Dáil debates

Wednesday, 28 February 2007

Carbon Fund Bill 2006: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

3:00 pm

Photo of John CreganJohn Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Opposition parties tend to criticise the buying of credits. While we are perfectly within our rights to do so, I also believe it is a win-win situation. By buying credits, we are helping to meet our targets and helping emerging and Third World countries in their development.

Only in recent months many of us, including myself, have become converts and realise this is a very important issue and one that is being raised on the doorsteps as we go about our business. People are genuinely concerned. It is important to maintain a balance and that we do not compromise or stymie economic growth. We can be proud of the Government's track record of economic growth in recent years.

I wonder if the Green Party is serious when it says we should stop building roads and motorways, that enough is enough. We cannot afford to do that. We have to be responsible and the Government has been responsible in the whole area of addressing climate change. It is a balancing effort in terms of continuing our economic growth, continuing to build our infrastructure throughout the country, and maintaining and increasing employment. The Government has held the balance well in dealing with the issue.

I have just left a meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government where the whole issue of emissions and the carbon fund was being addressed. One contributor went so far as to say nothing has been done by the Government and no progress is being made. I could not agree with that statement. When I spoke earlier I pointed out all the areas where we are succeeding in making substantial reductions.

The 2007 budget underlines the Government's commitment to tackling climate change. A range of initiatives were announced or enhanced and these will be factored into our calculations of emission reductions between now and 2012 and include a new climate change strategy. These measures include proposals for linking VRT and motor tax to carbon dioxide emissions and for enhanced mandatory emissions labelling; introduction of VRT relief for electric cars on a one-year pilot basis; abolition on excise reductions for kerosene and liquid petroleum gas used in home heating; extension of the ACI greener homes scheme by €20 million between 2007 and 2009; expansion of the ACI commercial bioheat scheme to cover the installation of technologies such as solar panels in commercial premises and for buildings in the non-commercial sector, such as community centres and sports facilities; provision of an additional €3 million to enable SEI to support small and medium sized enterprises to assess their energy usage and introduce measures to enhance energy efficiency; extension of corporation tax relief for investment in renewable energy for a further five years; new establishment grants for willow and miscanthus bioenergy crops; introduction of support of €80 per hectare for qualifying energy crops, in addition to EU support of €45 per hectare; and grant aid support for biomass harvesting machinery. That is a litany of enhancements and new initiatives that will certainly play a part in further reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. It is another example of where we are keeping the balance I mentioned earlier. Hands off our jobs — we cannot afford to lose our jobs in west Limerick or in any other part of the country.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Photo of John CreganJohn Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment the Minister and the Government who have maintained the balance in regard to economic growth and in dealing with our responsibilities. I encourage the Minister to continue his efforts because we are moving in the right direction.

4:00 pm

Photo of Michael D HigginsMichael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It should be possible in an advanced society not to have to make a crude choice between economic development and environmental responsibility. I was present in another capacity at the United Nations conference on economics and development in Rio de Janeiro many years ago when the concept of sustainable development was launched for the first time. One of the images I still have of that experience is of the business council for sustainable development being accorded the status of a state by the assistant general secretary of the United Nations. At the same time many of the communities which were affected by rising ocean levels had no representation. For example, the small atolls and islands, many of them still in the technical ownership of imperial powers — France, Germany, Holland — and the people of Oceania, held their press conferences on the Greenpeace boat. Some of them discussed the issues of sea levels rising by a relatively modest amount. They were the people who had to decide. Some people had taken a decision that they would all commit suicide rather than abandon their homes.

The discussion I remember at that stage was that one would always have to strike a balance between the views of the most powerful, who made the extreme demand that nothing should stand in the way of open-ended economic growth and economic expansion, and the most vulnerable who had little power and were locked into a simple existence. Matters have changed. I say that because ten years earlier when writing about this I had said that those who make the case for an irresponsible and open-ended economic expansion in different parts of our planet have had an old intellectual history as well. It was Bacon who said, "I lead to you Nature and all her children in bondage for your use", and again as nature, "We must gouge out her secrets". We have moved on.

There is a moment at the beginning of empire and at the beginning of expansion of colonisation and at the beginning of international greed and capitalism in which nature and environment are perceived as entities that can be mined for their possibilities in terms of consumption. We have moved on and the current atmosphere is one in which there is far greater responsibility in evidence both in governments and in communities. Often the debate is about the how of responsibility rather than whether people should be responsible. This is welcome.

It is worth reflecting on that period from which we have come. I suggest, certainly in the discussions that led to the adoption of Kyoto and the discussion which is beginning on what will succeed it, this is one in which there has not yet been a full acceptance of the principles of interdependency, that is, these North-South divisions which are primitive divisions in relation to economic structures, nor has there been a sufficient acceptance of the principle of mutuality. It is still the case that those with the least power with the most vulnerable ways of life are those most affected. If one was to look at the communities that are most deprived of rights on the planet they are probably the Bedouin peoples who live in the atolls which I mentioned. There is also an insufficient acceptance of the principle of equality which is difficult to define in this discourse and this argument. It is not acceptable to those who are at an earlier stage of development and moving out of less than sufficiency. They will argue that they are entitled to push themselves through the stages of growth that were enjoyed by developed economies. Therefore, any reasonable version of equality in regard to carrying the burden of interdependent responsibility must require of developed economies that they carry the greater part of the burden.

Lurking behind all of this is a debate that has not taken place sufficiently, that is, the debate on the connection between science, technology and society. It is regretted that the great capacities of technology in producing efficiency and responsibility of an environmental kind have not been applied to the degree they might have in regard to the developed economies. A factor that must also be borne in mind is that international agencies associated with development, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, often speak about models of development that are examples of bad practice in respect of developing countries that have a long distance to go.

Turning to the specific issue of the purchase of carbon credits, we must work at our own partnership at home in respect of the relationship between elected representatives and the public. When I was a Minister in Cabinet, I recall the difficulties that ensued following my introduction of special areas of conservation. If there is one point on which I must differ from the Minister, it is the issue of bogs. I am in a position to know much about bogs and votes. Some of the Minister's colleagues in Cabinet are also in a position to know about bogs and votes, in so far as they set out to undermine everything I was doing in respect of the protection of bogs.

