 levels. Kyoto marked only the first step in tackling global warming. Experts estimate that CO2 emissions must be reduced by between 80% and 90% by 2050 if run-away climate change is to be avoided. That is reflected in the targets set in the Bill. Not only have we a moral obligation to future generations to prevent global warming, but it also makes economic sense. The general consensus is that it is cheaper to take the necessary measures to deal with the challenges presented by climate change now rather than deal with the consequences later.

Climate change is not the only reason to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We are still heavily dependent on oil supplies that may become more difficult to access and are concentrated in a number of politically unstable nations. A considerable amount of oil remains in the ground but it is getting harder to find and more expensive to extract. We also realised a few years ago when Russia threatened to restrict gas supplies to Europe that energy supplies are susceptible to political uncertainty and even blackmail. We could have addressed some of the problems of supply ourselves had we developed a proper energy and exploration policy for the oil and gas off our own coasts. Instead, however, we choose to abandon all pretence of a State strategy and handed our resources to companies on terms that are the most generous on the planet.

The problem of climate change must be 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 barrier to economic growth but 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 change will be greater utilisation of renewable energy sources, which will not only have radical implications for the industrial economy but also for agriculture. There is potential for greatly increased production of energy crops and entirely new economic sectors based around the production of energy from the wind and sea.

I note that the proposed Bill recommends the establishment of a body with responsibility for renewable energy. We certainly need a more proactive strategy to promote the development of renewable sources such as wind and wave power. A number of projects have been initiated around the country but it appears the impetus behind many of them has fallen victim to the recession and a lack of imagination on the part of the Government. Not only would such projects help to address the immediate issues of replacing harmful fuels but they would also contribute significantly to employment and growth.

It is important that the recession is not used as an excuse by some developed industrialised countries to renege on their pledges under the Kyoto Protocol to assist developing countries in their efforts to combat the effects of climate change and limit their emissions as their economies grow. This is causing a major political rift between rich and poor states in the United Nations. Less than $1 billion of the $18 billion in adaptation aid pledged by rich countries had been delivered by the time of the Copenhagen summit. According to the UN, between $50 billion and $70 billion needs to be invested annually to help poor countries adapt to extreme floods and droughts.

What happens here may matter little at the global level if the major world economies are not prepared to do what is required in order to address these issues. However, we have to do something and the Bill sets out several useful proposals on framing an overall strategy. It appears to cover all the key areas that would need to be taken into account in framing such a strategy and it references appropriate knowledge and the likely impacts on the overall economy and society. It is important that regular assessments are made of the targets so that further provisions can be made where they are unlikely to be attained. That has been one of the key failings in this and related areas of renewable energy production and domestic bio-fuel production capacity.

In regard to the latter, it is ironic that later today we will discuss the scam pulled by Greencore in destroying the last vestiges of the Irish sugar industry. Deputies from the Green Party as well as my own party spoke about that scam, whereby Greencore was given a State asset for a nominal fee. The asset was used for personal gain by Liam Carroll and others associated with Greencore.

I visited Carlow seven months ago and I am glad to say people there have formed a committee to restore sugar beet processing for the production of either sugar or ethanol. Unfortunately, the buildings that Greencore stole from the taxpayers of this country were demolished, with the notable exception of the tower. I suggest that the purpose of leaving the tower in place is because it will dictate the skyline in any future application for planning permission. Over the years, the processing facilities in Mallow, Thurles and Tuam have all been closed. A fantastic indigenous industry which served this country for more than 80 years has been abandoned.

I hope the strategy being proposed today will be implemented in full. Sinn Féin will support any policy that addresses the issues affecting our environment and, in particular, that guarantees clean energy security. Yesterday, we heard a presentation from Spirit of Ireland, which is encouraging in so far as it offers opportunities for five western counties to create jobs and contribute to the national energy grid.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.