Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to speak in the debate. I am delighted to see triúr Airí anseo. Tá súil agam go bhfanfaidh siad agus go mbeidh siad ag éisteacht.

The issue of climate change is unavoidable. Whether we are discussing agricultural policy, methane emissions or the use of land for forestry, we simply cannot get away from this debate. I am aware that it one of those issues where there is deeply divided opinion not only on the alleged causes of climate change, but also on the proposed solutions.

We know that in 2015 countries adopted the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and its 17 sustainable development goals. In 2016, the Paris Agreement on climate change entered into force, addressing the need to limit the rise of global temperatures. Of course that was before the United States decided to re-evaluate its commitment to the Paris Agreement. According to the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, which consists of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Vincentian Congregation, the Daughters of Charity and the Sisters of the Holy Faith, the Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs, represent a political, economic and social commitment for the world up to 2030. They establish a sustainable development agenda which can be defined as development that meets the needs of those in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to also meet their needs. In order for sustainable development to be achieved, three interconnected elements are required, namely, economic growth, social inclusion and environmental protection. Those are all noble goals and there is nothing in them that anyone could argue against. The difficulty is how we get there, and how we achieve the goals.

In terms of the impact any proposed measures would have on our unique economy, the IFA has said that a new approach must be developed, one which puts food security and resource stresses such as water availability at the centre of agriculture's response to climate change. It also says that the agriculture sector must also receive full emission reduction credit for carbon sequestration activity in agricultural soils, forestry and bioenergy when emissions from the sector are being reported. What is deeply concerning to people in rural areas is how often they hear enormous passion and enthusiasm to address the perceived problems associated with climate change but so often that is at the expense of the rural way of life. That is almost always the case now. People in rural areas often feel that are being sacrificed without any consideration in order to achieve outcomes and goals relating to climate change which are contentious to say the least.

In preparing for the debate, I came across some interesting information which I am open to having corrected because one can only believe half what one sees and none of what one hears. It refers to the history of so-called climate tipping points. It is instructive in that it shows how the great sense of panic on the subject is often overstated. For example, as early as 1989 the UN was already trying to sell its tipping point rhetoric to the public.

Then in 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chief declared 2012 as the climate deadline by which we had to act or it would be too late. I am told that, not to be outdone, the former President, Mary Robinson, weighed in this week issuing a more generous 20-year tipping point. After that, NASA got in on the act claiming that the climate tipping point was 2009. Indeed, NASA boss, James Hansen, declared that Obama had only his first term to save the planet. He has come and gone and he had a second term. In 2012 the UN gave Obama and the planet Earth another four-year reprieve. The former US vice president, Al Gore, also created a ten-year climate tipping point in 2006. Yet, it is more than ten years later and 2016 has come and gone but we are still around, thank God.

What are we to make of all this? Is it not even remotely reasonable to raise questions on the matter when it appears that organisations like NASA and the United Nations have got it so completely wrong in terms of so-called climate tipping points? I am not for a moment suggesting that we need to take a cavalier attitude to the issue, but we must listen to the debate. We should not simply demonise those who may have different perspectives on nature and the causes and proposed solutions.

I see the Minister and the two Ministers of State across the floor. I could call them the three amigos or the three stooges – I do not know what I will call them. Anyway, it is good to see them here listening so late in the night.

See this speech in context