It is a fact that never at any stage did I outlaw the use of turf cutting with traditional methods. I went into it in detail. I did not even outlaw the hopper that might be used in a bog so everyone's lungs were safe. What I did outlaw was the turning of bogs into soup through the use of sausage machines that were effectively destroying the environment and causing damage that would not be rectified for millions of years. People from the larger parties were very quick to take advantage of that. I acknowledge that there was a price to be paid. I paid it because I lost approximately 1,000 votes for defending the bogs and putting a limit on sheep that were turning hills and mountains into slurry pits. Frankly, I know who is involved on whose side and on what issues in respect of conservation of bogs and peat. It is all history. Thankfully, the wisdom of the people was such that I was able to survive this irredentist and irresponsible challenge.

In respect of what is facing us in discussing an issue like this, the issue is not really one as to whether it was possible to purchase carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Let us not waste our time on that because it is there. That is a reality. The issue is what the fact that we are doing so tells us about our responsibility in respect of the situation we now face. We have a challenge and opportunities. How have we met them? Given that we are purchasing carbon credits — I assume that we are talking about the price per tonne quoted by the Minister if provision is to be made for €270 million — it is difficult not to conclude that if the price goes up, the figure that will be required of the taxpayer will be far more than this and could, in the period of time referred to, end up being three or four time's that figure.

To be fair, as I have previously said, no one is arguing that the Government is doing something that was not ever envisaged in respect of the treaty. One can talk until the cows come home, but if we were 13% above our 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level and were at 26%, we must ask ourselves whether——

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's ten minutes have concluded.

Photo of Michael D HigginsMichael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not realise I had only ten minutes. I will conclude by saying that all parties going into a general election where, thankfully, this issue is being treated with appropriate concern should commit themselves to a timescale for being carbon-neutral. We should commit ourselves to giving such credits as will give genuine incentives to people, for example, through green tax credits, to apply the technology and be comprehensively responsible. The fact that we are going down this road is somewhat of a confession of bad performance and we need to do very much more and bring the people with us.

Photo of Seymour CrawfordSeymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this very important legislation. Some of us possibly did not realise how serious this issue was, but it is clearly emerging as one of the major issues in world affairs. I suppose those who saw the recent film, "An Inconvenient Truth", produced by the former US vice president, Al Gore, realise just how serious the issue is. I enjoyed the fact that at the start of his speech, the Minister said that what is being done is not interfering with growth. Some of the developments that have taken place in agriculture, such as those relating to the nitrates directive and other issues, will, in the long term, certainly be proved to have created major problems as far as growth is concerned. If ever there was a case where this Government mishandled the situation, this is one that will prove in the future that more thought needs to be put into these matters, which should and must be dealt with in time. Time will prove that procrastination certainly cost the farming community and industry enormous potential for the future.

Fine Gael policy on this issue is very clear. We will legislate in Government to compel all fuel retailers to blend bio-fuel with fuels such as petrol, diesel and home heating oil. We would remove all excise duty on bio-fuel products from renewable energy crops. In practice, this would mean that producers would not have to pay excise duty on bio-fuels, the knock-on effect being that consumers would enjoy cheaper fuel at the pumps.

In that context, I, as a member of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, visited Scotland in the not too distant past to look at its efforts to produce alternative fuels. On Monday of this week, we travelled to Donegal to see some wind farms. We also visited the farm of John Gilliland, the former president of the Ulster Farmers' Union. Our visit to Mr. Gilliland's farm, which has been turned over to bioenergy, was eye-opening. The personnel who showed us round are obviously very enthusiastic about this issue. Mr. Gilliland told us that he and others had lobbied our Minister, who is from Donegal and to whom he has easy access as Donegal is just across the ditch from Derry, to bring in the proposals for planting this year's crop of bio-fuel or alternative energy sources. Unfortunately, this was not announced until last week when there are only a few days left to make decisions on it. As a result, thousands of acres, and in Mr. Gilliland's case, possibly approximately 3,000 acres, will not be planted this year when they could have been planted if the proper strategy had been used.

We can all talk about these things, but unless we do them in a proper, constructive way, it will certainly not happen. I heard the Minister's colleague, Deputy Cregan, talk about forestry. I remember when there was no money in this country or, at least, when we were only getting off our knees. In 1996, we planted 25,000 hectares, but we are only planting about half of this.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hen harriers.

Photo of Seymour CrawfordSeymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need to walk the walk rather than just talk the talk. Cutting down is something we can do in fairly simple ways. When we leave Monaghan we have no other choice but to travel by car. The same is true of people travelling from Cavan and Donegal. People in most other counties have an opportunity to travel by train but we do not. When approaching Dublin, one meets the M50. If one has to go anywhere else but the city, one has to use that road. I do not understand why there is no provision of park and ride facilities to reduce the significant number of cars on the M50 whose engines are just ticking over and emitting great quantities of fumes. The majority of these cars could be parked at a facility adjacent to the M50 and buses could travel between there and the city using bus lanes and ensuring less congestion.

A train line is still in place from Dublin to Navan and Navan to Kingscourt. While a park and ride facility in Kingscourt may not be the location of choice for a rail link from Cavan or south Monaghan, it would be a step forward. The infrastructure is already in place and only needs to be restructured. One of my former colleagues investigated the possibility of creating a rail link from Monaghan town to Portadown to connect it with Dublin. These are the type of options we need to consider in light of what is required.

Fine Gael has no objection, in principle, to purchasing carbon allowances as part of our national climate change strategy. We recognise that taking a tonne of carbon out of the atmosphere has the same effect, irrespective of where it takes place, and that it can be more cost effective for rich countries to subsidise carbon reduction in developing countries than to achieve them domestically.

However, we oppose the Bill on the following grounds. The Bill comes in advance of the promised review of the national climate change strategy, which the Minister, Deputy Roche, announced last June, but over which he is obviously still dithering. No doubt, he is nervous of the electoral implications. We therefore have no idea of the likely balance between domestic actions and international carbon allowance purchases the Government is proposing.

