Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to ask approximately five or six questions on this matter. The Taoiseach referred to the International Panel on Climate Change but the Government has essentially taken a step backward in the context of climate change. It has been talking a good game at the United Nations but in reality the issue of climate change has been removed from the domestic debate. That is in stark contrast to the position which obtained in the years prior to the Government entering office. Basically, it has adopted a policy of actively stepping back from taking assertive action since 2011. The former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Commissioner Phil Hogan, was probably of the view that even discussing climate change would have negative electoral consequences. That is something I have noticed in the context of a lack of debate or discussion on climate change. There is no sense that the alarm expressed in the international panel's fifth report has had an impact in Ireland. There is no indication that the catastrophic impacts which will result from climate change, as it unfolds, have entered public discourse here.

Prior to this Government coming to power, Ireland was very active in respect of matters relating to climate change. A broad series of policies were announced and implemented. I refer, in particular, to that which related to seeking an advantage in the context of creating green economy jobs. On reading the speech the Taoiseach delivered to the UN in New York, one might actually believe that he is engaged with regard to this matter and that his Government is highly active in respect of it. The Taoiseach called on his fellow leaders to show conviction, clarity, courage and consistency. Is he of the view that he has shown such conviction, clarity, courage or consistency? In some respects the Taoiseach's speech was cynical in nature. For example, he claimed credit - fair enough - in respect of initiatives which predated his arrival in office. He has not acknowledges this but, in effect, that is what he did. To some extent the claims he made camouflaged the Government's decision to - in terms of the domestic agenda - downgrade climate change since it came to office. In this context, I refer to the fact that initiatives relating to the provision of fast-start finance in respect of clean energy and carbon pricing instruments predate the Government's entry into office and that the concept of developing a green IFSC in order to make Ireland a world leader in supporting the financing of carbon reduction technology was championed by the Taoiseach's predecessor.

I ask the Taoiseach to instruct his legacy-focused Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to come up with some real medium-term objectives and policies on climate change. The draft legislation published by the former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, in early 2013 is more regressive than anything that was produced before. If one contrasts the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Bill of 2010, the Labour Party Bill of 2009 and the all-party Bill with those produced by the current Government, one will see a stark difference, particularly considering that there is a lack of any strategic targets for 2050, for example. I do not know why the Labour Party saw fit to acquiesce in all of this and broke its promise to legislate for the goals it included in its legislation in 2009. That party has now settled for flawed, emasculated legislation, but that is a matter for it. The Bill has been roundly criticised by many environmental organisations and groups for its lack of vision and a meaningful strategic framework.

Deputy Higgins has said deregulated capitalism is the great enemy of action on climate change. I do not necessarily agree with that in the sense that there will always be a will to survive and to do what makes sense economically eventually. I accept that short-term greed can and is clearly getting in the way of meaningful international and global action but, notwithstanding that, there has been a change at European level. Germany's decision to have nuclear-free energy production means it is moving back towards coal production. It is actually encouraging others, including multinationals and other big companies, to start expanding coal production to fuel its economy. It is approaching a crisis in terms of where it will get its energy. It is the bigger states that have taken a decision to be less ambitions in terms of the targets at European level. That is a fact with regard to renewables also. I refer to the scaling down of what were ambitious targets in regard to renewable energy.

The two countries that stand out in terms of having taken a proactive decision to do something about this were the United Kingdom, under Mr. Tony Blair and Mr. Gordon Brown, and Denmark. The United Kingdom saw that climate change could have an economic dividend because of innovations, new technologies and the development of alternative industries right across the board. In Denmark, an industry was made out of renewables and employed up to 30,000 to 40,000 because of targeting 15 to 20 years ago. Denmark would say that it was in the 1970s that it decided to become fossil fuel free. First it got rid of imports and then developed its own oil and gas industry, which will be eliminated by 2050. It has a clear, strategic plan in this regard but we do not have such a plan anymore. I do not get any sense from the Government that it is clear about what it wants to do.

Consider the transport sector. We talk a lot about agriculture and food, on which we are in agreement. We have long been considering forests as comprising a carbon sink that should mitigate against losses. Transport, however, is one of the biggest challenges facing the country. I do not seen any major initiatives emerging from the Government in regard to the transport sector that could reduce our carbon emissions. What is planned for the transport sector in respect of the climate change agenda? We need to play our part but we can do so in a constructive and productive way that could actually yield jobs in the future and that need not undermine economic growth or recovery.

See this speech in context