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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Three years ago I introduced the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development (Amendment) (Climate Emergency Measures) Bill to amend the Petroleum and Other Minerals Development Act, that sought to ban oil and gas exploration in the State. We did so because of the simple fact that the science of climate change was screaming at us that the globe could not support more exploration and we were exceeding thresholds and hopes of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5°C, and that the vast reserves of our proven oil, coal and gas had to remain in the ground.

At that time there was loud wailing from vested interests, business interests and attempts to mislead and distract from the core facts by the Government of the day. False arguments were raised to counter the proposals. Today, thankfully, that debate is settled for now and we have a State that has banned new exploration licences for oil and gas. Today, I am introducing another climate emergency measure Bill, this time to amend the Planning and Development Act to address the worsening crisis. I have no doubt that it will be treated with many of the same and similar bogus arguments against its aims, but I hope that just as the growing climate movement forced the then Government to act, and three years later it moved to ban the exploration of oil and gas, the same movement will assert itself in the coming weeks and months and force these issues to be addressed. I hope that the movement of Fridays for Future Ireland school strikers, Extinction Rebellion and the plethora of environmental and climate movements out there will remind the Green Party that lofty rhetoric and optimism are no substitute for policy that works and measures that will impact.

The Bill does three things to address some of the most pressing issues we face in dealing with climate, with our commitments to reduce our CO2 obligations under the Paris Agreement and our commitment to the planet and the environment. It will ban any further data centre applications in the State. It will also ban outright liquified natural gas, LNG, terminals and it will stop any new fossil fuel infrastructure.

I have listened all week to waffle and nonsense, to blind optimism, to arguments that we need data centres so desperately, to foolish attempts to say that if I email or tweet then I am being a hypocrite for pointing out the obvious. We cannot have 110 plus data centres in this State and have any hope of reaching our climate goals. We cannot build and operate 110 data centres in the next few years and have any hope of providing the energy needed to make a just transition for all our people and communities. We can have data centres coming out of our ears in every town and village or we can cut emissions to the level that we must reach to limit global warming, but we cannot do both.

I have heard no one from the Government benches criticise MaREI, whose research says that it was wrong or say the IPCC report was mistaken; that the CRU and EirGrid warnings were misplaced or that the evidence from experts that we heard in the committee about data centres is false. However, the fantasy continues. We have 70 operating data centres with eight more being built and 30 with planning approval, and the State sits back and allows more to be built. It is either data centres or climate action and the Green Party in particular must choose.

This Bill will ban any application for an LNG terminal. We seek to do this bluntly to stop New Fortress Energy building the Shannon LNG terminal. This would also apply from the start for others in the north east and in Cork. We do so for the same reason that we moved to ban oil and gas exploration. We must leave it in the ground. We must avoid being locked into fossil fuel use for another 50 years. We must counter the false and self-serving argument that gas is a transitional fuel. It is not. Once again, we can have LNG terminals or we can have action on climate, but we cannot have both. Again, the Green Party must choose. Telling An Bord Pleanála what the Government’s aspirations are will not be enough to prevent the building of LNG terminals and importing gas, but clear and unambiguous legislation will.

The Bill will also stop any new fossil fuel infrastructure and it will do so while there remains a climate emergency. While we correctly moved to ban issuing new licences, we have left vast tracts of the oceans still open to existing licences for exploration and we have the same captains of industry talking up the possibility of reserves that could be used for gas and oil in the near future. Again, the science is simple: we must leave it in the ground. All of these measures are dictated by the simple facts around each issue, both the maths involved in emissions and the effects they have on our climate.

That they remain for the parties opposite so controversial has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts or with the absolute necessity to take these measures. The concerns and arguments marshalled are based not on science but on economic interests and on the impossibility of trying to reconcile the profit needs and business interests of corporations and of the elite with the necessary climate action. We can have business as usual or we can have real climate action, but we cannot have both.

We have seen this summer the weather extremes and the impact they have had across the globe, and we have heard yet more dire and incessant warnings from the science community and the latest IPCC report, yet there remains a massive disconnect between what science is saying and what this State's policy is. We hear warnings, we hear the science, and the response seems to be to nod sagely, thank the scientists, thank the young people for raising the alarm, and then say mañana, tomorrow, maybe 2030, maybe 2050, at some future date, when someone somewhere has invented something to take carbon out of the atmosphere, or some future date when others, perhaps China or another country, reduces its emissions, and then we will be on course.

The question is this: do we act now and, if we do not, when will we act? When will we exceed a 1.5°C, 2°C or 2.5°C temperature rise? How do we explain the continued defence of data centre building with any attempt to reach our Paris targets and reduce our CO₂emissions? How is it possible to understand the continued refusal to stop, ban and legislate for such bans for LNG terminals? Why are our national newspapers and leading politicians continuing to regurgitate the insane and false notion that gas is a transitional green fuel that can play a role in the future, as envisaged by spokespersons and spin merchants of the fossil fuel industry? These arguments are not based on science or fact; they are driven by economic reasons.

The same people who were vociferous in pushing carbon taxes on ordinary citizens are the most enthusiastic about building data centres and retaining the low corporate tax regime rate in this country. They pretend their concern is jobs in construction. I find this particularly galling given we need every construction worker we have to build the homes we need to end the housing crisis or, indeed, to start the retrofit programme we need so badly to reach those emissions targets. Not only is it a false argument, it is practically criminal to say we should proceed with 30 or more building programmes for data centres at a time when we have such a housing crisis and a never-ending problem with energy. This has to be dealt with, and dealt with urgently.

I have no doubt the Green Party are not going to vote for this Bill but I want to send a signal to the climate movement to watch this space and to please keep the pressure on them, because what is the point of a Green Party in government that does not act on strict climate measures?

See this speech in context