Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is very timely that we debate the report in the week in which the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill was, finally, published. It gives the House a chance to see the weight of such committee reports and the bearing they have on policy making. It is a coincidence that they both happened this week because this was due to be debated in December but was postponed because the Friday sitting was used for Government business. Ironically, the same week the heads of the legislation were published in 2013, we debated my energy security and climate change Bill, which the Government did not accept. I did not envisage it would take so long to get even this far.

I thank Professor John Sweeney, who, with the committee, put much effort into the preparation of the report. I thank all those who came before the committee and contributed. There were some very interesting contributions that many of us felt would be valuable when the time came to debate the legislation. Many of us thought the report should have gone much further and should have made very specific recommendations, however we went with a balanced report because we thought it would increase the chance that most of the recommendations would be included in the legislation. Unfortunately, some of the key issues it highlighted have not found their way into the legislation. The Bill got more scrutiny than most legislation. This is the seventh such Bill that has been presented in the past ten years, including my Bill in 2013 and two by the Government, including this one. We have a history of proposing legislation on this without passing it.

The committee engaged in two weeks of intensive deliberations across the sectors. Representatives of the agriculture sector made some very interesting contributions, and agriculture will present us with the most difficulties in making sectoral plans. I was very impressed with the BirdWatch Ireland representatives who talked to us about the carbon sink the bogs could provide. Given that the hearings were broad ranging, it is disappointing that some of the conclusions did not find their way into the legislation. The overwhelming weight of witness opinion favoured legally binding emissions reduction targets. This was reflected in the definition on page 17 of the report. The Minister is wrong; a definition of the criteria was included in the report, which specified:

(1) Near zero emissions for 2050 in the Energy, Buildings and Transport Sectors;

(2) Carbon neutrality in the Agricultural sector.

The report stated very clearly:

Since the objective of the legislation is ultimately to change behaviour and facilitate the achievement of national goals in respect of climate change mitigation, a measure of what the ultimate effort entails is necessary. Only by having a specific objective can indicators of progress be monitored.

The Bill contains no such language and no specific objectives other than those of our EU and international commitments. It contains no sector-specific targets or interim targets. If we do not have a balance in our sectoral plans, one sector will have to compensate for another sector that does not contribute an equal share. For example, we could have to counter what we do not do in agriculture with a major investment in mitigating the damage done by the transport sector, for example by delivering a very efficient public transport system. We could have to consider the retrofitting of people's homes. An initiative at European level would be needed to deliver on some of these initiatives.

The report was very prescriptive on individual sectors, recommending a target of carbon neutrality in agriculture by 2050 with interim report targets in 2020, 2030 and 2040. Under this Bill, I can conceive of no possible way this goal can be achieved, especially given the intensive production targets envisaged in Food Harvest 2020. I would like to be proven wrong on this. No thought has been given to the specific recommendation that the Government encourage sustainable forms of agriculture by investigating an agricultural emissions trading scheme at EU level. While perhaps this is not directly for this legislation, a wider debate and initiative could happen.

The report recommended incorporating the principles of climate justice into domestic legislation. Those least well equipped to handle climate change will be most affected by it in Bangladesh, southern Asia, Africa and the Pacific Islands. We have an international obligation. The Government has, again, ignored this recommendation and is determined to do as little as possible on climate justice by declining to sign up to the international Green Climate Fund, which is designed to help the poorest and most disadvantaged to make the changes necessary to reduce emissions. Most industrialised countries are the ones which have caused the most damage.

The committee’s report refers to the expert advisory body. There was a very strong consensus and a push on the part of the Labour Party that this body be an independent body, and it is critical. Deputy Ciarán Lynch, or possibly the Minister of State himself, constantly made the point that it should be along the lines of the Fiscal Advisory Council. However, the legislation has dropped this recommendation. Energy security came up several times during the debate. It is vital that we have fossil fuel reduction targets. We are very dependent on fossil fuel imports, with more than 90% of our fuel imported and only 80 days of reserves. We spend approximately €8 billion per year on importing oil and gas.

At no point in the process of the preparation of national and sectoral plans did the urgency of action seem to dawn on the Government. This lazy, irresponsible approach has been reflected again in the inclusion of an incredibly long wait, until 2017. It is not 12 months but 24 months. The Government is passing the responsibility on to the next Government. It should be heavily criticised for this aspect alone. The more we push it out to the future, the more we put the obligation onto future generations who will not only pick up the pieces of the financial crash but also the tab for the environmental damage of previous generations and today's. We have a responsibility into the future.

The EPA has estimated that starting in 2016, our non-ETS emissions will be at such a level as to make it impossible to achieve the 2020 targets. These are the people who will monitor the situation and have oversight of it. Therefore, we should pay attention to them.

Let us look briefly at the initiatives being taken by the Government, even before we come to this legislation. We collect a carbon tax, but this is not a real carbon tax, as it is not spent on initiatives that will produce a change in behaviour. In regard to public transport, we need a fiscal expansion that recognises the investment coming from both domestic and European funds if we are to be serious about achieving targets. In regard to the Aarhus Convention, it must mean something, rather than the notion that consultation is some sort of box ticking exercise. We must deliver on the Aarhus Convention and make it meaningful to communities. The failure in this regard is the reason we are at war over different types of production of renewable energy.

See this speech in context