Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this long-awaited Bill. Over the past couple of years I have asked this Minister and the previous one when we would see the Bill. It is good that we now have it. The issue of climate change is the biggest challenge facing our generation and we have a responsibility to those coming behind us, our children, grandchildren and the developed world, to take action.

Unfortunately, Ireland's five-year action plan on climate change expired in 2012 and we are now in the year of our Lord 2015. The legislation is weak, flakey and very much Fine Gael and Phil Hogan's Bill. It is a disappointment. It is not impractical to suggest that this State will address the fact that Ireland has one of the highest levels of greenhouse gas emissions per person in the European Union. According to the EPA, the State will not meet its EU 2020 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20%.

There is no definition of low carbon economy in the Bill. I heard the Minister's point, but that should not stop us having a definition of what we want as a community and society. It is disappointing that is not in the Bill, which is vague in terms of sectoral allocations and targets. We are dealing with five year as opposed to seven year plans, which was in the original proposal. I welcome the change the Government has made, but the five year plans need to be debated and adopted by the Dáil. It is not just the Government which has to implement these measures; this is a matter for society. All political parties and citizens have to be on board with this project.

The expert advisory panel needs to be independent of Government. What the Government has proposed does not constitute a completely independent panel. The Minister said we can deal with climate justice in policy. We need to compel this and future Governments to deal with the issue in the Bill. The legislation falls short of what is required.

The Bill is not adequate in terms of following on from the action plan on climate change which ended in 2012. It had specific targets based on the Kyoto Protocol. There is no excuse, particularly in light of the fact that the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, with which I and other Members are involved, had all-party support when setting out its proposals in a report in 2013.

I hope that when the Bill goes to Committee Stage we can work on it in the same spirit in which we worked on the report. The previous Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, former Deputy Phil Hogan, gave the impression that the report would be considered favourably. Of course, there was the usual public consultation, which led to over 600 submissions, most of which recommended the setting of definite targets to be legislated for. This was ignored.

It is worthwhile comparing the committee report with the Bill in order to highlight the deficiencies. The main fault is that it does not include set targets. The report indicated that Ireland's existing annual emission limits, as agreed in March 2013 under the European Union effort sharing decision or any further modification of these, should be written into the Bill as a target for the 2013 to 2020 period. I brought a Bill to the Dáil and during discussions on that and other issues, I mentioned the need to avoid carbon cliffs. We have a carbon cliff in front of us now, and it would be worse if we had not had a recession. We are gradually ramping up emissions and, based on economic growth and other factors, we will not meet the targets, so we will have to deal with that carbon cliff.

The report from the committee also recommended that the annual emission limits for the ten-year period from 2020 and up to 2050 should be the same as those agreed by member states under the European Union's Roadmap 2050, with this embodied within the legislation. There has been some debate about the likely implications that the climate change strategy will have on the agricultural sector, and rightly so. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, has referred to the need to take account of the particular importance of the food sector. The committee report recognises the strategic national importance of the agricultural sector and must also recognise that climate change has an adverse effect on the community and on farming incomes.

The Teagasc report on the 2012 fodder crisis outlined additional feed costs of €390 million, with output losses at €64 million, meaning the crisis cost the agricultural sector more than €450 million. Some people have the mistaken belief that we can ignore climate change and we do not have to deal with it, although there may be an impact on agriculture. The Teagasc report confirms that. While trying to maintain output, we must ensure we can take measures to mitigate against the consequences. A future of fodder crises and flooded corn fields is not right either. All sections of society must buy into this process. In light of the committee's report, it should be noted that other sectors are possibly best placed to make the radical reductions in emissions from current levels, although agriculture must play its part in the overall strategy to reduce the country's emissions. The report therefore recommended that future agricultural emissions up to 2050 should be made on the basis of zero emissions growth relative to 2013 levels. Unfortunately, the Bill avoids such commitments.

The committee report refers to the concept of climate justice. We must recognise that there is not a level playing field. Trócaire and others have stressed the inequalities that exist on a global scale and the fact that people in developing countries suffer greatly from the impact of dramatic climate change. A women from the Philippines was here yesterday. It is a country made up of islands and we have seen television images of what those people have suffered as a result of climate change. One could not be left unmoved by what is happening to people in the Pacific Ocean, particularly those who live on small islands. We have an obligation to those people, as we are producing far more greenhouse gases per head of population than they are. Over recent decades we have seen the consequences of drought and disaster caused by extreme events in the Philippines and other countries. The impact of such events is greatly exacerbated by the fact that these underdeveloped countries do not have the infrastructure to cope with such disasters. Poorer-quality housing and physical infrastructure means that the consequences of hurricanes and typhoons, for example, are far greater than they are in developed countries. The emergency and relief services are not as well able to cope with those consequences and the impact on local people.

There are contradictions with regard to the climate change issue in developing countries. Some feel that the onus of addressing climate change and implementing measures to reduce emissions should fall mainly on developed economies. Countries such as China and India have claimed that the industrialised West has enjoyed the fruits of fossil-fuel-based development and is now attempting to impose restrictions on developing countries that are trying to catch up. There is some merit in that argument, and recognition has been given to this with respect to the different targets for different global regions in international agreements. However, we all share the same Earth and it is impossible to ring-fence any part of the planet, or a country, where continued high emission levels could be allowed. I hope that not only will this continue to form the basis of international agreements but that we will also make more rapid progress towards replacing fossil fuels with renewable resources.

