Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Dillon for sharing his time with me. I also welcome the opportunity to say a few words on what is a significant Bill. The Bill is not in itself the outline of the challenge but it is the framework within which the challenge of climate change will be addressed. It is important in that context, no matter what position we come from as long we are not climate change deniers, that we are open to debate and consideration. There is a great deal of prejudice, propaganda, misinformation and ideology. There are also many instances of big business trying to shape, inform and influence the direction of this debate. To be honest, there is also quite a lot of nonsense being spoken in the context of this legislation and some of that is being done in this House. It is important that we have a calm and rational debate on what is the challenge of our generation. In that context, I welcome the legislation.

I have reservations, particularly regarding the responsibilities being laid at the door of the Climate Change Advisory Council. I draw the Minister of State's attention to the difference in the ask of the council and the ask that we have successfully had for several years of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC. The IFAC does not introduce the financial budget. However, it does exert extraordinary and positive influence in ensuring that we maintain the public finances in good stead. Instead, what we are doing with the Climate Change Advisory Council is outsourcing the responsibilities, which should rest in the Executive and ultimately for approval in the Oireachtas, for carbon budgets. I would like the Minister of State to address that issue in his reply to the debate because the council, as I understand it, will propose the budget. The Minister may amend it in the context of engagement with the council and the Government will subsequently approve it. Simply put, that is a slight on the function of this House and on its primary duty and accountability for budget matters, be it for fiscal or carbon budgets. Lest there be any doubt, carbon budgets are the right way to go. People might argue that this is a moot point. I do not think so but I would be interested in hearing, in particular, the Minister of State's rationale behind the difference in approach with the IFAC and the Climate Change Advisory Council.

I welcome other provisions in the Bill. In particular, I welcome the obligation on the Climate Change Advisory Council to be cognisant of a number of issues, for example, the requirement for a just transition. In this context, I allude to a decision on something that is already a closed issue in the Government's approach, which is licences for exploration. I have yet to be convinced we can achieve a just transition and the targets to which we aspire, and they are rightly ambitious targets, while at the same time putting ourselves at a significant disadvantage by virtue of being reliant to the extent we are on imported fossil fuels, in particular what is recognised as a transition fuel, which is natural gas. I cannot fault the ambition but I wonder how realistic it is and I would like to hear the Minister address this matter.

I am also glad to see in the context of the Bill that the Climate Change Advisory Council is obliged to be cognisant of leakage, notwithstanding that the weaponised wing of the environmental movement disagrees, and An Taisce came before the Oireachtas committee on agriculture and dissed the issue of carbon leakage. In other words, if we were to sacrifice the national herd on the altar of climate change, the reality is that on a global scale, and this is a global challenge, there would be no net gain because we are one of the most efficient producers of food globally. The Climate Change Advisory Council is also obliged to be cognisant of biogenic methane and its specific characteristics regarding the requirement for a just transition and the impact on the rural economy. All of these are important steps.

It is understandable that Irish agriculture attracts a lot of interest because one third of the emissions in the Irish economy comes from the agricultural sector. It is marginally over one third at 34%. It is important to put this in context. If we were to lift Irish agriculture, lock, stock and barrel, and put it into any other developed country in terms of its modus operandiand its production systems, it would be far more efficient than the production system of any of those jurisdictions. The emissions profile, because of the historical industrial heritage other countries have, would be in single digits. It is because of this significant percentage of 34% that we attract unfair heat in the agricultural sector.

That said, the agricultural sector needs to embrace the concept of climate change. I can honestly say that, in my time as Minister with responsibility for agriculture, this was abundantly apparent. Why do I say this? It is because we export 90% of what we produce. The international marketplaces are increasingly cognisant of consumer asks in terms of sustainability. The future of Irish agriculture in this context is inextricably linked with efficiency economically but also efficiency from a climate change and sustainability point of view in terms of productivity. We need to continue with these improvements. We need to accelerate the pace of these improvements. More importantly, the sector must be seen to embrace the challenge of climate change. There must be no more mealy-mouthed resistance to every step along the journey. I would say this to farm leaders, for whom I have the greatest of respect with regard to the challenges they face, they need to step out front and lead in this debate. This is where the long-term interests of Irish agriculture are.

