Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Like the Bill that was passed earlier, if we accept the rhetoric of this Bill, it is hard to argue against it on the face of it. Money from the current 2 cent per litre levy on petrol and diesel will now go to the climate action fund if we pass this Bill. We are told that fund will be used to help to reduce our emissions and reach our climate targets. What is not to like about that?

However, a number of questions arise and there is a fundamental weakness in the logic behind this kind of policy, which becomes clear when one examines it closely. Anyone who reads about the history of the levy would be forgiven for thinking that the oil companies pay it. The association representing oil companies threatened to take legal action if the levy was used for climate action and put into a separate fund instead of being returned to the industry. Oil companies do not pay the levy, however, motorists do on every litre of petrol and diesel that they use. The oil companies simply collect the money.

Like the general drift with carbon taxes, it is not industry that pays. Rather, it is the people, who often have no alternative but to use petrol or diesel cars. The €500 million fund trumpeted by the Government for years as a key plank in its climate action plan depends on the continued use of petrol and diesel to fund it. To me, there is a degree of irony in that. In fact, the recent Covid-19 crisis probably highlighted it, insofar as the reduction in the sale of petrol and diesel would have meant, I assume, a reduction in the amount that would have gone into the fund. I point this out to highlight the weakness in the policies that appear to be clever wizard ideas. It seems to me that behind this sort of logic that these kinds of funding streams propose, there is an element of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

We are all aware of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, report on the dire timeframe for the far-reaching and radical action required in our transport, energy and entire social system to avoid catastrophic climate change, a wish that is increasingly impossible for the many parts of the globe which are currently experiencing that catastrophic climate change. These policies do not suggest that we understand the scale and pace of the change that is needed.

Projects currently being funded by the climate action fund present a another problem. Should the emphasis in policy be, for example, on charging points for electric vehicles or facilitating a massive boom in the sale and use of electric vehicles rather than a revolution in public transport? Equally, I am unsure that funding for so-called environmentally friendly gas projects is anything other than wishful thinking.

In its work on climate action, the emphasis of Gas Networks Ireland on biogas projects will not result in our targets being reached or the kind of radical and far-reaching policies that are needed for our climate. There are logical problems with biogas, which relies on a supply of animal manure and plant biomass. I want to quote from the acclaimed non-governmental organisation Food & Water Watch. Its recent publication states:

Despite claims of environmental benefits, biogas is primarily made up of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. And the focus on the supposedly renewable nature of biogas ignores the many environmental and health threats posed by a major source of this gas: manure from massive factory farms. Biogas has no place in the world's clean energy future.

I want to comment on the proposed changes to the biofuel obligation. I again wish to point out that on paper it seems like an eminently sensible policy, but in reality it exposes weaknesses in the general overall approach. The obligation is meant to encourage the use of alternatives to fossil fuels in our energy use. It seems that has been the case. When it was introduced it was hoped there would be a boom in the local indigenous production of various forms of biofuel. In fact, because of the logic of the market it resulted in the closure of dozens of budding projects, as most of the biofuel ended up being imported from Holland. To quote one commentator, the biofuel obligation scheme has been the death knell of indigenous biofuel production in this country.

As with biogas, there are major question marks over the sustainability of biofuels of all types and whether they result in any savings in CO₂emissions if we look at the entire life cycle of plants etc., and how they are used and transported. One report found that plans to shift Europe's coal plants to burning wood pellets could accelerate rather than combat the climate crisis and lay waste to woodland equal to half the size of Germany's Black Forest every year. Another study indicated that the sustainability of rapeseed biodiesel in the interpretation of the EU's renewable directive is, at best, questionable and in most scenarios is simply unjustifiable.

My overall point is that neither the NORA levy nor the climate action fund nor biomass and biofuels are delivering the far-reaching and fundamental change that the climate crisis requires. Ultimately, tinkering around the edges will not result in global reductions in emissions or tackle the causes of the crisis which, at its heart, remains the hold of the fossil fuel industry on energy, transport and the need of our current economic system to continually grow and provide profits over other concerns, whether that is sustainability or the sustainability of the lives of people on this planet.

See this speech in context