Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím roimh an deis cainte sa díospóireacht seo. Is é an Bille seo an Bille is tábhachtaí a chuirfimid tríd na Dála seo. Níl aon amhras orm faoi sin. Tá gá le leasuithe níos láidre chun a chinntiú go ndéanfaidh an Rialtas seo, agus cibé rialtais a bheidh againn sa todhchaí, beart de réir ár mbriathar. Níl fágtha againn ach fuinneog bheag.

Tá dualgas orainn bearta cuí a thógáil chun a chinntiú nach leanfaimid ar aghaidh ar an mbóthar ar a bhfuilimid. Níl an dara rogha againn. Tá moladh tuillte ag an gComhaontas Glas gan dabht ach ní mór dúinn an cheist a chur, cad atá déanta roimhe seo chun an pointe seo a shroicheadh? Ba mhaith liom dul siar air sin. Ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don Rialtas seo, agus don Chomhaontas Glas ach go háirithe, ach tagairt a dhéanamh freisin do na feachtais a tháinig roimhe seo, don dochar atá déanta don aeráid agus don todhchaí atá ag teastáil go géar uainn.

I welcome this opportunity. Sometimes, I complain that I do not have enough time, but I will have plenty of time today, which is welcome. I welcome this legislation, which is undoubtedly one of the most important Bills that will pass through the Dáil. It needs strong amendments. I might return to this point, bearing in mind that the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court on 31 July 2020 stated that the mitigation plan was vague, among other criticisms. That judgment is one of the reasons we are having this discussion.

I asked myself where we had come from and what the background was to the Bill. Deputy Duffy mentioned Silent Spring, which I have with me. I started with the Earth Summit in 1992 and went right up to the declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency on 9 May 2019. That date is looming. I could go back to 1962 when Ms Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. She was asked by the then President Kennedy to examine the issue of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, DDT, which is now banned. Her book ignited the environmental movement. I could pick anything. We did not arrive at this position because of the Green Party, Independents or the Government. We have been forced into it. I am glad that the Bill is before us, but it is important that we consider the damage we have done and the amount of effort required to get us to this point. The Kyoto Protocol was agreed in 1997, the year my second son was born. It only entered into force in 2005. We then had the Paris Agreement in 2015. Significantly, Ireland passed the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act that year. We have had reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including its recent summary for policy makers. There have been more reports since. On 24 September 2019, the Special Report on the Ocean and the Cryosphere in a Changing Climate was published. While I hope I pronounced "Cryosphere" correctly, what is important is not the pronunciation, but that the report spells out the risks posed by melting snow and glaciers, rising sea levels, storms and so on. We have seen evidence of the consequences, with many countries burning, hurricanes and storms. I do not wish to be depressing because what we need is transformative action and a message of hope, but it is important to understand what has led us to this point.

Notwithstanding the legislation we have passed since 2015, we are described as laggards. I thank the Library and Research Service for the digest it has produced. I am indebted to it. According to the digest, Ireland remains a laggard in an international context as regards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as highlighted in the 2021 Climate Change Performance Index, which was published in December 2020 in the middle of Covid. That index has been published annually since 2005 and tells us that we are the worst. It notes that Ireland, which should be leading the way on reducing greenhouse gas emissions because we have all the natural advantages of a small island, Cyprus and Estonia distinguish themselves by being the worst performing EU countries. According to the digest, Ireland exceeded its annual binding limits in 2016, 2017 and 2018. There was a recent report on last year.

Where am I going with this? Every single step has been forced by such reports, people on the ground and the children of this country and the world who asked us to please take action for their sake and the sake of their children's children. To bring us up to date, the latest report from the International Energy Agency predicts that, as a consequence of repeated failures to meet targets on reducing our emissions, emissions will rise to 33 billion tonnes in 2021, the largest single increase in over a decade.