It is important that domestic actions account for a much greater proportion of our climate change strategy than has been the case heretofore. Even putting aside the moral or ethical question of whether it is right to buy our way entirely out of our environmental obligations, there is a more practical concern. Early and excessive use of the carbon allowances and other "flexible mechanisms" is creating a fool's paradise by allowing us to delay the difficult policy decisions that inevitably lie ahead. We will not be able to afford to buy our way out of our obligations indefinitely.

Without publication of the climate change strategy review, it is impossible to have confidence in the Government. Although the first national climate change strategy was published in 2000, few of the concrete domestic measures it proposed have ever been adopted. Even tweaking vehicle registration tax, VRT, to reflect carbon dioxide emissions has been deferred until next January at the earliest — a full eight years later than originally proposed. This has no doubt prompted a surge in the sales of SUVs and other larger cars this year. One of the aspects of the budget that annoyed me most was the postponement of the introduction of such a measure until after the general election.

We have dithered for years over introducing higher energy efficiency standards for new homes, with the result that more than 200,000 were built to the old standards. I cannot help but think of Mr. McCaughey, the former owner of Century Homes who is now involved with Kingspan Century. He has preached on this issue on many occasions.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is hardly a very impartial observer.

Photo of Seymour CrawfordSeymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I recently read a four page article in one of the construction magazines where he put forward his case for the construction of timber frame homes rather than concrete. Whether we build with concrete or timber frame, we must make absolutely certain the utmost effort is made to minimise the use of oil or other fossil fuels.

I recently got a strong reaction to the price of gas and oil when canvassing a housing estate in my good friend the Ceann Comhairle's own town. The housing estate in question is completely dependent on gas. Some of the less well-off people living in that estate find the extraordinarily high price of gas to be of major concern. Other people to whom I spoke complained about the price of oil. This matter must be addressed.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill before the House is an illustration of the hollowness of the Government's policies towards the environment. It underlines the empty rhetoric in which the Government engages, in terms of indulging in "green speak" and not undertaking one inch of green action. The reality is the Government has decided to renege on any responsibility towards our global environmental responsibilities. There are things we can and should be doing and are choosing not to do. Those parties which are currently in Government have decided there is a political price to pay for that. However, there is a greater political price to pay for doing nothing.

As with most issues, especially those relating to the environment, the general public is far ahead of general political thinking in this area. What we must do is take bold measures to put in place initiatives that will change the drastic nature of all the negative statistics on climate change. The only argument offered by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to date is that, as a country, we have managed to decouple our economic growth from the rise in carbon emissions. That is utter nonsense. Every country has decoupled economic growth from its carbon emission growth figures. To hide behind that hollow statistic shows how empty is the Government's position.

In the period from 1990 to 2000, this country saw a growth in its carbon emission levels of 140% while the comparable average figure for Europe was 25%.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is completely false.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should read yesterday's newspaper. The Irish figure was 140% and the European average was 25%.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a completely false figure.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister did not deny it yesterday when it appeared in the newspaper.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Boyle should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with it in due course. It is a completely false figure.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will not deal with this statistic; in the past year alone, transport emissions have increased by 7%.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are transport emissions.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They have added to the increased figure at which we find ourselves. We have reached 25% when we are meant to be at 13% over 1990 figures. The reality is the statistics are going in the wrong direction. It will not suit the Minister, even though he might choose to do it, to reinvent statistics to his own liking. Ireland is the sick man of Europe when it comes to environmental policies. Above all other countries, we were given an allowance that permitted us to exceed 1990 levels when the Kyoto Agreement came into force. Despite that buffer zone, we have chosen to exceed it by double the figure.

That is even before we get to the faulty mathematics underpinning the Bill and the money put aside by the Minister for Finance in the recent budget. The Bill is based on a premise that the price of these credits will be linked to the price of carbon, which currently stands at €15 per tonne. We know from experience that the increase in the price of oil, which will go upwards in the future, will mean a continuous increase in the cost of carbon credits. Due to the Government's failure to deal with carbon emissions, we also know the amount of tonnage for which we will have to buy credits will be substantially increased. The €100 million accounted for in this Bill, the €270 million accounted for by the Minister for Finance, are pathetically low figures that will be exceeded many times when the final bill is due.

That money could be used more productively. I hope it will be when there is a necessary change of government to implement the measures that should be introduced, such as a national insulation programme and measures that transfer spending from the roads budget to public transport. The two speakers the Government parties have decided to provide for the debate — a figure that demonstrates the depth of Government concern — put forward the incorrect argument that the Green Party will cease building all roads in Ireland. Last year, we spent €6 on roads for every €1 on public transport. Unless we correct the balance, the upward trend in statistics, with a 7% increase in transport emissions, will increase incrementally.

We have heard the hoary old arguments about decoupling economic growth from carbon emission growth. At the same time, the two speakers from the Government parties protest that to move any faster is to risk economic growth. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot boast he has decoupled economic growth from carbon emissions growth while stating that he would risk economic growth if he was to take any measures to tackle climate change. It is a fallacious argument but that seems to be his practice.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope Deputy Boyle does not run from the Chamber after making his contribution because I wish to respond.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be here for the Minister's final contribution because this is one of the worst Bills the Minister has produced.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is unusual for the Green Party.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Anything the Minister states will be to the benefit of the Green Party's because we will contest the general election on his record, the mess he has created and presided over as well as his solutions, which are nothing more than face-saving exercises on the part of the Government. In the next 12 weeks, the fag-end of the Government, the Minister and his colleagues will introduce a number of strategy documents intended to review documents of the past. These will include reviews of the national spatial strategy, the climate change strategy and the White Paper on energy.

These documents will be an indictment of the Government's failure to address this issue over ten years. They are all mañana promises. The Government should be ashamed of itself and it will pay a political price for its negligence in this area. The initiatives must be bold, forward-thinking and consider matters beyond the lifetime of a single electoral cycle. The Minister does not have the nerve to do that and his party and this Government do not have the political courage to embrace these matters. The public is aware of the consequences of doing nothing.

