Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Such was the contrast between the Taoiseach’s noble aspirations for urgent action on climate change in his UN speech and his attendance at the EU summit a month later to seek concessions to reduce Ireland’s contribution to climate change improvements, one environmentalist commentator accused him of having had the political equivalent of a lobotomy between the UN conference and the EU summit. It was suggested that the Taoiseach had “taken political recklessness and cynicism to new lows. History may judge that he [the Taoiseach] did more than any other politician of his generation to destroy the future of Irish agriculture”. The last point is important. It is not just the case that the concessions he sought were retrograde in terms of the environment, but what he and other environmentalists have been trying to point out is that the biggest cost we face if we fail to radically reduce our CO2 emissions is damage to agriculture. The cost of that would be far greater than the fines the Taoiseach has used as an excuse for seeking a reduction in the targets, because the biggest victim of the consequences of climate change is agriculture. If we do not deal with flooding in particular, the cost for agriculture will be enormous, the very thing the Taoiseach says he is protecting in seeking concessions from the European Union in terms of the targets. The Joint Research Centre’s report on climate impacts in Europe suggests that agricultural yields across Europe will drop by 11%, and in Ireland by approximately 2%, if radical action is not taken on climate change. That would be a massive hit for Irish agriculture in terms of revenue and growth.

The same report indicated that Ireland and the United Kingdom would be the worst hit by the increase in flooding that has resulted from climate change. We have seen the consequences of that. The Taoiseach has justified seeking concessions on the targets in order to prevent us being levied with fines, but on the other side of the equation, if we fail to deal with the impact of climate change we will incur a far greater cost in terms of reduced agricultural output and damage to agriculture generally. That is why I and many others do not accept the rationale behind the Taoiseach seeking concessions.

The Taoiseach was using quite colourful language suggesting that if we sought to meet these targets we would be completely screwed, as he said. It is interesting to note in the context of the debates about the use of colourful language these days that the Taoiseach himself is quite capable of using such colourful language. One might well say that we will be completely screwed if we do not meet the sort of targets that are being set.

On the issue of forestry, which has been discussed previously in the House, I am glad to hear positive sounds from the Government in this regard but the problem is that the sounds are somewhat like the hyperbole used in the UN speeches. Are the sounds about the expansion of forestry as a carbon sink and improving forest cover being matched with action? They are not. We are spectacularly underperforming in meeting our afforestation targets. We have consistently failed to meet our afforestation targets year after year, despite the fact that we have the most favoured climate for growing trees. Our State forestry company is precluded from contributing significantly to the afforestation programme and the private sector is simply not delivering substantial afforestation. What are we going to do given that we have the perfect conditions to grow trees but we are not hitting anywhere close to our afforestation targets if we are serious about reducing CO2 and using forestry as a climate sink, not to mention the significant spin-off and employment and economic benefits that could come from afforestation? Why is there not a major public State investment in afforestation which would result in those positive spin-offs?

I am unable to tally commitments to dealing with climate change and reducing CO2 emissions with increasing fare costs for those using public transport. It is a contradiction in terms. Fares are going through the roof and are becoming unaffordable for people to the point that it is becoming cheaper to use one's car than to use public transport. While this remains the case, the Taoiseach cannot be serious in talking about reducing CO2 emissions. What are we going to do to reduce public transport fares in order that we expand the use of public transport and therefore contribute to reducing climate change?

See this speech in context