Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Will the Government consider taking from the shelf the proposal to build an outer ring road to the M50, which would prevent traffic congestion on the M50 and reduce NOx emissions? Dublin is the only major capital city in Europe that does not have an outer ring road. Instead, Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, has decided to install speed cameras and fine people for getting it wrong and being confused about the speeds they should be doing on a motorway.

We are slowly making changes, albeit changes to our detriment. For example, we recently ceased the production of peat in Bord na Móna plants. Instead of producing our own peat, we are importing it, resulting in no overall impact on the environment, only money leaving the country and jobs being lost. When the transport emissions associated with importing peat are taken into account, our actions have probably increased global emissions. Along with the loss of sugar and flour production in Ireland, the saving of this to the environment probably equates to Germany producing ten fewer cars.

Regarding the carbon tax on fuel, let us consider the road haulage sector. The carbon tax makes it more expensive to transport goods, yet the same amount of fuel still has to be used. All that is achieved is an increase in tax revenue, with no real impact on the environment and no assistance to the sector. The Bill provides no information on what the sector will use as a fuel source. We should bear in mind that, if someone pays €150,000 for a truck today, it will still be in service in 2030 and it will be diesel.

The past behaviour of governments is a key indicator of the type of self-flagellation that is likely to continue in this regard. Farmers are likely to bear the brunt of the Bill if passed. It will be more expensive and less profitable to farm. Costs will rise and, therefore, prices will increase for the consumer. What account does the Bill take of the thousands of carbon-sequestering hedgerows that are found on farms across Ireland but not in other EU countries? According to Teagasc and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, 5% to 7% of Ireland's landmass is covered by hedgerows, equating to thousands of kilometres. These are extraordinary figures, but what carbon credits do our farmers get for them? More importantly, who gets them?

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Naughten, when he made the point that the poorest in society would be the hardest hit by the measures contained in the Bill. The poorest are least likely to be able to afford to retrofit their homes, install solar panels or buy new electric cars, and they spend a higher percentage of their incomes on food and fuel than others do. We will penalise everyone, but the poorest will feel it the most.

In global terms, we are a tiny player. We have abandoned the production of peat, turf and coal and continue to discourage tillage and dairy as if these farm practices were major problems rather than national assets while countries like China are ramping up their use of solid fuels on an industrial scale. In the past 30 years, China's coal consumption has quadrupled, yet we in Ireland somehow believe that closing a bog in Longford is the solution. I support sensible measures to encourage people to lead more environmentally friendly and healthy lives, but what we are doing and, more importantly, the way we are likely to go about it will have no measurable impact on climate change, so why burden current and future generations in using our greatest national asset, the land, with increased regulations, resulting in the destruction of businesses and livelihoods to meet unachievable targets, targets that were devised by large industrialised countries? Successive Irish governments should never have agreed targets that were overambitious and unachievable in that timescale.

Under the section on carbon budgets, the Bill allows for the wishes of the Dáil and the Seanad to be ignored by the Minister. This is concerning. The Bill states the Minister must present a copy of the carbon budget to both Houses and that, if the motion fails, the Minister can amend the budget, if appropriate. If the Government approves the carbon budget again, the Minister shall "cause a copy of the carbon budget to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and it shall have effect from the date on which it is laid before the Houses". This provision allows a carbon budget that has been rejected by the Dáil to be brought in through the back door without the Dáil ever having an opportunity to vote on it again. In other words, the Dáil cannot stop a carbon budget of which it disapproves being introduced. It can only delay such a budget. This is a scandalous abuse of the Parliament and an erosion of democracy.

Another worrying section of the Bill that needs to be highlighted is section 10, which outlines who should be on the advisory council. According to the Bill, we must:

...ensure that each member has knowledge of, or expertise in, at least one of the following areas: (i) climate science;

(ii) adaptation policy;

(iii) transport policy;

(iv) energy policy;

(v) agricultural policy;

(vi) behavioural and communication science;

(vii) biodiversity and eco-system services;

(viii) economics;

(ix) finance;

(x) political sociology or ethics in relation to climate,

There is no mention of practical experience. This means it is not a requirement for any of the advisory council to have practical experience of working in any of these areas. How will farmers, fishermen or transport providers be represented? If the advisory council is truly to be effective, it should have people with extensive knowledge of practice as well as policy.

My main fear about the Bill is that it ties the hands of future generations and, as a result, we will spend much more time over the next 30 years cutting our nose off to spite our face without achieving what was envisaged while decimating what we had. We are using our best assets, not abusing them.

See this speech in context