Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

If we are to take the Minister's remarks on their own I am sure the vast majority of people would say they are all laudable aspirations. When people are in government they have to be judged on the results of their words and actions and here are the results of what the Minister, the Green Party and the Government managed to do in recent weeks. The amount of turf that will be extracted and sold in Ireland in 2021 will be significantly higher than in 2020. That is thanks to the Minister and his actions. Many people who have not burned turf in several years are making arrangements to get to their bogs, contacting their neighbours to look for a supply or if they use turf they are getting a little bit extra just in case. How ironic is that? The Green Party in government is damaging the environment.

There has been an attempt to portray the debate that surrounded the Government's mishandling of the turf ban in binary terms. It has been portrayed that the protection of peatlands is good therefore anyone who opposes any measure, regardless of how harebrained or unworkable, that has that as its stated aspiration is portrayed as a narrow-minded and populist resister of inevitable change. The problem is that the Government’s approach to these matters is often considered - rightly in my view - punitive, tokenistic and hypocritical by those who are directly affected. Rather than advancing climate action, Government measures alienate many of those people who are keen to protect the environment, water quality, biodiversity and air quality of the communities they live in. It is nonsensical to suggest there are people in some part of Ireland who are content in destroying that area in which they live.

The numbers of those using turf to heat their homes have declined rapidly over a number of decades. Why is that? The evidence is clear; when they have an affordable and credible alternative people embrace it. The question has to be asked, and it is a legitimate question that neither the Minister nor any of his colleagues in government have addressed, why is the Government's focus not on providing those alternatives? Aside from the most recent debacle, the largest single driver of increased solid fuel use in recent months has been the rapidly rising cost of home heating oil. What was the Government’s response to that? It was to increase the cost of home heating oil further through carbon tax hikes, not at the beginning of this year or last year but last Sunday.

If the Minister, Deputy Ryan, was genuine in his motivation behind the turf ban being air quality, he would have been the person at Cabinet to demand that the most recent carbon tax was halted. In fact he would have been supporting and advocating for Sinn Féin's call that all excise duties and charges on heating oil be lifted during the current cost-of-living emergency. That single move would have done more to reduce turf use than anything he now presents in his unworkable regulations on turf sales.

Peatlands are an invaluable natural resource that must be protected. That is a statement of fact. The burning of solid fuels is damaging our environment and our air quality. That is a statement of fact that Sinn Féin recognises absolutely. It is quite frankly insulting that Government, through its spin and favoured commentators, is now trying to accuse those of us who have pointed out that its proposals are unworkable of somehow being climate deniers or populists because we impose what are unfair and quite frankly counterproductive measures.

While it has been rarely mentioned in the many pontifications that have filled the opinion columns in recent days, it was not lost within community discussions or in this House, in which we have mentioned it quite a number of times, that the turf debacle coincided with the approval of another data centre, one that will use the same levels of electricity supply as some small cities. That the Green Party and its partners in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael refused to support a moratorium on such developments, only last year, simply adds to the view that Government is more comfortable in targeting ordinary families without alternatives than it is to facing up to large corporate polluters.

The Government assertion that climate action equates to punitive measures is disingenuous. To say, as is essentially the rhetoric from Government, that we cannot fund climate measures unless the burden is borne by ordinary workers and families through carbon taxes is dishonest. What actually happens? That very same argument is then embraced by actual climate deniers. We probably hear it in this House that anybody who supports carbon targets and climate actions at all, therefore supports carbon taxes and punishing ordinary people.

The truth is that there is a fairer way, which is by providing the alternatives before penalising people for not using those alternatives. Essentially that is what Government has in place now in that it is charging people for not using alternatives that do not exist for them. Increasing the cost of petrol and diesel for those who have no choice but to drive to work, no access to public transport and cannot afford an electric vehicle does nothing for the environment. It just makes their lives harder and likewise for those who use solid fuels.

If the Government wants people to change, it has to first provide a mechanism for them to do so. Most of those hardest hit by Government actions do not have such a mechanism. They do not get the supports and benefits that are often cited as existing as a result of the carbon taxes they pay. Government claims that a portion of the take from carbon taxes goes to agri-environmental schemes for farmers but it does not say that is actually less than the CAP funding it gave away in EU budget negotiations. Farmers are expected to pay considerable amounts through carbon taxes but get less back in supports.

Most working families to do not have access to 100% retrofitting grants. Those who do will wait years for them and they cannot afford to avail of electric vehicle grants. This is one of the sources of the unfairness. Somebody who lives in an area that is very-well serviced by public transport and happens to have sufficient funds in the bank can get a €5,000 grant from the Government towards a brand new electric car and a €25,000 grant towards a deep retrofit of his or her home. The Minister of State expects people without either the means or transport alternative to pay for it through the Government's taxes.

If we really want to make a positive impact, funds should be delivered to where they will make the biggest impact and where they are needed most. In the first instance, a comprehensive cost-of-living package must be delivered as advocated by Sinn Féin. People need a break. At a minimum Government should commit to not making necessities more expensive without alternatives. Second, resources should be targeted at those who currently do not have the alternatives in transport or heating systems. Third, we must recognise that far from delivering positive changes, the actions of the Minister, Deputy Ryan, the Green Party and their colleagues in government, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, are making things worse. We can and must pursue a better, more effective course.

I commend Deputy Fitzmaurice on bringing forward this motion and a bit of realism to this House. Government has indicated that it will support the motion. However, it now needs to genuinely start listening to communities throughout this country that want to play a positive role in protecting our environment but are being hampered in doing so by this Government.

See this speech in context