Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Labour Party for bringing forward this Bill. It seeks to amend the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act 1996 in order to "confer functions on the [NSAI] in relation to promoting the use of standard specifications and standard marks to give information about the carbon footprint of commodities, process and practices". Sinn Féin will support the Bill.

It is important now and will be increasingly so into the future that we have such mechanisms in place to ensure transparency and accountability. We have heard speakers from the Labour Party and they agree the Bill will not crack that nut but is a step in the right direction and can be built upon. There are questions in terms of how we operationalise such a system of accounting but it will be important, not least because we already see how some large corporations are bombarding consumers with more and more dubious claims about their green credentials.

My colleague, Senator Boylan, has highlighted how several energy suppliers that claim to offer electricity from 100% renewable sources are simultaneously raising their prices during this period of extortionate gas prices on the international markets. That raises the question of how companies who are supposedly 100% renewable are so exposed to the volatility in the gas market. At least part of the answer relates to the fact they are not 100% renewable, but by marketing manoeuvre and advertising sleight of hand, they present it as such. When a person signs up to a 100% renewable supplier, he or she is probably expecting the electricity will be generated by wind, solar or hydropower but, in many cases, 100% renewable involves suppliers getting electricity from whatever fossil fuel source they like and buying certificates to offset the non-renewable electricity, so-called guarantees of origin. One guarantee of origin corresponds to 1 MWh of renewable electricity. It is a financial document. If a supplier wants 100% renewable electricity, it buys from a producer that offers the guarantees alongside the sales. An energy supplier offering 100% renewable can buy the guarantees from anywhere in Europe but the electricity delivered will still most likely come from fossil fuel power plants in Ireland or on the Continent. For example, a consumer on a 100% renewable tariff could be getting coal-fired power from Moneypoint. On paper, it reads as 100% renewable because the supplier has bought guarantees, but it is not. This practice is damaging because people have a right to know where their energy is coming from. If people want to avoid fossil fuels, there is no way of knowing which energy companies do not use them.

Several of the 18 suppliers that had their fuel mixes disclosed this week by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, claimed to be 100% renewable but this is not the case. Customers are being misled and this needs to be addressed. This is one example, but greenwashing, as has already been referenced, is bad and getting worse. While this Bill seeks to appoint the NSAI to provide independent and comparable figures that include corporate processes and practices in recognisable and reliable standard measures, we also need tighter advertising standards to ensure companies cannot make outlandish climate claims, green claims or greenwashing claims without rigorous oversight and verification. This stuff really does matter. The current advertising standards are not robust enough.

Elsewhere, the Bill seeks to introduce carbon footprint information on all products. The aim of this would be to provide consumers with information about the environmental impacts of products, in a similar vein to how ingredients or calories are presented on products. Some companies already do this voluntarily. For example, Quorn, the meat alternative company has carbon labelling on some products, and BrewDog, the brewery, pub and restaurant chain, highlights the carbon footprint of individual items on its menu. The widespread use and standardisation of such an approach would provide for improved tracing, transparency, accountability and better information for consumers, remembering the old maxim to the effect that if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. It should not simply be seen as a tool to influence consumer behaviour. That is an important point and I do not think that is the suggestion from the proposers.

We are in a climate crisis. We need to address the root causes of the crisis and we need systems change in energy, transport, economics and food. While individuals can and will play their part, the focus should not be diverted from the major corporations that are responsible for huge amounts of emissions or from the failure of successive governments to take appropriate action and lead from the front to stem the impact of climate change. The climate crisis will not be tackled by shifting the focus onto individual behaviours or individual consumer choices. Carbon labelling can be for the climate crisis what calorific labelling is for the obesity epidemic. It can be a waste of time, an irrelevance, or worse, a tool to be used to give the semblance of action as powerful corporations drive on, ever more rampant and reckless. Other forces at play, such as predatory advertising, need to be tackled. Tighter regulation and proper deterrents are needed in tandem with providing consumers with more information if we are to tackle this issue successfully.

We need to recognise the disproportionate contribution of the world's wealthiest on the climate emergency. Last week, the CEO of Amazon waxed lyrical about climate change at COP26. With no shame, the same man took a vanity trip to space a few weeks before. He did not mention that or the fact that a few miles up the road from Glasgow in Dunfermline, Amazon was found to be in the practice of destroying millions of items in unsold stock every year, including smart TVs, laptops, drones and hairdryers. Let us not talk about product obsolescence. I welcome the moves the Government is making in relation to the circular economy and that needs to happen as quickly as possible.

Oxfam's report on confronting carbon inequality highlights the fact that during a critical 25-year period of unprecedented emissions growth, the richest 1% of the world's population were responsible for more than twice as much carbon pollution as the 3.1 billion people who make up the poorer half of humanity. Ordinary people would be correct in thinking there is one rule for them and one for the wealthy when it comes to climate action. We will not successfully tackle the climate crisis with a business as usual,status quo approach. The market and unregulated consumption created the climate emergency; they will not solve it. While the private sector will play a role in the solution, states must lead. They must not outsource their obligations to commercial interests.

One area where the State is outsourcing its obligations is offshore wind. We have almost unlimited potential for green offshore winds but the slow pace of planning and regulation is putting off some investors and the State is not leading from the front. Sinn Féin acknowledged the role of private companies in the development of offshore wind but we want to see semi-State bodies such as the ESB and Bord na Móna invest, develop and, importantly, retain ownership of renewable energy projects. It is essential the State does not become as reliant on private renewable energy production as it is on fossil fuels energy production now. The constant energy price hikes demonstrate how dependent and exposed the State is to volatility in the international energy markets and highlight the need to eliminate this threat.

I welcome the legislation and note the Government's amendment. It is an approach the Government has used consistently. It buys a year. I urge that action take place. We are in the middle of a climate emergency and need to see action. I am concerned in another respect. There is lots that could be done at European level. Some of what this Bill could deliver is, for example, an assessment of the carbon labelling of mushrooms grown on Irish peat versus international horticultural peat. Similarly, there is the comparison between Irish beef and Brazilian beef.

That is an important contribution it could make. The European Union also has a responsibility in terms of the Mercosur deal and international trade deals. It needs to watch its own carbon footprint as well.

I also want to make reference to young people, who are ahead of us in this regard. At the last Young Scientist competition I attended, a local school from my own area, Eureka Secondary School, put forward proposals in line with this. We need to get on board with that.

See this speech in context