Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021. I was a member of the European Parliament when the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005. Its objective was to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 to 2012. Then, of course, its successor, the Doha Amendment, was in operation up to 2020.

As a member of the European Parliament, I supported the agreed proposal from the Parliament and all member states that the EU would commit to a binding target of at least 40% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The big one, of course, was COP21 and the Paris Agreement, where we had a global agreement on limiting the increase in global temperatures to below 2°C, and preferably to below 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. We saw the US pull out of that agreement but with the new Biden administration, thankfully, we have seen a recommitment to the objectives and targets of COP21.

In a nutshell, that was my experience as a member of the European Parliament, where time and again I voted for these reductions in emissions. If we look to what has been happening here, we see that Ireland, of course, has signed up to these agreements. Over the last number of months and in the next few months, we will be finalising this piece of framework legislation, which will give effect to our contribution to fighting climate change and living up to the commitments to which we have already signed up. Of course, we had our setbacks and it took a Supreme Court decision last year, which stated that our national mitigation plan was unlawful. Of course, Ireland is not the only country where that has happened. It also happened in the Netherlands in 2019.

This brings us to where we are now. As I said earlier, this Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021 provides a framework for action. We are finally taking responsibility for our own patch and drafting legislation to help ensure we keep our commitments and play our role in helping to fight climate change. We are gingerly tiptoeing our way out of Covid-19, fingers crossed, and we have seen that it takes a global effort to fight a global pandemic. Climate change is also a global issue and no country, large or small, can duck its responsibilities.

We are all very proud of Dr. Mike Ryan and the common sense and realistic approach he brought to the fight against Covid-19. At a recent Trócaire meeting, however, he did not mince his words when he told us that we are pushing nature, population and communities to their limits and creating conditions in which pandemics flourish. We are, therefore, at a tipping point. Indeed, some would say we may have passed that point. All we can do is what we do today and what we promise to do tomorrow, however. As legislators and representatives of the Irish people, we have a responsibility to enact laws that will help protect our environment and our planet; the place we call home.

That is all big picture stuff and it is important. Like any piece of legislation, however, we must get down to the nitty-gritty and see how this affects people and their lives. I understand that many sectors, in particular, the agricultural sector, have significant concerns around this Bill. It is really important that terms like "climate justice" and "a just transition" not only have concrete meaning but also that they must be central to how we pursue language policies.

One of the concerns that has been raised time and again is around the possibility of a decrease in the national herd. This legislation does not specifically deal with the national herd but it commits every sector, including the agrifood sector, to cutting emissions. I have a few thoughts on that. Our beef herd has been reducing for the last number of years. Most people do not seem to realise this. It is not so with our dairy herd. We need to be specific as to what our plan is on this issue. That is my first point.

Second, I spoke of climate change as a global issue, which it is. It is no wonder that Irish farmers are incandescent with rage when they look to Brazil and see the burning of the rainforest to produce Brazilian beef, and a Mercosur proposal to increase the importation of beef into the EU.

This policy is nonsense but was strongly supported by previous trade Commissioners - I am not sure about the current Commissioner - who were gung-ho about it. Ireland must object in the strongest possible terms to any such proposals. We are on solid ground if we make these objections because our rationale is the protection of the climate. This is not a trade issue but a climate one. If the Minister wants Irish farmers to buy into his proposals, he cannot tell them that we ignore the bigger picture.

Beef production, whether in Brazil or Ireland, is a climate issue. That is why we in this country need to take a number of initiatives. We need further research at national and European level into agricultural methane and its impact over its life cycle. This is a crucial piece of research, vital for the beef and dairy industry here. There are good grounds to look at how we count agricultural emissions. I am not saying agriculture should get a free pass. It should not. However, we need to use the most up-to-date evidence when it comes to calculating these emissions. We and the EU have not done so. We need to investigate further the possibility of different types of feed. I already heard other Members refer to that today. We know this can make a significant difference. This research needs to be speeded up to ensure that, again, farmers can play their part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The most important point, however, is that our primary producers get a decent price for the food they produce. Too many farmers are running to stand still. They are price takers with their margins squeezed. Despite some milk-and-water efforts to bring transparency to the food chain, we still have not regulated it in such a way that each link in that chain gets a fair return. The majority of farmers want to be part of the solution. They do not want to be seen as the problem. That is why issues such as the importation of Brazilian beef, using the most accurate scientific, up-to-date way to count emissions, using the most efficient feedstuffs and ensuring a reasonable return to the primary producer will allow farmers to engage as partners. These are crucial.

The new CAP must drive the policy change needed and reward farmers for this work. The results-based environment-agri pilot project, REAP, has been a huge disappointment. Will the Minster assure me that this is not a precursor to the kind of environmental programme we can expect to see in the new CAP? I must emphasise agriculture is the backbone of the rural economy. Those in agriculture want to play their part. They have families, children and grandchildren. They produce some of the best food in the world and they do so in a sustainable way. Will the Minister please commit to working with farmers? That will do far more to deliver on climate change and sustainable agriculture. We have not seen the evidence yet that this is going to happen. I am still waiting to see it.

We have heard about just transition, a fine and lofty term which sounds great. The nitty-gritty of getting from A to B is what determines whether the transition is just. Many speakers have spoken about the horticultural sector and milled peat. What is happening? We are going backwards. We need to learn lessons from that. It is not enough to ban production or to stop a certain action. One must look at the impact of that. Where does one end up? What happens in the meantime? How does one get there? Sometimes one needs to start from the end point and work backwards, as well as starting from the beginning, in order that policy has coherence and the outcomes are not unintended or unexpected. Policy coherence has been missing in many of the actions we have taken so far. That drives people bananas because they see us saying one thing but doing another. Will the Minister look at the consequences of actions and what happens along the way?

Not only does the Minister need to engage with, work with and support farmers, he must do the same with communities, particularly around the issue of renewable energy production. We heard much about wind energy and how offshore is best. Where it is onshore, we have no proper set-back distances. There has been much debate in this Parliament around that issue. However, infrasound and flicker must not impact on local communities. If we increase our set-back distances, it will decrease the areas where wind turbines can be erected. People are entitled to live in their homes, however, and not to be completely overshadowed by huge wind turbines.

Again, that is where we lose people who support progressive climate policy but see wind turbines imposed within 600 m of their homes. We need to work with communities. In the constituency that I represent, people get rightly angry when they cannot get planning permission for a house for a family member but massive wind turbines are allowed or proposed quite close to those family homes. They also see the march of the Sitka spruce across the landscape. We come back to policy coherence and bringing people along. People want to do the right thing and play their part in tackling climate change. The proposals we put in place, however, must allow them to do that and support them in doing so.

There has been a commitment from the Government and from the Minister's party on the issue of the importation of fracked gas. We have no formal policy, however, banning its importation. It makes no sense to have this climate Bill if the Minister does not move immediately to make good on his commitment to ban the importation of fracked gas. In his response today, will he give that commitment or, at the very least, give a timeframe?

I will support this Bill on Second Stage. I will not vote differently in this Parliament from how I did in another parliament. I cannot expect policy coherence from the Minister if I do not deliver on it myself. I look forward to engaging with him on amendments during the next Stage and I am especially looking forward to hearing from him and his Government colleagues about how they intend to put flesh on the bones of these proposals. The Government’s concrete proposal must, as I said, be to bring people and communities with it.

See this speech in context