Developing countries have bought into that agenda, not only for environmental reasons but also, in many cases, to reduce their economic dependence on fossil fuels. This country is overly dependent on imported fossil fuels and it is disappointing that we have not been more proactive in forming a strategy to deal with climate change. The Bill fails to do this. It also fails to form a more cohesive energy strategy. Instead of seriously examining the advantages we have in terms of renewable energy, we seem to be content to allow the agenda be driven by external economic interests. That was certainly the case with the now almost abandoned proposals to cover the midlands with wind farms in order to export electricity to Britain. Instead, we should be planning for a radical reduction in fossil fuels, and we should be at the forefront in generating energy from other sources. Wind could play a part in this.

One of the weaknesses in the Bill is that local authorities and development are not included, which is odd. The local authority of a county such as Laois should be given a significant role with regard to a mitigation plan. Within those mitigation plans, there should be a large role for local governance. Laois is a good example because of the proposed haphazard wind farm developments. The most recent casualty is Cullenagh mountain, which is now to be designated as a site for giant turbines, and the implications have not been thought through properly. We all want to develop the green economy and alternative sources of energy, but this Government seems to have put all its eggs in the wind farm basket. We have seen the effects in Counties Laois and Offaly. The potential of other sources, such as biomass, has not been given the same priority, despite the fact there is much potential in the midlands to grow willow. Forestry waste and other products are also available.

There is also an abundance of hydroelectric power.

I know hydropower will never produce the amount of electricity that is required to meet our current usage, but no single source will do that. Many sources will be required. Rivers such as the Barrow, Nore, Erkina and White Horse have mill sites on them. What investigation or study has been carried out on those sites from Portarlington to the south of the county and from Castletown across to the edge of Carlow town, the county boundary of Laois and Carlow, to establish the potential for producing some of our energy from hydropower? Indeed, are we doing enough with regard to geothermal energy? We are talking about solving the problems of the world here and we are trying to live up to our national obligations, but this must be done locally as well. We must take another look at the proposals and how we have gone about meeting our alternative energy needs. Instead of what we have been doing, we should be planning for a radical reduction in the use of imported fossil fuels and, in particular, we should be at the forefront of developing energy, particularly electricity, from other sources.

As part of addressing the global nature of the impact of climate change, the environment committee recommended that climate change legislation should provide for the establishment of a national green climate fund, separate from the environment fund. This would be used to support climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries and would constitute Ireland's contribution to an international green climate fund established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It would receive funding from carbon taxes, emissions trading profits and other environmental taxes. It would not receive funds from the existing overseas aid budget. Unfortunately, it is another of the report's recommendations that was ignored in drafting the Bill. Seven of the ten recommendations were ignored.

The most serious defect in this Bill is that while the report recommended that legislation should contain mitigation plans to address the emissions, the Bill only provides for the drawing up of such plans. That is not the role of legislation. Legislation is about setting the statutory parameters for State action rather than acting as another discussion document or paper or to establish a discussion forum, as this Bill appears to do. The time for discussion is over. We have had a national strategy and we have had debates. A substantial body of work about what is needed has been drawn up and agreed across party lines through the environment committee. Instead we have a Bill that appears to be ticking boxes, perhaps to appear as if we are dealing with this issue. In fact, we are only creating new and vague substitutes for planning and implementing the measures that are required to address a global problem in our national context.

The vagueness applies to the entire Bill. Normally when a Bill dealing with such a serious issue is brought before the House, it is possible to identify specific sections and proposals that can be debated in respect of their implications. If people disagree with them, they can suggest and table amendments. In this legislation, however, there is very little substance. For example, section 4 refers to the Minister submitting a national low-carbon transition mitigation plan to the Government. The purpose of the plan is described as setting out measures that are needed to achieve "the national transition objectives". Why does the Bill not cut through all of that? We have waited a long time for the legislation, so why in all that time was it not possible to draft a Bill that would embody the objectives and targets, without having to go through this additional delay? According to section 4, the first plan does not have to be presented to the Government until 2017. We have already lost three years because we have freewheeled for the past three years. Assuming the Bill is enacted, the plan will go through a period of assessment and amendment before being approved by the Government of the day.

Section 5 refers to a further national climate change adaptation framework to be presented by the Minister of the day, again within the same time period. Presumably, the adaptation plan will form the parameters of the sectoral adaptation plans which will be submitted from each Department that has relevance to the areas concerned with reducing emissions. Prior to framing and presenting such plans there will be consultation with people within each of the sectors, followed by public consultation. After all of that, the Government may amend or modify the sectoral plans before proceeding.

I do not wish to be cynical but we appear to be facing a long, drawn-out process, with no definite targets set and flaky timeframes and parameters for what will emerge. It is not necessary to reinvent the wheel here. We know what must be done from our work in the committee, the committee's reports, the presentations made to the committee, what has happened at EU and the wider international levels and from public opinion. It is not a mystery. The targets are in place and they should be part of the legislation. What we have been presented with instead is an expanded heads of a Bill which puts everything on the very long finger and commits this State to do little. There will possibly be penguins washed up in Dollymount before we have this process completed.

The Minister has followed his predecessor's attitude to climate change and that is represented in the Bill before us. The big disappointment for Sinn Féin is the fact that there is no definition of a low-carbon economy and that the Bill is vague on sectoral allocations and targets. We welcome that there will be five year plans, but these must be debated and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. As I said earlier, we must get everybody on board on this issue. This is not only a matter for the Government. It must bring the Opposition and society with it on this issue, as well as industry, agriculture, construction, transport and local authorities. The Minister is responsible for local authorities, and there will be no success without the local authorities being central to the implementation of any plans to create a low carbon society. It cannot be done without them. They must be given that role. Their role has been rolled back in recent years and they have lost several areas of responsibility. It is time to involve them centrally in this issue.

The expert advisory council must be fully independent of the Government. I also appeal to the Minister to consider the issue of climate justice. We put money into boxes at times for the Third World and we give donations to Trócaire - I almost said the troika - or Concern.

See this speech in context