The argument made by the Minister and the single colleague who has contributed to this debate is that the purchase of carbon credits is development aid for developing countries. This is incorrect. It is a shameful and nauseating argument after the developed world has created the problems with which the developing world must live. It is the depth of political plurality to suggest that this is the way out of a mess created by the Minister. He had the means to introduce bold measures but has almost always chosen a different route. His building regulations, the use of cavity blocks and his attempt to stymie the attempts of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown to set the highest possible standards are examples. The Minister and his Department wrote that letter and he should not deny it in this House. He stymied the attempt to set the highest possible energy efficiency standards in Irish buildings.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is untrue.

Photo of Rory O'HanlonRory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Deputy Boyle addresses his remarks through the Chair, he might not invite interruptions. The Minister should allow the Deputy to continue without interruption.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair knows how untrue is Deputy Boyle's statement.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding emissions trading standards, the Minister had an opportunity to make a statement on how the production of concrete, one of the main building materials, should be viewed. A company in Dublin produces environmentally friendly cement. The Minister could have chosen 1990, the year the Kyoto Agreement is based on, as a baseline for the introduction of the emissions trading scheme. The company producing environmentally friendly cement has been operating to these standards for several years. When the Minister's standards were introduced, traditional, highly carbon intensive forms of cement were given an economic advantage over environmentally friendly cement. I have no confidence that the Minister is able to make the right choice or has an appreciation of the scale of the problem, or that the Government is willing and able to implement the necessary measures. The proof of that is the ten years of government that has brought this level of failure. This is a Government that has failed completely and does not have the confidence of the public. It will not be rewarded at the general election for its failure.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Boyle should have the courage to stay and hear my answer. He is running out as usual. Typical of the Green Party.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will return at 6 p.m. to hear the Minister's final response.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Connolly.

The National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, was successful at managing the national debt, a fact no one disputes. However, the fact that this agency takes responsibility for carbon credits and this is not connected to ecological concerns demonstrates that it is seen as an economic matter rather than an ecological one.

We are taking the easy option by buying our way out of responsibility in the short term. It will cost us a fortune in the medium term if this approach continues. We are dipping into the pockets of the taxpayer rather than taking the lead. The public is far ahead on this matter but still requires leadership. I recall a profound statement to the effect that leadership is about delivering loss. There was an opportunity to accept this loss because the public is genuinely concerned with the survival of the planet. We can do much better than this and we should give the lead to the developing world rather than using it as a crutch. The row over a paltry 200 buses that were to be delivered late last year and early this year ended with 100 postponed until a later date. One would not think Ireland had a major transport crisis. We are also needlessly emitting major amounts of carbon. We could do better and this demonstrates the lack of connection between the Government's policies and its delivery of these policies.

The situation regarding the concrete block industry is similar. It was bailed out at the expense of the unfortunate homeowners who will not have the required standards. It will cost these people more to heat their homes and the houses will be worth less in the future because they will not meet the required standard. It was a shameful decision to bail out the industry. The "O Lord, help me to be pure but not yet" approach was taken in delivering the Government's policy.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

St. Augustine.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are many good measures in Transport 21 but it is also short-sighted. In Kildare North, there will be commuter services from Maynooth to Dublin city centre and Hazelhatch to Dublin city centre in ten years' time. At that point, when one tries to board a train in Sallins or Kilcock one will find that only the peak time service is of the standard it should be in a "commuter belt". If we had a policy of encouraging people to use public transport we would take a ten year approach rather than simply solve today's problems.

Deputy Cregan said this is a "win-win situation" for developing countries. That is an appalling statement.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is what Kofi Annan said at the conference in Nairobi.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but look where he is now.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He knows something about the developed world.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the medium term when people question why so much is taken from their taxes and there is a mismatch between policy and delivery, they will look back on this debate as a shameful approach to a serious issue on which we could have done much better.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Carbon dioxide emissions are a serious problem, caused by the energy we use through our dependence on cars, home heating, aircraft, manufacturing, animals etc. The taxpayer will foot the bill if we do nothing about our emissions. I noted the spat between the Minister and Deputy Boyle about Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council's initiative which I understood would, or would try to, operate tighter regulations than the national standards. Any builder who gets permission for more than ten houses must achieve a 40% increase in energy efficiency, a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions, and provide 20% of water heating from a renewable source. That is a commendable way for any council to go, if that is the way it is going. Other councils should take a leaf out of its book. This is the way forward.

Anybody building a house for re-sale should have to meet this type of standard too, otherwise there is a temptation to cut corners and insulation and heat retention values would suffer most in a commercially built house. There is a company in Doohamlet in County Monaghan which won a prestigious award at the Plan Expo 2005. It has produced a system which can be installed in any house, old or new, and will heat water from a renewable source. It heats all domestic water from heat usage in the house, including body heat, collecting it at the highest point in the house and converting it to heated water. It is more efficient and cheaper than solar panels, costing only €3,500 to install as opposed to €8,000 for solar panels, and there are no construction costs involved. Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, sees the benefit of the system but does not recognise its value and will not give it grant aid as it will solar panels or several other similar efforts, which is a pity because that type of enterprise should be encouraged.

We should also consider the development of the passive house, a term which has not entered our vocabulary yet. Such houses exist in Germany where they are insulated to such a degree that they require very little heat, costing maybe €2 per week. That comes from insulation and the re-use of heat within the house. We should examine this type of system.

There is also a solar roof tile system. We must use natural resources in a way that does not contribute to our carbon emissions problem. We have a very high dependence on gas, petrol and so on but there are ways to reduce that. We do not make enough use of the wind power available at sea. There are also geothermal systems that would help to reduce our emissions. County councils have an obligation to lead the way, for example, by using geothermal heating in groups of ten houses. They should try not just to meet standards but to surpass them, using the standard as a minimum not a maximum.

