Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

However, Deputy Broughan did refer to the issue of energy costs and even if one considers it on a practical level, I note that people get it and are way ahead of the curve. They understand that fossil fuels are expensive and are becoming more expensive. They understand this because it is having an impact on their budgets on a weekly basis. In the credit union reports produced quarterly , this issue comes up repeatedly as being a major source of concern. Deputy Kevin Humphreys stated he was committed to working with all parties and none. I completely take this at face value and it is really important that Members engage in this together in an honest way. Deputy Joan Collins spoke in a practical way about the importance of measures such as insulation in the home. They are fairly basic measures and unless such measures are taken in a systematic way, we will run into difficulties.

Australia and Britain have been referenced with regard to the visible impact of climate change, and they are First World countries. We could see the effects with fire storms and floods but the effects in poorer countries are not so visible. Food security is also of significant importance, as climate change will have a serious impact.

Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned the big civilisations of the past, which was a useful input in that it indicated how we must plan for the long term by taking short-term steps. Planning is a key issue. Targets are not a straitjacket but they relate to leadership. I accept Deputy Doyle's point about having some flexibility in targets, and this Bill sought to bring that about. I welcome that both Deputies Eoghan Murphy and Brendan Griffin agreed about the need for targets, and it seems there is some consensus in that regard within some of the political parties. The last Administration seemed to be very close to producing legislation, and we may have been discussing a different range of issues if it had done so.

There will be deeper obligations after 2020, which is why planning is so important. If the choices we make now are correct, there may well be a cumulative effect, making it easier for us to deliver on our obligations into the future. We must examine what we do and consider using leading edge technology. In my constituency, Intel does not speak of research and development but rather leading edge technology, which is a phase beyond research and development and there is production direction from innovation. That is why the company is a world leader and we must understand such thinking.

I will refer to some of the points made in the debate. Our emissions have fallen in the past few years because of a fall in economic activity in the country. Our ambition is to grow the economy to get out of our economic mess, so it is paradoxical to rely on a fall in economic activity when we are trying to achieve the opposite. We must exchange a drop in economic activity with different initiatives to help us achieve targets. The Kyoto Protocol targets may be revised in 2015 and there is every expectation that it will be an upward revision. There will be greater expectations of delivery than is currently the case.

Science is developing in the climate change area. If something looks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and if we can see massive changes in the weather systems, that should tell us something. I need not say how expensive it is to address such problems. For example, we can consider how buildings were placed on flood plains, and in my constituency good - albeit expensive - work has been done by the Office of Public Works to overcome some problems. We cannot continue to do this, and prevention will only come about through dealing with obligations and seeing ourselves as part of the international community.

Our economy cannot afford to ignore a process of making changes. In 2004, crude oil was $30 per barrel, and the same barrel was $144 in 2008 and $100 today. We must pay attention to the cost of fuels. If we provide renewable resources for the future, doing business in the country will become cheaper, so we must examine the leading edge technologies. One can consider the behaviour in Japan after the nuclear plant catastrophe, as a light bulb is not left on for longer than required, with people becoming very conscious of how important it is to conserve energy. That is a key issue in changing behaviour. Energy scavenging has become a real practice, with people trying to use small sources, such as thermal energy. Devices on the roadside, for example, use solar energy for fuel. There is much to be done to integrate renewable systems into the carbon generators, and there will be space for energy conservation, with demand reduction a critical path of innovation. Work is ongoing in colleges but this could be ramped up and seen as an investment.

Private sector investment will be required with direct investment in innovation. It is important that we do not allow opportunities to dry up by allowing people to go elsewhere, and it is important that we send the right signals. We want to be at the leading edge. Interconnectors are very important, and we have great natural assets like wave power on our Atlantic and east coasts.

Deputy Doyle mentioned that the majority of our emissions do not come from the classic sources as they do in the big industrial countries on mainland Europe. Some 72% of our total emissions are outside the emissions trading system, with transport, residential and agricultural sectors being the bigger culprits. Transport and agricultural sectors account for 50% of total national emissions in 2009, and the percentage climbs when we exclude emissions trading system, ETS, emissions.

A review of national climate change policy published by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in 2011 states:

In terms of national policy development, mitigation across the non-ETS side of the economy is an immediate priority given the unusual national emissions profile and an extremely challenging mitigation target for the sector under EU law - a 20% reduction on 2005 levels by 2020. Notwithstanding the fact that the economic downturn has led to a reduction in anticipated emissions, substantial mitigation policy actions are required in order to deliver compliance with this target.

Elsewhere, the same document states:

When greenhouse gas emissions from Irish installations participating in the ETS are excluded from the national profile, the mitigation agenda is dominated by emissions from the agriculture and transport sectors. Recent greenhouse gas emission projections from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [the agency that is, for want of a better description, keeping tabs on us] show that, even under the most optimistic scenario, Ireland cannot meet its 2020 mitigation target on the basis of existing policies and measures, and a further deepening of these measures would be required to achieve compliance domestically.

This is the view of the Department. In April 2011, the Environmental Protection Agenda warned of the difficulty of achieving the 20% target.

See this speech in context