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

There are many exchanges of views in this place other than in this Chamber.

The devil, as I said, is in the detail. The agreement does not tell us how we will reduce our emissions, but the extent and the length of the agreement and the legal detail as to how we will have to monitor, account for and increase our ambition make it a significant agreement. The fact that we were able to get consensus among 190 countries shows remarkable strength. Through consensus comes strength.

With terrorism, wars in different countries and the breakdown of international agreement, it was hugely important that we were able to make such a significant international agreement. It gives us hope that the sustainable development goals agreed in New York a few months before the Paris Agreement might also be brought into real life and action.

I wanted to talk to Deputy Danny Healy-Rae because I wanted to tell him the science is absolutely clear. He keeps saying that there have always been changes in nature and refers to a flood in 1752 or whatever. While that is true, I want to put the following point back to him and I will do so later. If such a small variation in the last period of historical record had such effects on our country, what will happen when we move out of any historical precedent or indeed out of one geological period, the Holocene, into a new geological era where we are responsible for changes that are bigger in scale and of a greater magnitude than anything we have ever seen in our historical record or lifetime? The scientists are absolutely clear and certain about what is happening and what we need to do to respond to it.

The thinking has changed with the Paris Agreement. First, the science is clear. What was holding us back for so long was that people, when asked why we do not do something about climate change, would ask why we should do anything when the Americans are not doing it or when the Chinese are building coal-fired power stations every week and so on.

The second reality is that it is now clear that everyone has a chance as well as a responsibility to take part in the transformation we need to make. Every village has the same opportunity to be part of what is the biggest and most important project facing us. It is an inclusive project now, rather than an exclusive project.

The third change in the thinking is that addressing this incredible challenge of reversing the increasing emissions, which are causing the problem, and starting to store carbon rather than emitting carbon will lead to a better economy. This is not a hardship or something that will make our country poor or a worse country in which to live; it will make it a better country. By addressing this challenge we connect with the fundamental changes that are already taking place in the world today. There is a digital revolution on the back of the increasing data processing capacity we have. A clean-energy revolution is taking place: that is for real and irreversible. It is clear that renewables and efficiency are winning. That is an area where we have particular comparative and competitive advantage as a country.

We are starting to see changes - a revolution - in the transport system that will come with those two other digital and clean-energy revolutions. Combined together what we are talking about here is not marginal change or change to the existing system, it is changing the entire economic system. It is a chance to move to a fairer, more socially just, stable, healthier economy in every way. It is not a marginal change or an additional little clip on the budget here. It is not sticking to the existing system and preserving it: it is changing the system for the better.

Let us consider what that means. We need to do four fundamental things. We need to eat better, travel lighter, waste less and be energy clever. I am afraid that on all four measures we are fundamentally going in the wrong direction. Nothing that the Government is doing is bringing us back and changing our direction so that we get in touch with those revolutions that are taking place. Let me take each in turn.

In terms of how we eat, Mary Robinson was right. She was correct to say that the scale of change we need to make is such that we have to start to change our diet and eat less meat, which is better for us anyway. None of these changes is negative change: they are better for our health as well as for the environment. If we ignore that as the Government is doing and suggest we can just press ahead by pushing the beef industry and pushing as much infant formula as we can to the Chinese to try to compete with the New Zealanders, we are not being honest in signing this ratification. If we are serious, we need to make the changes to our diet and our food system.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae thinks he has a scheme that can protect farmers. I disagree with him. By starting to adapt to climate, it will protect farming better. It will not just avert the flooding which is certain because a warmer atmosphere carries more moisture - that is the fundamental reason for having so much more flooding - but it also gives farmers a role. They are the key people on the front line who need to take on this challenge and will benefit from this challenge because the work they have to do is important. That work includes growing fuels as well as food, tending the land to store carbon as well as preventing flooding, catching the wind and managing our land-use system because that is what we need to do. It is a better use of our nature and leads to a better country to live in.

We have a big advantage. Ireland will not be among the countries worst affected. We will not be like large sections of India, the Middle East and parts of the Americas which will be uninhabitable on our current course. We will maintain an environment that is very habitable, but we need to tend it and manage it to cut out the carbon. That gives farmers a role and protects their lifestyle, rather than trying to go the other way and shift as much as food as we can around the world and keep going with an unsustainable system. That is not a clever way to go.

In transport, we need to travel lighter. We need to change fundamentally our unsustainable transport policies. At the moment we have a 4:1 ratio in favour of road transport over public transport. The alternative of the creation of urban space that is really attractive to live in is the real challenge of our time. It is not a minor shift in the budget here or there. We need a fundamental shift in the whole policy. There is no understanding of this. Why is the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, not in the Chamber to give his view given his central role? I do not get any indication that he has the slightest interest in the issue.

The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Naughten, is responsible for energy. The first thing we need to do is to throw out the energy White Paper published last year because it does not have the ambition we are signing up to in the Paris climate accord. It proposes making the change by 2100, which is too late. We need to recognise that this is a better alternative; it creates jobs. We should not be ratifying this if the Minister is saying, as he said yesterday, we can continue to burn our peat turf. If as he said, we have to preserve the jobs, I can guarantee we will preserve far more jobs - better jobs - and really bring life to the midlands by going the clean energy way. However, we cannot sign the accord and keep burning peat. It is hypocrisy and shows we are not serious. It means we are not leading in the alternative clean-energy future.

In industry, we need to switch to a new circular economy where we waste nothing. We do not do that when we are building a massive incinerator in Poolbeg to burn 600,000 tonnes of valuable resource material every year. We do not do that when we cannot get agreement here in the Parliament just to monitor, measure and put a price on our water, which is one of the materials that will be so valuable in a climate-affected world. If we are serious, we need to start monitoring, measuring, putting a price on and respecting our natural systems. Nothing here indicates we are serious even though we are signing the Paris accord.

We in the environmental movement have to raise this issue higher. It is too important now to be seen as a pigeonhole. It is too important to have an empty press Gallery and empty seats here, indicating not the slightest interest in this subject. It reflects how this House views this issue and I fear it reflects how we view it in the country. We, as the environmental movement, need to change the whole story and open up people's eyes that we can have a future we can be proud of, a future we can be good at and a future that will create jobs and a socially just economy for all our people.

Let us sign this accord, but let us change our ways to show we really mean it.

See this speech in context