I have a problem with the concept of grant-aiding burning devices for houses, such as pellet burners. Part of the grant should be given to ensure that people insulate their houses fully. There is no point creating cheap heat in a house if we let it fly out the roof. We do not make enough use of insulation grants. These existed in the past and I ask the Minister to consider grants for insulating homes because they can provide excellent value for money. County councils should use new housing systems and ways to reduce emissions.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this Bill, as it comes within the general remit of my own area of responsibility. The concept of carbon trading is highly questionable. The Minister does not agree with this but I strongly contest the view that it improves the lot of poor countries and allows developing countries to press ahead. It does not confront the issue that needs to be confronted, reducing the amount of carbon that we disperse into the atmosphere, and getting to grips with global warming. If scientists say vociferously that we have serious problems it is imperative that we act to address those problems. Failure to do so is negligent. Putting off until tomorrow what can be done today is not the way to go about this. I accept there is no single way to address this situation adequately. The Minister cannot come up with one suggestion that will totally solve the problem. The energy area requires various contributions, producing bio-fuels, generating alternative electricity methods and so on. The easy way out if there is sufficient funding is to buy credits but that does nothing for this country's carbon footprint.

An amazing theory is beginning to develop. We have scrapped our sugar beet industry, although the industry has not been completely scrapped in the United Kingdom or France, both of which are also in the European Union. This leaves an opening for ethanol production but this is banned under the agreement in the CAP reform. I cannot understand the logic behind the notion that it will be more efficient and effective to import our ethanol from Brazil, Argentina, Australia or elsewhere. That is rubbish. Obviously it would be far better to grow the fuel and trap the carbon at home, and then release into the atmosphere a carbon neutral product. That is not being proposed. The current proposal is that we should engage in a new atrocity whereby we import it from countries which, it is alleged, are better suited in terms of sunshine and the length of the growing season, transport it by air or sea to this country and then burn it. That is daft and illogical. It is obviously better, and will contribute to achieving our obligations under Kyoto, to grow and burn the product at home, rather than growing it elsewhere, bringing it to this country and doing nothing about our carbon footprint.

There are plenty of experts on this issue, all of whom point out the dangers and problems, and their magnitude. Few of them, however, come forward with precise answers to address the problems. We must first address the question of the so-called carbon footprint. That is easily done but if we do not do it in our home country, we are not fulfilling our obligations. All we are doing is divesting ourselves of responsibility and telling other countries that, since they have not used the same amount of fuels and not produced the same amount of greenhouse gases, we will trade with them and both countries can continue as they were. That does not address the issue.

It also does not address the issue of import substitution, which is particularly important. Security of supply is vital. We are well aware that energy imports into this country are subject to fluctuations in world markets and to the political attitudes that prevail throughout the world from time to time. These can change dramatically. Obviously it is important that we think in economic terms with regard to production of the fuel and to fuel substitution. We will not solve the entire problem in one fashion or another, but by developing various means of substituting our current fuel import levels, thereby creating security of supply and economic independence, which is vital.

The debate we have heard over the past year or 18 months has been well intentioned in some cases but, in other cases, the Government has responded in a panic-stricken fashion. It has grabbed at every straw, and suggested ways and means out of the situation which merely reflect poorly on the Government's inaction over the past five years. If we had reacted five years ago it would have been much easier to put in place the measures that would bring us into line with Kyoto requirements. Targets were set ten years ago and we failed to reach them. Now we are going off on a tangent and buying what we can when we have the money to buy it. However, if this economy and the world economy take a downturn, this flash buying and the big talk about the millions we will spend on carbon trading and so forth will quickly fade.

It would be good policy on the part of the Minister to follow Fine Gael's policy, which was the first policy enunciated. It was put down on paper at least a year before the European Commission's and the Government's proposals. We probably did the right thing because it gave the Government time to read, digest and copy it. Fortunately, the Government copied most of it. I well understand why. The main reason is that the policy is realistic, futuristic, progressive and attainable. In addition, the Government had not exactly broken the sound barrier in preparing its plan so our policy was a welcome sight. The Government grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle was as surprised as I was because usually the Government is hugely independent of the Opposition and slow to copy it. However, I welcome this change. We are obviously succeeding when others wish to emulate us.

There is also the issue of joined-up government thinking, which means getting the various relevant Departments involved. I welcome the proposal from the Minister for Finance regarding the abolition of excise duty on specific amounts of home produced plant energy. However, there is considerable room for improvement. It is possible to double the target without difficulty, and that supply target will be met. Every litre and gallon produced locally serves the ends I referred to earlier.

One of the arguments put forward in favour of importing bio-fuels is that the amount of transport required here in the creation and distribution of the bio-fuel would negate the purpose of the exercise. Carbons would get into the atmosphere as a result of the transportation of the fuel throughout the country. How is it intended to distribute the imported fuels throughout the country? Will they be blown or flown across the country? Will they be distributed by balloon? Is there some other means of transportation for the distribution of such fuels that I have not yet espied? I should have made that point earlier in my contribution. I cannot believe that argument.

However, that argument has another agenda. Every issue nowadays is surrounded by agendas. The agenda in this case is getting more interesting as time goes by. The Government has allowed the situation to get so bad that something must be done in a hurry. The Government failed to recognise the problem and take action in time. It now believes the only action to be taken is the fire brigade one of indulging in carbon trading. This will get us over an emergency but the Government could have done many other things a great deal sooner, which would have been far more effective. It would not then have been obliged to engage in carbon trading. The Minister for Finance could have kept the money and not made provision for carbon trading if the Government had done its job properly.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was told by somebody this afternoon that the Green Party is an idea whose time has come. I hope the Minister will agree with that. The party is 25 years in existence——

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Happy birthday.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. When one looks back at what the party has said over those years one can see that it has been vindicated. I hope our time has come. I recall the debate about Moneypoint, when we spoke about the problems with sulphur and CO2. A gentleman from the ESB stood up at a public meeting and said that wind energy here would never work. He said the entire county would have to be filled with wind turbines and that it was off the wall. I do not believe it is off the wall. I recall being on the Gay Byrne radio show 17 years ago discussing the environment and climate change. Gay Byrne was more concerned with fridges being dumped at Howth but I said he should be more worried about CO2. While it is invisible and odourless, it had to be explained to people that it is one main cause of global warming. It was a difficult concept to get through to people. A long period has elapsed since then and yet nothing has been done. With educational television programmes on global warming being broadcast nearly every night, people are beginning to grasp what is going on.

