Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Well done to Deputy Thomas Pringle for introducing the Bill. He stuck with it. I also say it to the non-governmental organisations, in particular, Trócaire and the others which have fought the battle and forced us into this situation in the Dáil. I echo what Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett said about the Minister of State's contribution. I have looked at it and it is a wonderful example of double-speak, which I do not say lightly. It is 13 pages of double-speak, telling us what we cannot do. It sets out the climate action policy in the climate change Act but tells us we cannot do this. It contrasts with words of the Minister, Deputy Denis Naughten, on 27 October, which it is important to quote. Less than four months ago he said, in the context of the Paris Agreement:

It is the task of politics, one to which I intend to apply myself in order to bridge the chasm between global challenge and national responsibility and Ireland's obligation and the responsibilities of every citizen. The saying "one cannot change the world" may be tired. On climate change, it is a pressing fact that the world will not change without you.

Sensibly, the Minister kept his contribution that day to three pages. While he talked about bridging the chasm and making words mean something, in the Dáil today the Minister of State turned the language on its head.

We adopted a climate change plan in December 2015, but in January 2017 we are still waiting for the mitigation plan that was absolutely promised before Christmas. I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan of the Green Party who said it was a wonderful day as it appeared that with the help of Fianna Fáil, the Bill would be passed. It is a very positive day which will go down with the similarly significant day when we had Deputy Joan Collins's Private Members' Bill to amend the Constitution in respect of water services. It will go down with the Government's own anti-fracking Bill initiated by Fine Gael's courageous Deputy Tony McLoughlin. If the Government could do that, it can surely see reason in this tiny and, in reality, symbolic step of divesting from investment in fossil fuels. The days of fossil fuels are numbered. Some 80% of what remains must stay in the ground if we are seriously committed to addressing climate change. We have not made up any of these figures. We are quoting repeatedly from various experts, some of whom have spent a lifetime analysing climate change.

The Minister of State referred to economics and money while ignoring completely reports dating back as far as 2006, including the Stern report on the economics of climate change, which estimated that it would be 20 times cheaper to prevent further climate change than to deal with it after the event - that is if we get a chance to deal with it after the event. More recently in 2015, the London School of Economics concluded that the net economic benefit of countries tackling climate change continued to outweigh the costs involved. It continues on through to the European Systemic Risk Board. Representatives of the NTMA appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts, on which I sit, and honestly, openly and frankly told us that it had not included climate change among the risks it should consider. I admired the honesty and openness of the CEO who appeared before us. When we looked at the risk factors with the NTMA, the CEO put up his hands and said he would go away and consider its policy. As such, when the Minister of State tells us that this happened, I note that it happened as a result of the Committee of Public Accounts asking questions further to information provided for us by Trócaire and concerned individuals on the investment of public money in fossil fuels. The NTMA was open to looking at the Strategic Investment Fund and coming back on the ethics of investing in fossil fuels.

I am utterly disappointed and a little depressed, like Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett, about the content of the Minister of State's contribution. This is a time to show leadership on this serious matter, even if on a symbolic level. There will be a long lead-in period.

See this speech in context