Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ireland made a commitment at the Paris climate change conference in November 2015 to provide at least €175 million in public funding in support of climate action in developing countries between 2016 and 2020. Since then, our State, acting in its function as a tax haven, has robbed multiples of this amount from the developing countries. Even with conservative estimates of the tax treatment of Irish investors in developing countries, Christian Aid says they constitute inflows to Ireland of approximately two to four times the size of the Irish aid budget. Any Minister who boasts about Ireland's movement on climate-justice aid should take time to consider the ongoing robbery.

Recently, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, stated in reply to a question from Deputy Catherine Connolly that his Department could consider investing in light rail only if there were a business case for it. The idea that there is no business case for investment in light rail in Ireland is a bit mad. Climate change is on the march and the effects are already costing the State millions of euro. As we spend our time looking at the potential for short-term returns on public infrastructure projects, climate change will cost us an increasing amount in financial terms and human lives destroyed. The idea that the State should operate like a private for-profit entity may be a central tenet of neoliberalism, which has facilitated the advance of the climate change disaster to the point it is at today. The planet is not solely a resource to be abused for profit, no matter what the consequences. If the State acted in the public good, it would not let short-term profit-and-loss sheet analysis decide whether to invest in something that will save lives.

The print in the Minister's script is pretty small. Perhaps it is that way so I cannot not read it or perhaps I jneed to get glasses; I am not sure. I do not see the phrase "light rail" in the script. This country needs to start considering light rail. I realise that if one produces a cost-benefit analysis, one concludes it is really too expensive in the short term. That is true but what is meant by the short term? We are talking about the long-term life of the planet and quality of life thereon so if we are to continue to deal in short-term economics, we will not really move to a different perspective on how we should challenge climate change. Things will not change a whole lot. It is seriously damning that we are now considered the worst in Europe at dealing with climate change and in how we dealt with it over the years. If nothing changes and if we just keep going along with short-term thinking, based on what we believe we can afford, things will not be done very much differently.

We are finding money to increase our defence expenditure and we found multiple billions of euro to bail out useless banks but we seem to struggle to borrow money to do what I propose. We can borrow money at a rate of 1%. The Minister says it goes on the books. Can Europe actually help us in dealing with climate change? Can it allow us to borrow money for investment in infrastructure? It would be in the public interest and a great idea all round. Why are we not allowed to borrow money at a rate of less than 1% to invest in infrastructure? If Europe actually cared about how this country will develop, and if it really cared about our dealing with climate change, would it not afford us some financial flexibility with regard to infrastructural investment? That is not so mad.

See this speech in context