Seventeen years ago, we did know about global warming. NASA had produced its first studies showing that climate change was happening and even attributed it to human activities. I do not understand these claims that it is only now it has been discovered it was due to human activities. We have known it for so long yet successive Governments failed to act. When I was Lord Mayor of Dublin, the official car I ordered was run on biodiesel which was scoffed at. People have changed their perceptions since then.

The latest edition of New Scientist claims global warming and its consequences may even be worse than originally believed. The last thing we want to do is panic people and give rise to an atmosphere of despair because people feel helpless. People must, however, realise the situation is dangerous and must be acted upon. People are beginning to make the connection between strange weather conditions and global warming. The whole coastal area of Dublin is vulnerable to flooding. My constituents in Ringsend have had recent experience of flooding and for the first time are asking if it is linked to global warming. At the time of El Niño, I claimed on "Morning Ireland" that it may have something to do with global warming. I was told that it was irresponsible to make such a connection. Increasingly, however, we have to make such a connection to make global warming tangible and real for people. The problem must be traced back to people's lifestyles and individual responsibility.

This morning I explained to a group from St. Louis High School how the carbon fund would work and how Ireland would buy carbon credits from less developed countries. They were quite shocked that we intend to buy our way out of a problem, instead of being reasonable and cutting our carbon emissions. If the Minister had acted early on the Green Party's sensible policies in this regard, we would not find ourselves in this bind. The cost of the buy-out will not be €270 million. Instead, before anyone knows it, it will be up to €700 million. This is not an alarmist figure. The Minister can spin all he likes about the decoupling of economic growth from our emissions graph. The Taoiseach interestingly now uses the green lingo and buzzwords. He will be the next Al Gore the way he is going but it is not backed up by any action. Al Gore has a problem with his own carbon footprint if I am to believe what we read in the newspapers.

The Minister must examine fiscal instruments in tackling our carbon emissions. Deputies Eamon Ryan and Boyle explained on the Vincent Browne show how a carbon levy can work. Domestic tradeable quotas — carbon trading on a domestic level — must be introduced to ensure we are all responsible for our carbon input. If targets are set, our Kyoto Protocol responsibilities will become achievable. Is the Minister going to simply dismiss the idea of a carbon levy? He cannot dismiss it anymore. It is frankly irresponsible for any party to claim we cannot afford to introduce a carbon levy and a domestic tradeable quota. Those days are gone.

I note from today's The Guardian that the British Chancellor, Gordon Brown, was attacked by Ryanair because he had the temerity to introduce a further tax on aviation fuel. The Minister knows such levies must be introduced. It makes no sense that someone going to Paris for a weekend by aeroplane can travel more cheaply than someone going to Cork by train.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was agreement on that matter at last week's European Council meeting.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a no-brainer. Anyone can see it makes no sense.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

According to The Irish Times, the Minister had earlier opposed such a development.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should not believe everything he reads in The Irish Times. I was a strong supporter of the move at the Council meeting. I did not read or write the article in The Irish Times.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is supposed to be the newspaper of record.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It used to be.

Photo of Michael WoodsMichael Woods (Dublin North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Gormley without interruption from either side of the House.

Photo of John GormleyJohn Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Practical measures can be introduced. Cuba, an impoverished country, decided that in three months every household, business and Government office would have long-life light bulbs. That is an example of a practical measure that could be introduced.

Vested interests, however, are at work in this area. When Lord Mayor of Dublin, I visited the then Governor of California, Pete Wilson. At the time there was an exhibition of ZEVs, zero emission vehicles. When I congratulated the governor on this, he informed me that it was not the future. Reformulated gasoline was the future and the electric car went by the wayside. The website www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com highlights the role played by the automobile industry and the Exxons. These, and the ESB, are the interests the Minister must face up to when examining how the country can be greened. Until a few eggs are broken to make an omelette, it will never happen.

5:00 pm

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The last year has seen an historic transformation in mankind's understanding of climate change, for which various people deserve to be commended. Al Gore made a large contribution in the positive manner in which he presented this issue as a moral one and one for individual choice. His book, An Inconvenient Truth, the film of the same name and the subsequent debate around it played a large role in this transformation. Sir Nicholas Stern's report had a fundamental effect by setting out very clearly and simply the science as well as the economics.

Other events last year very important to me personally were the climate change negotiations in Nairobi, the 12th conference of parties to the Kyoto Protocol, COP, and meeting of parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, MOP. I thank the Minister for allowing me to attend as part of the Irish delegation. I sat in the chamber with the advance working group examining the next stage of the Kyoto Protocol and where we go after 2012.

I had a strong sense, based on a fair understanding of the issue gleaned from many years' reading, that those negotiations were the most historic to have occurred in the history of mankind. I cannot understand how one could describe them any differently when one considers the scale of the consequences that scientists now tell us are possible if we do not address climate change. In that hall were some very impressive people, and the European Union delegation did us all proud by taking a strong position and saying it would play its part by setting a target to achieve a 20% reduction by 2020, afterwards moving to a reduction of at least two thirds from 1990 levels, since that is the scale of response needed from developed countries. The Japanese Ambassador also impressed me greatly with his passion.

However, others depressed me. It is a cliché, but that was perhaps to be expected from the Saudi delegate. However, I was also concerned at the response from the Chinese and Indian delegates. Leaving the room, I felt that it was full of bureaucrats. There is nothing wrong with being a bureaucrat or ambassador, but ultimately they could not take a strong stand unless mandated to do so by their political leaders, which is only right and fair. I also consciously understood that for those political leaders to address the issue seriously we must go to them as individuals throughout the world and express our concern at the issue, asking them to lead so that our countries can set an example and take tough decisions. We need them to represent us and do their best.

Unless we have public movement and demand of politicians that the issue be taken seriously, that will not happen. While the science has been evident for the last 20 or 30 years, the political will has not been present. As a result, negotiations have been weak. Fundamentally, this is important to us all as individuals, whether in the Dáil or outside. It is up to us to set out the framework within which we wish to act and behave.

