Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:“(d) the principle of climate justice.”.

The principle of climate justice is based on the idea that there is an ecological debt owed by the north to the south. We in the highly industrialised north are most responsible for the build-up of atmospheric carbon. We pulled ourselves out of poverty by enormous usage of dirty fuel. If we do not want poorer countries to get out of poverty in the same way we did, we have to help them pay the bill. Developed countries represent less than 20% of the world's population, yet we have emitted around 70% of all the greenhouse gas pollution that is now destabilising the climate. To pay this debt, we have to do two things. We need to finance poorer countries in their switch to clean development models, and we have to lead the way in the move towards a carbon-free economy.

In effect, if the Government recognises and appreciates the principle of climate justice, then we must be committed to the national emissions targets which will hold our law-makers accountable. We must set the targets at levels even more ambitious than those which will come from Europe. In order for that to happen, we need the political will. We need politicians who are not afraid to put the interests of the people of Earth before the interests of those who profit from pollution and extractionism.

Recently, a coalition of more than 400 organisations called on the White House to stop issuing new fossil fuel leases on public lands and oceans. More than 67 million acres of public land and ocean are already leased to the fossil fuel industry. The coalition says that declaring unleased oil, gas and coal on public lands as unburnable would accomplish more in the global fight against climate change than any other single action taken by the Obama Administration.

We need to stop the profiteering of the fossil fuel industry. There are thee central steps which we must take if we are serious about the principle of climate justice. First, we must stop issuing fossil fuel leases on our public lands and oceans. That means no more oil and gas drilling, and no fracking licences. Second, we need to divest from fossil fuel companies any funds which are connected to the public purse strings. Third, we need to properly enforce the polluter pays principle.

The vast fossil fuel subsidies estimated by the IMF for 2015 include payments, tax breaks and cut-price fuel. The largest part is the cost left unpaid by polluters and picked up by governments, including the heavy impacts of local air pollution and the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change. In May, the IMF published a global annual estimate of $5.3 trillion of fossil fuel subsidies. It calculated that ending fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emissions by 20%, a huge step towards taming global warming. Ending the subsidies would also prevent 1.6 million premature deaths from outdoor air pollution, a 50% cut. The money freed by ending fossil fuel subsidies could be an economic game changer for many countries, says the IMF, by driving economic growth and poverty reduction.

Christina Figueres, the UN climate change chief charged with delivering a deal to beat global warming at a crunch summit in December, said, "The IMF data reveal a simple and stunning truth: that fossil fuel subsidy reform alone would deliver far more funds than is required for the global energy transformation we need to keep the world below a 2°C temperature rise [the level Governments have promised to hold them to]".

In April, the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, told the Guardianthat it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. He said they should be scrapped immediately as poorer nations were feeling the boot of climate change on their necks. According to the recent IMF figures, this year Ireland will subsidise fossil fuel companies to the tune of $1.22 billion. That is $262 per head, up from $1.09 billion in 2013. A real commitment to the principle of climate justice would mean that we would stop this insane practice, curb emissions and have money to fund both our own and other nations' transition. Not only are we failing to do this at present, we have a long track record of corporate welfare, and investing in the fossil fuel companies is at the heart of the problem. The last published report from the National Pensions Reserve Fund was for 2013. It showed that, of the 30 largest fossil fuel companies in the world, we had invested in 22 of them. If those 22 companies alone burned their current reserves, it would mean an increase of over 1° Celsius in the global temperature.

While we in Ireland are not feeling the effects of climate change so strongly, other countries are being wiped off the map. The Irish Government, not content that it has presided over the most dramatic rise in inequality in recent history at home by failing to acknowledge climate justice, is becoming a central player in furthering the rise in inequality at a global level. In light of the Minister's claim that he endorses the principle of climate justice, his dogged refusal to make any commitments on national targets of any kind in the legislation does not add up. He is effectively demonstrating that the Bill is solely cosmetic and cannot serve to implement meaningful action on climate change.

The UN climate chief, Ms Christiana Figueres, has warned that carbon emission reduction targets are not yet good enough. She warned on 16 September that "the targets for carbon emission reduction that 62 nations which account for 70% of emissions have so far submitted for agreement in Paris are not good enough to keep global warming below 2°C". Climate scientists have been telling us that this decade is the one that matters for climate action if we are to combat the devastating effects of climate change and to tackle catastrophic global warming. However, all amendments that refer to any specific targets have been disqualified on the grounds that they would impose a cost on the Exchequer. This is an insane position in light of what is at stake. This position is not just extremely short-sighted and narrow-minded considering that the cost in human lives and the cost to the Exchequer will be astronomical. If we do not get our act together, it will cost us, according to our own figures, a fortune in fines alone. We are currently on course for serious fines for failing to meet our climate change mitigation targets. According to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the cost to the Exchequer of purchasing compliance will be in the billions of euro by 2030 in a business-as-usual scenario.

I do not understand the logic of wiping out amendments on the basis that they could cost the Exchequer money. Many proposals cost the Exchequer money. Some of them are a good idea while some of them might not be but the Government should examine the rule. I do not know where the rule comes from but I believe it is in place. If so, it should definitely be addressed because if we continue with this approach, there will be less chance of our being able to organise this country in a more progressive way and addressing problems such as climate change.

See this speech in context