Our Joint Committee on Climate Action produced a report. There was then the Supreme Court judgment. We often give out in the Dáil about judges, so it is ironic that they have been the most vocal where our environment is concerned, culminating in the judgment on the last day of July last year. Mr. Justice Frank Clarke delivered that unanimous verdict on behalf of himself and the other six judges. Given that I have time, I will read out some of it for the benefit of people who are tuning in or might tune in later. It reads: "However, it is important to emphasise that these proceedings are concerned with whether the Government of Ireland ("the Government") has acted unlawfully and in breach of rights in the manner in which it has adopted a statutory plan for tackling climate change." The Supreme Court held that the Government had acted illegally. Mr. Justice Clarke pointed out: "First, the overriding requirement of a national mitigation plan is that it must, in accordance with s.4(2)(a), "specify the manner in which it is proposed to achieve the national transition objective" ... to a "low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy"." This is not coming from the Green Party or Independents. Rather, the Supreme Court is telling us that the overriding requirement of a compliant plan is that it must specify how the objective is to be achieved. Mr. Justice Clarke wrote: "The public are entitled to know how it is that the government of the day intends to meet the [national transition objective]." The key point is that, under the legislation, the public are entitled to know with some reasonable degree of specificity what the plan is. He continued: "For the reasons also set out in this judgment, I have concluded that the Plan falls well short of the level of specificity required to provide that transparency ... On that basis, I propose that the [national mitigation plan] be quashed." This is what the Supreme Court thought of our plan.

We are here today with the most important Bill, and I hope it will be even stronger when it becomes law. I mentioned the Supreme Court's judgment in detail because I will now turn to some of the good elements of the plan. However, there are also some very obvious gaps as well as sections that are open to interpretation. Níl aon chinnteacht. Tá doiléire i gceist. There is no certainty. If we have learned anything from the judgment, it is that we should let the committee examine this matter again. Let us take on board what Professor John Sweeney and other academics told the Government in the letter they wrote to it. They welcomed the 51% reduction target but pointed out that the year-on-year figure of 7%, which is not in the Bill, was ambiguous. They asked how it would be achieved and what its cumulative effect would be. I am no expert in this area, but I am well able to read a letter and see the concerns raised therein. These should be dealt with on Committee Stage.

I welcome that the Government is strengthening the Climate Change Advisory Council and extending its membership. However, that is being done in the context of a January report that, while paying tribute to the advisory council, stated that the council was more reactive than proactive, its communication of the message to the ordinary people of Ireland was poor and there was a focus on economics as opposed to transformation. I hasten to add that Professor John FitzGerald took this on the chin and did not disagree with it, which I welcome. The Government was asked to change the council's remit in January, but when I look at the Bill, I do not see a significant change in that regard.

I see additions, but the Minister will still hold the power as to who goes on that. The lack of gender balance was appalling. The proposal not to have anybody from the environment or from public health is simply unacceptable. If we have learned anything from the pandemic and Dr. Ryan, who is quoted regularly here, it is that public health is very important in fighting any pandemic and we need to be ready for it. He also said we are pushing nature to its absolute limits. I am making the connection on the record between this pandemic, what we have done to nature and the environment, and future pandemics.

The solution must be transformative. If the Minister is seriously saying this is transformative, he will have my full support. I have serious doubts about that when it comes to Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. We need transformative action and cannot go back to the way we were. We need to find a different lifestyle. Again, to quote Dr. Ryan, we cannot have the pursuit of profit for profit's sake. That is what we have done. We have development for development's sake with none of it related to sustainability. That is the message we need to get from Covid-19 and from this Bill.

We have more choice. We have lived our lives. We have some time left in our lives, but we are talking about future generations who will be faced with climate chaos and, of course, the poorer will always suffer. Just transition is barely covered in the Bill. These are matters that need to go back to the committee if we are serious about having transformative change.

The message in part of the Bill is that it is business as usual. The Minister might say that that is a complete exaggeration, but one section provides that due regard must be had to employment and other matters, which means climate change is being put in a competitive role with employment and with future development. That is a false dichotomy. It is not acceptable to have that dichotomy or to have uncertainty in the Bill. This is our one chance to get it right and to learn. Within that, we need to look at housing and health. They are not just out there. Climate change has reached the tipping point, as the Minister knows and as we know. I have no trust that this Government, particularly the two major parties, realise the extent of the transformation needed.

