Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to have this debate today. We are three and a half years into this Dáil term and it should have happened a long time ago. We should have had these statements and the commitment from the Minister at the start of the term. I wonder whether the Minister, his party colleagues and his advisers sometimes sit and scratch their hands and wonder, despite bringing in a landmark Act, which the climate Act was, why we are still seeing emissions go up. Despite the efforts the Minister made at the start of the term, we are not really seeing the reductions we need. There are many reasons. I spoke previously in this Dáil about those reasons, one of which is the failure to implement and deliver on policies. I have often said that developing policies and proposals and writing press releases is not climate action. The Government needs to deliver on them with tangible actions.

I will use the rooftop revolution as an example. We were told a year and a half ago that there would be a rooftop revolution across every school and a year and a half later we do not have a single panel on a single school. However, there is a more fundamental reason we are not seeing the kind of reductions in emissions we need to see. It is that we see climate change as the problem. Actually it is not the problem; it is a symptom of a much bigger issue. Climate change is a result of the economic system we operate in, which sees continued unchecked growth as its objective.

Until we have a shift in our thinking when it comes to that, we are not going to be able to resolve our climate change or biodiversity issues because the current economic system does not value the environment. It sees corporations' profits as the almighty. That is the objective and the protection of corporation interests is, in many instances, the priority of this system. Unfortunately, governments, including the Minister's, kow-tow to that in many instances and facilitate that kind of thinking when it comes to big businesses. The ECT is a perfect example of where the interests of big business and big fossil fuel companies are put above the interests of the environment or, indeed, of individuals within our communities. We do need a healthy economy - I think we would all agree on that - but we also need a healthy environment, and prioritising short-term economic gains for a very small minority of individuals or corporations, at the expense of a sustainable future, undermines our very survival.

We heard how, when the treaty was first being developed, it was done in the absence of knowledge we have now regarding climate change, but I would argue the opposite. Climate change was a reality in the 1990s as well. There was evidence to that effect and scientists were raising alarm bells at the time regarding climate change. I think the treaty was designed to protect fossil fuel businesses and governments that knew what was potentially coming down the road regarding the need to protect our climate. It is unfortunate we engaged at that time, but engage we did.

What is more difficult to explain, however, is why the Minister has not done anything about this since he came into power, whether in the previous term when the Green Party was in government or at least this term. Since 2020, the Social Democrats and other Opposition parties have been calling on the Minister to exit the ECT. He has repeatedly stated he wants to do it in a co-ordinated fashion, in conjunction with the remainder of EU countries, but that does not make sense. Italy left in 2016 and the Netherlands, France, Germany, Poland and Spain left in 2022, while Luxembourg in June of this year wrote to notify that it will be exiting the treaty. What does Luxembourg know that we do not? Why is it not hanging on for a better opportunity for a co-ordinated exit? I do not understand why we are waiting.

The Minister stated he has signalled his intention. Has there been written notification of that? Once that written notification goes in, it will take a year before it is recognised and then for a further 20 years we will be caught up in the sunset clause. From the point of the Minister putting in that written notification, therefore, there will be 21 years in which fossil fuel companies will have an opportunity to sue the Government for policy decisions it is making that are based on science, the impact of climate change and the need to protect our citizens and communities from climate change. Those companies will still be able, in a secret court, to sue the Government. Why, therefore, is it waiting? There appears to be no benefit to waiting but many risks, and the longer it delays, the greater the chance we will be sued again, such as in the case of the Barryroe oil field, in respect of which proceedings have begun.

Will the Minister set out his pathway? When he says we are leaving this and that he is signalling his intention, what does that mean? Will he spell it out for us? When will he write and formally notify as to our intention to leave? It needs to happen immediately and I ask the Minister to see that it will.

See this speech in context