Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am glad the Minister raised those issues because we need to have that debate. I fundamentally disagree that the 20% reduction target we set for 2020 was a pig in a poke or an impossible target. It was absolutely achievable to my mind, but it depends on the extent of political ambition. It also depends on whether one sees it as an imposition or an opportunity. I see it as the latter. I know the rest of the public administrative system does not see it that way because we fought with them tooth and nail on it. The fact that we do not think it is achievable or that it is a huge imposition to try to achieve it, means we are not achieving it. That is a fundamental problem. We were heading in that direction back in 2011. Our emission reduction targets were 14% over the previous five years. Half of that was due to the recession, but the other half was due to the introduction of ambitious political measures to achieve energy efficiency, promote renewables and promote better transport efficiency. I therefore disagree and think it was fundamentally achievable.

We now have a big problem, however, because if one looks at the figures today the target we are setting for 2030 is our 2020 target. We effectively got away with a 20% reduction, even though the headline is 30% if one takes out the pass. It will be an expensive pass but we will get a pass on the ETS side and the agricultural side. Effectively, therefore, we are 10% less and are back in 2030 to our 2020 targets.

My fear is that the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and every other Government Department, including Finance, which do not have the same ambition as the Minister to try to make this change will not give him the political space or capital to increase his budget three or five-fold, which is what I think we need to do. My concern is that we will miss out on the economic opportunity from it.

As regards Deputy Smith's amendment on community ownership, I have heard the argument expressed widely that there is a social justice issue involved. If, for example, we allow people to create and generate their own power there may be knock-on consequences for others. That fear should not hold the Minister back from freeing up Irish people's ability. The scale it will take for that to become an issue is five, ten, 15 or 20 years away. We have to win over that section of the public who want to do it. The benefit of that, as the Minister said, will be the barrel of oil not used, which will far outweigh any other knock-on effect such as who is paying for the grid. That can be managed.

For too many years I have heard people use that as an argument to block the transition that is happening elsewhere and needs to happen here. I support Deputy Smith's amendment in that regard. I will leave the issue of board placements to a separate debate which is coming up later. We have a consultation on community ownership but we have been waiting for and listening to consultations for God knows how long. The White Paper should have made us come to a categoric view on it. We should now be implementing it but we are not, so I support her amendment on promoting community ownership. The wording we have agreed in my amendment provides a facility for that policy introduction and I hope the Minister will be able to use that very quickly. However, let us not do it on the basis of fear that in some way by promoting self generation or community generation it will be a big cost on the rest. That is not a big fundamental first issue: it can be managed. I would not allow that to hold us back.

See this speech in context