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

Climate change is a difficult issue in a range of ways. It is difficult because of the scale of the challenge and also because the scale of the change is so immense that we speak of the issue in terms of a geological timeframe, although we are speeding it up. People joked and laughed at the then President Obama when he said he wanted to stop the seas rising but that is what we have to do and it will not be easy.

We in the environmental movement - I count myself among its members - may need to think about our approach. We have known the science for a long time and maybe we have scared people and made them feel guilty without giving them a sense of empowerment. Rather than telling people what to do, perhaps we should start asking for their help. Perhaps we must admit uncertainty because we do not know all the precise solutions. While the science is absolutely clear regarding the threat and reality of climate change, we are not certain of where the tipping points lie and when we will cross over into runaway destructive climate change.

We know what we have to do, namely, decarbonise the entire economy within the next three decades. We must achieve 100% decarbonisation, not the 80% set out in the Bill. This is what is provided for in the Paris climate agreement to which we signed up and it is what science says we must do.

There are some signs of hope and the task is not impossible. Global emissions have started to stabilise in recent years, China has started to burn less coal and India is turning to solar power. In addition, the Internet and digital technologies are driving efficiencies, leading to energy savings and emissions reductions. The scary thing, however, is that this year, while emissions stabilised, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased. There is a fear that we may be approaching one of the tipping points at which the natural systems are no longer able to store the carbon we have been producing. We must, therefore, take dramatic action and do so quickly.

As I stated, we have known about this issue for a long time. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was written 25 years ago when the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere was 359 parts per million. Today, it stands at 407 parts per million and is rising by approximately three parts per million every year. This rise must stop, which requires a large-scale response and immediate change.

Deputy Mattie McGrath referred to Dr. James Hansen who is one of the best scientists on climate. He estimated that if we had started addressing climate change in the early 1990s, we would have had to achieve an annual reduction in global emissions of approximately 2%. If we had started to act in 2005, Dr. Hansen estimates that the required annual reductions in global emissions would have been approximately 3.5%. Now, according to Dr. Hansen, because we have not taken action in the past 25 years, the reduction required is of the order of 6% per annum. This presents an incredible challenge, albeit one I believe we can meet. It is not too late but the longer we delay, the worse the problem will be.

I regret that the Minister, Deputy Ross, has just left the Chamber because I was keen to point out to him that one of the reasons we must act now is that if we do not build the infrastructure needed for the low carbon world that is emerging, we will build the wrong infrastructure. The national planning framework is completely flawed in terms of the importance it attaches to the issue of climate. It does not propose any change in the way we will build for the future but continuing with the construction of inter-urban motorways as if this approach will work in terms of reducing emissions and the congestion that dogs the country. We must act now to provide the appropriate infrastructure because a new industrial revolution is taking place. As I stated, there is hope and change is taking place across the world, as people switch to new, renewable systems and there are, at last, signs that an alternative, low carbon transport system is possible. In all likelihood, it will run on electricity. However, the alternative also includes a return to urban environments in which we reduce the dominance of the car. This would have all sorts of benefits. As a country which missed out on the first industrial revolution, why would we choose to miss out on the new, clean industrial revolution that is taking place? That is the path we are choosing, however.

We must also change the economy by shifting from the unjust corporate controlled system. The transition of which I spoke presents us with an opportunity to do so. We must make the leap to a different and better model, restore ownership, where we can, to the local level. This also means we must continue to work globally because this is a global problem. We have to co-operate with China, the United States, Africa, the rest of Europe and everywhere else in the world because this issue involves every country. It must, however, be based on switching not only to a clean but also a socially just economy. The trade unions know this is necessary. They are correct that there are no jobs on a dead planet. They recognise the reality and want to be part of a just transition in order that we can make a social, as well as environmental switch. The benefit of tackling this problem would not only be in the area of emissions. It would also address the problem of air pollution, which is causing asthma in children and causing heart and lung problems in the wider populations. Almost one third of the solutions to which we can turn in this country involve changes to the natural environment that deliver other environmental benefits in protecting biodiversity, improving the water supply and helping to prevent flooding. Making this switch would deliver a myriad of advantages.

As I stated, we need to make a shift in our urban areas. There is a logjam in the system, which is not working. If we are to build the houses we desperately need, we must do so in an urban environment that is clean, green, social and not dominated by the car. What is wrong with doing that? Why would we not set such an objective or seek to achieve that gain?

