Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Our dependence on fossil fuels means an import bill in excess of €6 billion annually. If it is not substituted by alternative renewable sources, that figure is guaranteed to grow.

It is disappointing that two years into the Government's term in office we still have not had sight of the heads of the proposed climate change Bill. The longer we delay legislation, the further into the future we will place the practical plans that are essential for achieving these targets and - just as importantly - the more it will cost us.

The Bill before the House is intended to deliver a legal framework to reduce emissions and eliminate fossil fuels. It is a two-pronged approach to achieving energy security for Ireland while counteracting climate change. The Bill contains the following specific targets: an interim target of a 40% reduction on the climate change element; an interim target of a 40% reduction by 2030 of six greenhouse gases based on 1990s levels; a primary target of an 80% reduction by 2050 of the same greenhouse gases; and, on the energy security element, a 95% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050, when there might not be many of these fossil fuels left.

The last target concerns fossil fuels and seeks a 95% reduction, which encapsulates the energy security portion of the Bill. To my mind, it is as vital as the emissions reduction target. Our Atlantic coast is currently being explored but one must consider what is happening in some American states with regard to hydraulic fracturing. It is obvious that the easy options are gone and that these resources are in decline.

I have deliberately included specific targets because any Bill purporting to deal with climate change and energy security must contain such figures. I urge Government Deputies, in particular, to pay attention to these targets. There are concerns that the forthcoming Government legislation will not contain specific targets but instead will provide for outline transition plans. I hope the Minister will clarify this point. I do not wish to pre-empt the matter but I would be happy to hear what the Minister has to say about it. I hope he will refer to such targets. A Bill without targets is like setting out on a journey while not knowing the destination. It is essential, therefore, to include targets in the legislation. They are needed as a benchmark for progress.

The Minister runs the lead Department on this issue but there is hardly a Ministry that will not have a responsibility in this matter. They include the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. In addition, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government deals with water, waste, land use, planning and housing.

Individual Ministers may produce draft plans but if they are to achieve them, they must have goals to aim for. Given the enormous role the Government plays in encouraging renewable energy capabilities, it is important to give clear signals to the energy industry. A Bill without targets would make a mockery of our international obligations.

We have entered into an effort-sharing commitment on greenhouse gas emissions that is outside the emissions trading scheme. We have also entered into a binding emissions trajectory for the years 2013 to 2020, so we already have legal obligations in this regard. The Minister may argue that a commitment to targets would leave the Government open to litigation, but this issue has been dealt with before. My Bill states that it is the duty of Government to achieve the goals set out, not an obligation. That means that although the Government is legally obliged to make transition plans to lower emissions and fossil fuel use, the targets in themselves are not justiciable.

This is a method by which other countries have dealt with or overcome the fear of litigation and is one that also is open to the Government. Moreover, it cannot be an excuse for not including targets.

The Bill makes provision for a national energy security and climate change action plan, which is the master plan. Moreover, a crucial provision of the Bill is the establishment of sectoral plans. I acknowledge the Government has discussed these but there must be a framework into which such sectoral plans adhere and that is where I believe the targets should be positioned. The Bill makes provision for the presentation of an annual transition statement by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to Dáil Éireann and the responsibility will be to Dáil Éireann, rather than to the courts. This is the reason I dealt with the issue of potential litigation. To oversee the plan's implementation, the Bill proposes the establishment of the commission on energy security and climate change. This would be an agency with a ministerially-appointed board, the primary role of which would be to advise and make recommendations regarding progress of the national plan and the sectoral plans. Moreover, such a commission would work with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland to conduct research on the most effective methods the Government can adopt to meet its targets based on a review of the latest scientific data on climate change, which obviously will change over time. It is proposed that the commission must make an annual report to the report summarising progress in that year and it makes sense to deal with it in that fashion.

While Ireland obviously has international obligations, I note, for example, that the Kyoto targets are modest and as most Members are aware, these targets may well be renegotiated in 2015. The targets, which at present specify a reduction in emissions of 20% by 2020, may well actually be increased. The targets may well go far beyond that to reductions of upwards of 25% or 30%, which obviously means we cannot delay in dealing with this issue. I believe that legally binding targets are absolutely essential if this is not aspirational but if it is to be practical. Members have seen how difficult it is to negotiate with the European Central Bank. They should imagine the scenario in which we left it to our children to negotiate with the environment. Those who will come after us will face major ecological challenges unless we deal with them now and we have a moral obligation to so do.

Over the past 15 or 20 years, much of the economy revolved around the construction industry and many of the choices were made in the interests of that industry. It crashed the country and I note some of those who have been most affected by this are construction workers themselves. Members cannot allow no lessons to be learned in respect of one industry dictating how things are to happen. For example, everyone agrees the agriculture industry is of enormous importance. However, it is one of the areas that poses most challenges for Ireland in respect of climate change. While Members must work with that industry, that must be done in the full knowledge of the challenges that must be met and faced, rather than pandering to the sector because so doing will not be in that industry's interest, just as it was not in the interest of the construction industry to not face up to what are the obligations. We must work with that industry in a determined way to face up to those challenges.

Another key area of consensus on climate change and energy security policy concerns planning at sectoral level and obviously, the Bill makes provisions in this regard. As I stated earlier, each Minister will have an area of responsibility. A little latitude must be given within those targets because one does not know whether a development might have an impact in this regard. For example, some area might exceed the targets set for it in a way that could be offset against another side. When one breaks down the figures regarding Irish emissions, one can see heightened concentrations in transport and agriculture at approximately 21% and 30%, respectively. As each of these areas contributes more emissions by itself than either the industrial or commercial sectors, Ireland is somewhat different to many of the other European countries in this regard.

See this speech in context