I listened with great interest to the contributions by Deputy Michael Collins and his colleagues, and I have the greatest of respect for him. We need to tackle the issue of how climate change is perceived in rural areas. I have the privilege of representing a rural area as well as Galway city, which is one of the cities destined to grow. Last week, my colleague, Deputy Pringle, tabled a motion on Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, reform and what will happen with small farmers. As I said that night, we are treating the farmers, especially small farmers, as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. We have absolutely neglected rural areas. Towns are going under while we are building cities out of all proportion. That needs to be dealt with in a transformative action.

I will talk about Galway city as an example. By no means do I intend to be parochial. I had hoped that under the climate action committee Galway, as one of again the fastest growing cities in Europe, would be taken as a green city pilot project, not just because it is my city but because it has all of the advantages to allow it to be a green city. Tá sé ar thairseach na Gaeltachta is mó sa tír. Tá éagsúlacht ag baint leis an gcathair agus leis an gcontae. Feileann sé do thogra píolótach, a green lean city. Instead of that we have developer-led development. While those are my words, on two occasions the Minister, Deputy Coveney, agreed that the development in Galway was developer led. We have Ceannt Station, the docks and the Dyke Road, but we have no master plan in Galway city that takes into account climate change and sustainable development. We have no policy on building heights and yet there is a planning application for a 22- or 23-storey development at Ceannt Station.

I am a very proud Galwegian. Rugadh agus tógadh mé i nGaillimh agus táim thar a bheith bródúil as sin. Ba mhaith liom forbairt a fheiceáil, ach forbairt atá inmharthana. We have a docks development that has been given the go-ahead by An Bord Pleanála inasmuch as it now rests with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I come from a tradition of gleoiteoga and sailing boats. I know the importance of the sea. However, subject to me seeing it again on Friday in a Zoom meeting, I worry intensely about the sustainability of that development for the docks, based primarily on cruise ships and the green energy, which I welcome. There is no mention of climate change in the An Bord Pleanála report that I read.

We are also awaiting a result from An Bord Pleanála about an outer bypass for Galway. I would hope at the very least that it will be climate proofed when the board gives its decision on an outer bypass. We have a perfect opportunity to look at light rail and I am glad the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is here. I do not want to get at him, but as he is in power now, all I can do is keep raising it. At the very least, feasibility studies should be carried out. At the very least he should demand a master plan for the common good in Galway that takes into account the docks. We have now theoretically taken it under the wing of Galway City Council while leaving it as a commercial development. I expect public land will be sold to pay for the development because it does not come under one of the recognised ports for Government assistance. We have neglected Ros an Mhíl, which is just out the road. It is already a deep-sea port and only gets a tiny amount of money.

We have a housing crisis that is simply out of control. We have a task force that has sat for two years without producing any final report on the nature of the problem or the nature of the solutions. Galway has the status of a bilingual city and the solution is also within the Irish language, which has always been very close to nature. This is the second time for me to mention a book which is bilingual in Irish and English with only approximately 70 pages in each, An Ghaeilge agus an Éiceolaíocht, which points out that the Irish language is part of the solution.

I wish I were a member of the relevant committee, but I have trust in the members who are there to bring in changes to make the Bill stronger. The Minister will have my full support. If he is talking about an overall plan, he should look at Galway city as an example of somewhere going ahead again with developer-led development without a master plan. He should look at the rural-city divide which is simply unacceptable because we cannot live without each other just as we are dependent on other countries. We need to have a sustainable plan. We are awaiting a policy for seaweed and a policy for the islands. These were all discussed in the previous Dáil. Various Deputies, including me, tabled motions and we are still awaiting those policies.

The last day, Deputy Pringle spoke about acting locally but thinking internationally and globally. He is right because we need to come back to the notion that small is beautiful. The solution lies within the communities. If we are to sell green energy, we need to sell it on the basis of the community owning the green energy and benefiting from the green energy, not with big infrastructure coming through Galway to benefit the big boys, na boic mhóra. That is the transformative action we need. That is what Dr. Michael Ryan from the World Health Organization has said and I could not put it any better. We quote him regarding vaccinations and public health, but we are not listening to his message on the damage to nature and the consequences of that, which are epidemics and pandemics.

See this speech in context