Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is regrettable that the Minister used his opening remarks to have a go at the new Government arrangement, perhaps to grab a headline. Anyway, I have a little more sympathy for the Minister, having listened to the spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, who tried to tell us that agriculture was not a problem in respect of climate change. It is an absolutely established fact that livestock emissions are equivalent to the emissions from all forms of transport. It is this type of blinkered denial that will put our planet on a collision course unless we deal with the reality of the causes of the problem.

At the Paris climate conference last September, Ireland signed up to a deal that committed us to reaching a peak on greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and keeping the global temperature increase well below 2° Celsius, as well as pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

After 2020 we will have to rein in our remissions extensively, but the plans are not in place to realise this. The intended nationally determined contributions submitted by countries during the Paris negotiations served to put meat on the bones in respect of how this would be done. However, they will not deliver the targets set out. Even the targets are inadequate to deal with the consequences, as they would limit the global temperature rise to 2.7° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Such a rise would be catastrophic in terms of the implications for life as we know it, and it would primarily, although not exclusively, affect the poorest people in the world. As Naomi Klein put it, such a change will mean a hotter, colder, wetter, thirstier, hungrier and angrier planet.

During the debate on the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill, we argued that the targets put forward at Paris were completely inadequate. We said we needed to be committed to an 80% reduction by 2050 to keep the planet from crossing the Rubicon. If I heard the Minister correctly earlier, he said that the Paris agreement was his political highlight and his greatest moment. If so, then it is a somewhat regrettable moment, because in fact the agreement is a shameful document.

We have spoken many times in the House about the various contributors to climate change. One particular contributor has fallen out of the spotlight recently. I make this point in the context of agriculture being one of the key offenders. One of the contributors that has come in under the radar is the aviation sector. It is the most carbon-intensive mode of transport, but the sector has been incredibly quiet during all the international talks. I wonder whether that is possibly because the United Nations COP 21 talks were funded and sponsored by Air France and airports throughout Paris, among others. This must be addressed. I make this point as a former airport worker - it is where I earned my livelihood. Dublin Airport and its carriers are the biggest employers in my constituency. I make the point as someone who accepts that Ireland is an island nation. I fully accept that air transport is going to be the key mode of international transport and vital for access to markets for a country like Ireland. That is a fact and we cannot ignore it. However, we cannot look at this in a one-sided way. Any discussion on expansion in aviation must be seen in the context of achieving targets laid down in the Paris agreement if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. If we are to succeed, then all sectors have to play their part, including the aviation sector.

Let us examine some of the decisions recently in that regard. We are saying one thing but doing something very different when it comes to things that have an impact on our climate. We saw the recent fanfare as a result of the DAA's announcement that a second runway would be developed at Dublin Airport after many years of waiting. We were told it would be great and that thousands of jobs would be delivered with the construction of the runway. If a far more environmentally friendly option such as the metro north was to be delivered, it would similarly bring thousands of good environmentally friendly construction jobs, and I imagine they would pay equally well. Anyway, we were told this would be brilliant and that it would bring large numbers of tourists to Ireland, develop connectivity and so on. However, a plethora of flights to Alicante or Malta does not bring tourists to Ireland or boost the local economy. In fact, one could argue that the only economies to benefit would be the economies in Alicante, Malta and so on.

When we make decisions in aviation we should not make them solely on economic grounds. We should undertake a cost-benefit analysis that takes in environmental considerations as well. In that context, a questionable decision of the last Government was highlighted clearly by Andrew Murphy of the Brussels-based Transport & Environment lobby group. He highlighted a number of decisions we made. Last August the outgoing Government, of which the Minister, Deputy Kelly, was a member, announced €42.5 million to prop up loss-making airports throughout Ireland. This involved taking money from the capital expenditure budget in some instances and putting it into certain airports, including the airports in Kerry, Donegal and Waterford, and, of course, Ireland West Airport Knock, in the Taoiseach's constituency.

It is a fact that Ireland's internal connectivity has improved considerably. It is far easier for people to get to Dublin, Belfast, Shannon or Cork airports, no matter where they live in Ireland, than it was before. There is no need to boost loss-making local airports whose carriers go to many foreign destinations. Clearly, some parts of the country would benefit from subsidy. The Dublin to Donegal route and the Kerry to Dublin route are examples. There is a considerable distance to be travelled in those cases, but it would be far more efficient to put money into the public service obligation scheme, which subsidises specific routes, rather than backing up loss-making airports.

Another big question is the second runway at Dublin Airport. Dublin Airport is close to capacity, although not quite at capacity. We should consider all the incentives that the aviation sector gets. The aviation business is exempt from fuel tax and VAT. There is no level playing field in this regard and we need to look at these areas. Climate change campaigners were gutted when the industry was excluded from the COP 21 commitments. Some of the foremost environmental campaigners have commented on the aviation sector. Dr. Alice Bows Larkin stated, in Climate Policy: "Ultimately, an uncomfortable and familiar conclusion for aviation remains: a moratorium on airport expansion at least in wealthy nations is one of the few options available to dampen growth rates within a timeframe befitting of the 2 °C target." We must consider the plans for Dublin Airport on that basis. Planning permission was given in 2007, almost ten years ago. Our knowledge of climate change and its environmental impact has improved considerably since then. It would be completely negligent on our part if we were to allow that development to take place without evaluating it according to modern standards and on the basis of modern criteria. In fact, the airport is not beyond capacity. The problem is the morning slots between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. All of the airline carriers want to use these slots, although not necessarily to benefit passengers. Some of them will benefit, such as those among the business clientele going to Heathrow. That makes sense. However, a person going on holidays to Malta has no wish to get out of bed at 5 a.m. only to sit around all day waiting to check in to a hotel.

The decision to have such capacity at that time is to suit the airlines, allowing them to get their aircraft back so they can send them out again on a return leg. Already the Dublin Airport Authority, DAA, despite the restrictions put in by An Bord Pleanála for the very good reason of limiting flights between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., intends to build the runway and say afterwards it cannot live with that restriction. It will blackmail the local communities, although we know that noise pollution is incredibly damaging and not just a minor irritant. Long-term exposure to noise is linked to increased high blood pressure, heart disease, heart attacks, strokes, dementia and so on. Analysis of noise in schools located near runways has shown that it inhibits children's learning. All of these factors have an impact on human health and on broader environmental considerations. When we have these debates we should get down to brass tacks and forget about the lofty statements. Such statements are important but the Government needs to evaluate decisions against those lofty aspirations. When it does it will see it has failed miserably in terms of climate change.

See this speech in context