Last but not least, the transition of which I speak will be good for rural Ireland. I attended an event last night at which we discussed the development of community. It was a tough discussion because some of those present related difficult stories about what is happening in their communities. The toughest story was told by a young woman from Leitrim who said she did not want to go home and had not been home to visit her parents for a year because there was not enough life at home. There was no excitement, activity, jobs or young people and no broadband or connectivity. We have to address this issue and in addressing our carbon emissions, we will return life to rural Ireland. That is where the employment and new energy supplies will be located. It is also where we can get higher quality food that brings life back to these communities.

This is not just about narrow economics. It is also about a sense that every village and every town can and has to play its role. This belongs to everyone as a challenge because it is so big. Therefore, that village in Leitrim is just as important as downtown Dublin, New York or Shanghai. We all have to play our part in this transition such is the scale of the change that has to be made.

This is a cultural transition. It is, and it is difficult to use this word in this House because one never mixes the two, a "spiritual" transition we need to make. It is, as Pope Francis and the Eastern Patriarch Bartholomew stated, a massive leap or transition to make where we put ecological and social thinking at the heart of everything, including our churches. That is what we need to do. Why are we not doing it?

Some say we were too ambitious when we were in government and that has caused the problem. I am sorry, I beg to differ. My experience in government was a positive one that one could effect change. Emissions, around the time we were involved in government, went down 15%. I accept half of it, or slightly more, was probably to do with the recession, but the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, made an assessment that half of it was due to the fact that at that time there was political commitment in government behind the change. We can do this. My experience is when we get the State together, and get the agencies in behind it, we have European regulations backing us and that is possible. That is happening again now.

Europe is turning to this again as a priority just at the time when the Government is there negotiating. I regret also that the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, is not here because his officials are still in Brussels this week. In every file, they state the EU should step back as Ireland does not want to take an ambitious path. That is the reality of what is happening, as we speak, this week.

Some say we cannot do it because China and America are not doing it. China is doing it. They are doing it because they know this is the new industrial revolution and they want to get ahead in that. Europe is starting to wake up to that and Europe will challenge it. Even President Trump in office will not stop America making this transition because in California, in Massachusetts, in Florida, and in all the innovative centres in America they realise this transition is the way forward and they are investing in it. The technological centres of the world, such as California, China and Germany, are all going in that direction. We want to opt out. I have to ask why.

It is not too late for many who might turn to that view, because the more emissions we have, the higher the temperature and the worse it will be. The more we can restrict this, the less damage that will be done. It is never too late.

The opportunity is there. We need to start with oil and gas. The Taoiseach stated the other day that we will always need oil and gas. Eighty per cent of the known reserves in the world will have to remain in the ground if we are to avoid going over those tipping points into dangerous runaway climate change. The latest analysis we got in Bonn was that even the existing production line from oil, gas and coal will not be able to be used. We do not need any more oil and gas and we should be turning to renewables.

This Government has set a target for 2030 of 40% of energy through renewables. It is clear, even while the technology is uncertain and it is always difficult, that it has changed now. The certainty has come in recent years. The cost of renewables has come down. We could achieve 75% by 2030. There are all sorts of industrial benefits that would come from that, not only in the energy sector. It is mainly offshore wind and solar power, and it has to be solar on the roof first so that it is owned by the people and there is that social transition as well. Where is that in our statement?

We need to make our homes warm and protect them. The Tipperary Institute did really good work around super homes, where we set an ambition for ten years' time to convert all those 1 million homes which currently have oil-fired central heating and poor insulation by installing exterior insulation, solar panels on the roof, electric heat pumps, electric vehicle, EV, connections and so on. It is not impossible. The technology exists. Many Irish companies are good at it. Why is that not being set as a statement of ambition tonight?

I say yes to electric vehicles for rural Ireland. The easiest place to put electric vehicles will be at the one-off houses in the country. It is difficult in parts of Dublin because there are terraced houses and apartments. That is not the case in rural Ireland and that is the first place we should be putting them in. The range problem will not be an issue because as the volume of cars increases, the number of charging stations increases and the batteries improve. This is doable, it is clean and it provides a balance against the renewable power supply. This is the industrial revolution. We have to be good at it. We can be good at. EirGrid, our transmission company, is bloody good at it.

It is cheaper.

See this speech in context