An aspect of the Stern report that I very much commended, something that has changed within the last three or four years, is the scientific knowledge of the consequences. The matter is complicated, and it is difficult to be certain, but feedback mechanisms in climate change are of real consequence. Scientific colleagues have said over the years that positive feedback mechanisms such as cloud formation might help us. I commend them on making a valid argument.

However, it is increasingly clear that there are several feedback mechanisms that really ratchet up the scale, importance and urgency of the issue. Scientists are very clear on them. They have become apparent only in recent years, but they are causing increasing alarm. One of the earth's great lungs, the Amazon rain-forest, may change very quickly as the local climate and precipitation change in response to more general climate change, killing off the rain-forest within a matter of years. That would release untold quantities of carbon dioxide into the upper atmosphere, thus creating runaway climate change.

The Siberian tundra is a vast area of frozen bog peatland whose vegetation has not decayed properly, meaning that methane is trapped. Scientists have valid concerns that it may melt as the planet, particularly the northern part of the northern hemisphere, warms rapidly. That would release a quantity of methane that could trigger runaway climate change. Scientists are increasingly saying that by the middle of this century we will not have an Arctic ice-cap, and its loss will further heat the planet, since we will lack its reflective capacity. Most recently, scientists have expressed real concern that our oceans, which have been soaking up half of our carbon dioxide emissions, will no longer be able to do so, since they will have become saturated.

Those feedback mechanisms make this such an urgent issue. It is not now a question of what we do over the next 50 or 100 years. The next decade will decide whether mankind goes over a tipping point and creates runaway, catastrophic climate change that will truly threaten its future on the planet. Sir Nicholas Stern's report was superb in how it showed in one simple graph what happens with various temperature increases. If there is a 1° Celsius increase, we lose the coral reefs. In the Andes, cities such as Lima, with 11 million people in the middle of a desert and dependent on glaciers for water may no longer have it. What do 11 million people do in a city in a desert with no water? The Stern report clearly illustrates the science, suggesting that a 2° Celsius rise could mean our losing half the species on the planet. That may seem simple on the page, but how can we comprehend the scale of losing 50% of species? Are we willing to allow that to happen? That change is relatively small and does not lie in the distant future.

The urgency is apparent, and the scale of the reaction is substantial. The EU has taken a lead, and I commend it on its target of a 30% reduction. I hope we succeed in getting the Chinese and the Americans pulling the same way. We must be honest about this. If this country is to achieve even a 20% reduction, which is not as high as I would like, we must go from a situation where we are 25% above our target and adding 2% per annum to 20% below in less than 13 years. That is a quantum change. Does the Minister disagree?

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, and I will deal with that in my response.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is of fundamental importance. I do not believe we will have an opt-out in the same way as previously. I do not believe we will be able to go to the international community and ask it to excuse poor Ireland, since we are no longer poor. We are one of the world's worst polluters and have an even greater obligation to achieve the reductions of 3% per annum that I believe necessary. If we look beyond 2020, we will require reductions of 70% to 80%, meaning that even the 20% target is only the start.

Let us consider where we are going. Sustainable Energy Ireland produced an excellent document looking forward and plotting trends to 2020 under current Government policy. It will be relatively accurate, since the shifts are fairly long-term. Rather than a radical decrease, it predicts a further radical increase of 30% in our energy emissions. We must turn this country around on a dime in the same way the United States of America was turned around at the start of the Second World War.

Everything must change, but when I say we must review the roads programme and spend more on public transport, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, questions how we might possibly discuss it. I ask how his party or its coalition partner can even mention climate change when they are unwilling to consider setting a course to address it. It would have positive effects for the country, since the current roads-based system is not working. However, on the individual moral tack alone, that level of new thinking is required if, in a decade, we are to play our part in preventing the planet tipping into irreversible long-term catastrophe.

I will return to Al Gore. Our job as leaders is not to scare people or make them feel guilty. We are far from paragons of virtue, and Al Gore may have been burning too much carbon in recent years. However, I forgive him, since he has done a very successful job highlighting the issue of where we go from here. None of us is perfect, but we are all faced with a moral choice, particularly political leaders, who must take this country in the right direction.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies for their many interesting contributions, some provocative and some grotesquely inaccurate. I will address the last point made by Deputy Eamon Ryan, since I nodded many times while he spoke. Several points can be made. The Nairobi conference was one of those life-changing events. It was in the right place because the impact of global change was all around. The cries from African and other developing nations, including Vanuatu, could be heard there. The Deputy is quite right in that respect. I also agree with the Deputy's second point — that it is not really an economic issue but one of moral imperative, which should inform our views and responses.

I want to address the issue of carbon purchasing mechanisms. The Deputy will recall that at that conference, Kofi Annan made what I thought was an astonishing contribution, calling for action to support Africa in particular. He said that the flexible mechanism in the Kyoto agreement could be used to positive moral effect. He also said it could be used properly to help the developed nations of the world to be much more ambitious and progressive, and not to be concerned about any economic impact at home.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

But not as our only response.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Deputy saying "Not as our only response".

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is our only response.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not Ireland's only response and the Deputy knows that as well as I. Two or three weeks after Kofi Annan's remarks, 600 scientists produced their report on climate change at a conference in Paris. They unequivocally placed on the record exactly where we are going on climate change. If there were any doubts about it, they were dispelled at that stage. Mr. Nicholas Stern spoke at that conference, which was organised by the French president, and had also spoken in Nairobi. Another speaker was Mr. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN conference on climate change. All three of them made the point that the flexible mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol could be used to huge positive effect. Before any Members of this House turn their minds irrevocably against it, we should think that through. Deputy O'Dowd said we should not turn against it but should use it where it is logical to do so. That is precisely what I am proposing to do.

I was amazed by Deputy Michael D. Higgins's failure to grasp the benefit to the developed world that could flow from the proper and moral use of the flexible mechanism. We all believe that it must be channelled correctly. The €40 million worth of credits that the Government has purchased so far has been done in a moral way through the ERBD and the World Bank. It is appropriate that those mechanisms should now be focused in a fashion that delivers real benefit to the countries that do not have our environmental pollution problems because they do not have the energy resources that are available to us.