It is a sad state of affairs that it has come to pass, even within the Oireachtas, that the farming community is now fair game for unfair criticism in many respects from members of all political parties and none. This is a significant fact that should be taken on board by farmers and their leaders. As a declaration of interest, I am a farmer's son, I farmed myself and I represent a largely rural constituency. I have the greatest time and respect for the work and commitment of the farming community. Equally, I know that they hurt because of unfair criticism and that they are doing everything that has been asked of them, much of it unknown to many of the people who are highly critical of them today.

It seems that everybody is now an expert on agriculture. It appears to be almost the case that there is a willingness to turn a blind eye to a fundamental fact. Whether people are vegan, vegetarian, flexitarian or are meat and two veg people, in the production of food, greenhouse gases are produced. This is an inescapable scientific fact. What we should be aspiring to is a move to be a part of what is already under way, which is a global shift to those who are the most economically and environmentally efficient producers of food. In essence, this is the question that has to be answered not just here but globally. Who should produce our food? In the context of this debate, it is inescapably the answer that those who should produce it are first and foremost those who do it efficiently from a climate change and sustainability point of view.

In this context, it is worth pointing out that the Joint Research Centre of the European Union has said the Irish dairy industry is the most efficient not just in Europe but, along with New Zealand, globally. Why would we sacrifice our dairy industry on an altar of expediency when that opportunity would then be taken up by others? Would we prefer a shedload of 10,000 cows in California or the deserts of north Africa or Saudi Arabia or 1,000 cows across a parish in rural Ireland that are grass fed, outdoors for nine or ten months of the year and whose sustainability credentials, by any stretch of the imagination, are far better than anybody else producing dairy? It begs the question as to whether the criticism is ideologically driven by a resistance and objection in principle to meat and dairy in people who would prefer that we drink almond juice. They might like to call it almond milk. A litre of almond milk, or almond juice more correctly, requires 6,000 l of water to produce. This is something that is very often lost.

With regard to methane, it is imperative the Climate Change Advisory Council, with its scientific basis, does the scientific analysis. Carbon in the atmosphere lasts for 1,000 years. The 100 cows being milked on the average dairy farm today are not adding to the problem of climate change because those 100 cows only produce methane similar to cows of 12 years ago. Methane gas has a finite lifespan. It is a flow gas which, as it is emitted, is expiring. It has a 12-year life cycle. This is very different from carbon. This is why the challenges for the agricultural sector need to be very different from the challenges for the built environment and the transport sector. This is something that very often is not appreciated. The net point is we are not adding to global warming by virtue of our herd. Methane makes a finite contribution as it is a cyclical flow gas and this needs to be taken into account.

The importance of the rural economy and Irish agriculture to this country was abundantly manifest in the last crash in the economy when it was one of the bedrocks upon which we rebuilt. Globally, our reputation is second to none and I have seen this at first hand. It is regrettable that people resort to name-calling with regard to the Irish agricultural sector when internationally we have a reputation that many would seek to knock off us, and we need to be very careful about this.

Irish agriculture needs to embrace wholeheartedly the challenges of climate change. There have been improvements in herd genetics and soil fertility and in reducing the use of chemical fertilisers through better use and application of slurries. Not many people know, for example, that we measure the carbon footprint of approximately 50,000 farmers involved in the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme run by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

The Irish agricultural sector is doing a lot. It is willing to take further steps and to embrace and accelerate the changes required but it cannot be asked to fall under a Dublin Bus, an Iarnród Éireann train or, God forbid, a four-wheel drive in suburbia. We will carry our share, and in terms of the public goods we are asked to deliver, there is nobody who will shirk in the agricultural sector provided farmers are adequately remunerated for those challenges. That is a big challenge for my successor in the context of the next reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

This debate should not be seen in the context of agriculture as a binary choice between meat on the one hand and vegetables or plant-based diets on the other. We have seen in recent days the safefood report on meat substitutes which will be interesting in terms of the debate around public health. I referenced earlier big business seeking to influence the climate change debate. Anywhere one looks, in terms of research online, it is abundantly clearly that this is big money chasing economic opportunity and trying to undermine the reputation of farmers and those involved in primary food production.

I believe that the agricultural sector can and will play its role. It has a very positive contribution to make, not as the problem in the context of climate change but in the context of the solutions. Nobody in this country is more aware of the consequences of climate change than the farming community who make their living from the land and who are out there every day witnessing more extreme weather events, droughts and flooding. If they are treated appropriately and with respect, and if we can step back from our individual prejudices and ideology, we can collectively meet the challenge which is imperative for our children and grandchildren's sake, for financial reasons because of the fines and from the farmer's point of view because the marketplace is demanding it also.

See this speech in context