Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

It is a couple of months since we initiated this discussion. I will not repeat the points I made at the last session but, in essence, this amendment is about national emissions reduction targets and Ireland leading the way in tackling climate change. We are trying to make the point that one cannot measure progress unless there is a starting point from which to refer, and this is what the amendment seeks to provide.

While I do not intend to repeat the points I started with, there are some matters that must be clarified in this regard. It is not an airtight commitment to a 2050 target. Even if what the Government is proposing could be construed as such, the Government policy only references carbon dioxide and none of the highly dangerous greenhouse gases listed in the amendment. As I said on the last occasion, in the first two decades after its release methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Both types of emissions must be addressed if we wish to reduce effectively the impact of climate change.

A large number of amendments were ruled out of order on Committee Stage because they referred to emissions target reductions. It was argued, without any supporting detailed documentation, that reduction targets cost the Exchequer money and they were ruled out of order because Opposition Deputies cannot put forward amendments which cost the Exchequer money.

We do not accept that rationale because they are not taking into account the fact that climate change mitigation measures will save the Exchequer a fortune in reality, never mind that the failure to implement real and lasting climate change mitigation measures will actually cost the State billions in damages, as well as potentially wiping out the human race, which is by the by. Those factors have not been taken into account in ruling those amendments out of order.

If we wanted proof of the failure of so-called modern democracy to serve the interests of the public good rather than the self-interest of the political establishment, this argument says it all. What the Government is putting forward is incredibly short-sighted. On Committee Stage, the Minister said, "Setting out such definitions here is completely unnecessary as both legally binding EU and international instruments establish such matters in a far more comprehensive manner". This stands as a perfect example of what Peter Mair saw as the externalisation of policy commitments to non-democratic decision makers. What we have unfolding here is politicians divesting themselves of responsibility for potentially unpopular policy decisions in order to cushion themselves from potential voter discontent in the future.

It is this trend that has been responsible for a bottoming out of Western democracy. It is one of the reasons we have such lack of participation and support for the political establishment across Europe. The weakness of the Bill is indicative of this process and of the whole process of neoliberalism itself, where the interests of the market are being put ahead of the interests of the public. It is precisely as a result of this mentality that we will have a continuation of austerity when, really, the crisis is demanding that we should have wartime-type investment in the public sector to boost our defences and to keep global temperature increases below 2° Celsius. That requires massive investment in public transport and so on, but the neoliberal ideology is pointing in a different way, and is prioritising the next quarter's GDP figures ahead of the future of humanity and the need to take society forward.

We are moving this amendment based on the points made. It is critically important this would be inserted in the Bill.

See this speech in context