A discussion arose from the Nairobi conference about how some people's lives were dominated by the search for sticks to burn in stoves for heating and cooking purposes. The flexible mechanism can be used as a hugely liberating influence in their lives. That is why Kofi Anna specifically called for it. It would be a bad mistake for us to say that the mechanism can never be used.

A number of Deputies referred to purchasing credits as a simple way of buying out. The reality, however, is that purchasing credits is part and parcel of the bulk of EU member states' national allocation programmes. Countries with good environmental records and good relations with the Third World, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, have indicated that they will develop programmes for purchasing credits. It is therefore foolhardy of us to say that we will not take that route at all.

I agree that we must focus on correcting matters here and I will come back to that point in a moment. I wish to take up a couple of points that Deputy Gilmore made during his contribution. He talked about fines and penalties totalling €750 million and continuously misrepresented the purchase of credits. That is to his discredit because I do not think he is unaware that what he is saying is inaccurate. If he were to think the matter through correctly he would see the error of his ways.

I will make a couple of specific points because time is running out. It would be wonderful if we could have a more flexible debate on this subject because we need it.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could the Minister come to the point about the target of minus 20% or 1990 levels?

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am coming to that and will deal with it now. Last week, at the Council of Environment Ministers, I indicated that we would actively support the 20% target. In fact, I had indicated thus at the Nairobi conference, as the Deputy knows. I also indicated that we would actively support Europe's target of minus 30%, which should be the post-Kyoto target for the world. I accept the European Union's view that Europe itself cannot correct this issue. That is why we supported the 30% figure, which is the way we should go, as well as the 20% figure. I respectfully inform the Deputy that his calculation is incorrect. As he said, we are currently 24.5% or 25% above 1990 levels. It is a fact that the Irish economy has grown by 150%, although Deputy Boyle likes to dismiss this reality.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the Deputy could listen. Very few developed countries, particularly in the OECD, have grown by anything like 150% in that period.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They have all grown.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is quite correct to say that they have all grown.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no connection.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can he name one of the EU 15 whose economy has grown by 150%?

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The growth does not matter. The principle is the same.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has failed the test.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a fallacious argument because they have all decoupled. The Minister cannot hide behind that statistic.

Photo of Eamon RyanEamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, is the Minister indicating that Ireland will get a separate deal that will not require us to meet the minus 20% target?

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the point I am getting to. That is a valid question as opposed to the sleight of hand we were getting from the Opposition side. There will be a burden-sharing agreement on that 20% basis. One does not simply take 20% or 30% and reduce the existing 13% plus figure by that much. If it is 20% it will bring us back to the 1990 figures. I can let the Deputy have the note on this matter, which includes the calculations. It is a fair question and that is the answer to it.

Deputies:

The Minister may wish to provide some other notes also because under an Order of the Dáil of last December his time is up. He should wind up please.

Photo of Fergus O'DowdFergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Slán leat.

Photo of Dick RocheDick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish we had more time for contributions on all sides. In his film An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore said there is not a single, silver bullet solution. I am pleased that most people here recognise that. I am not pleased, however, that most Members made rather specious arguments dismissing the huge benefits that can flow from using the flexible mechanism. The purchase of carbon credits is incorporated as part of the Kyoto agreement and is supported by people such as Al Gore and Kofi Annan. It is also supported by the EU Commission and countries that signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. It is logical therefore that we should support it too.

Question put.

The Dail Divided:

For the motion: 63 (Dermot Ahern, Michael Ahern, Noel Ahern, Barry Andrews, Niall Blaney, Johnny Brady, Séamus Brennan, John Browne, Joe Callanan, Pat Carey, Donie Cassidy, Michael J Collins, Mary Coughlan, John Cregan, John Curran, Síle de Valera, Noel Dempsey, Tony Dempsey, John Dennehy, Jimmy Devins, John Ellis, Michael Finneran, Dermot Fitzpatrick, Mildred Fox, Pat Gallagher, Noel Grealish, Mary Harney, Seán Haughey, Joe Jacob, Cecilia Keaveney, Billy Kelleher, Peter Kelly, Séamus Kirk, Tom Kitt, Brian Lenihan Jnr, Conor Lenihan, Tom McEllistrim, Micheál Martin, John Moloney, Donal Moynihan, Michael Moynihan, Michael Mulcahy, M J Nolan, Éamon Ó Cuív, Seán Ó Fearghaíl, Liz O'Donnell, John O'Donoghue, Denis O'Donovan, Noel O'Flynn, Ned O'Keeffe, Fiona O'Malley, Tim O'Malley, Tom Parlon, Peter Power, Dick Roche, Mae Sexton, Brendan Smith, Michael Smith, Noel Treacy, Joe Walsh, Mary Wallace, Ollie Wilkinson, Michael Woods)

Against the motion: 51 (Dan Boyle, James Breen, Tommy Broughan, Joan Burton, Paudge Connolly, Joe Costello, Seymour Crawford, Seán Crowe, Ciarán Cuffe, John Deasy, Bernard Durkan, Damien English, Olwyn Enright, Martin Ferris, Eamon Gilmore, John Gormley, Séamus Healy, Joe Higgins, Michael D Higgins, Phil Hogan, Brendan Howlin, Paul Kehoe, Pádraic McCormack, Shane McEntee, Paul McGrath, Paddy McHugh, Liz McManus, Olivia Mitchell, Arthur Morgan, Breeda Moynihan-Cronin, Catherine Murphy, Gerard Murphy, Denis Naughten, Michael Noonan, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Fergus O'Dowd, Jim O'Keeffe, Brian O'Shea, Jan O'Sullivan, Willie Penrose, Pat Rabbitte, Michael Ring, Eamon Ryan, Seán Ryan, Joe Sherlock, Róisín Shortall, Emmet Stagg, David Stanton, Billy Timmins, Mary Upton, Jack Wall)

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg.

Question declared carried.