Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

1. To ask the Taoiseach when the last meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change and the green economy was last held and for when is the next one scheduled. [35188/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

2. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding the UN leaders' summit on climate change; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36519/14]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

3. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the United Nations summit on climate change in September. [36526/14]

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

4. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the UN Secretary General’s climate change summit in New York; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37616/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

5. To ask the Taoiseach the administrative arrangements within his Department that were put in place to assist in drafting his recent speech on climate change; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37628/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

6. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address at the UN climate change conference in September 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37636/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

7. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address to UN Secretary General's climate change summit on 23 September 2014, when he confirmed Ireland's support on phasing down HFCs, green freight, global carbon pricing and climate smart agriculture; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37638/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

8. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address to UN Secretary General's climate change summit on 23 September 2014, when he said that leaders must step up to the mark on the challenges of climate change by showing conviction, clarity courage and consistency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37639/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

9. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address to UN Secretary General's climate change summit on 23 September 2014, when he said that governments and corporations have a responsibility to define objectives and make policy decisions to take action to preserve our planet; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37640/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

10. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address to UN Secretary General's climate change summit on 23 September 2014, when he said that Ireland had contributed generously to fast start finance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37641/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

11. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address to UN Secretary General's climate change summit on 23 September 2014, when he said that the climate conference in Copenhagen was not a success; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37642/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

12. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address to UN Secretary General's climate change summit on 23 September 2014, when he said Ireland had implemented a range of carbon pricing instruments including a carbon tax; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37643/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

13. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his address to UN Secretary General's climate change summit on 23 September 2014, when he said that climate justice was a key element of the UN sustainable goals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37644/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

14. To ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet committee that discusses climate change met last. [37647/14]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

15. To ask the Taoiseach if he attended a meeting with UN special envoy Mary Robinson while at the climate change conference; the issues that were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37649/14]

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

16. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent attendance at the climate change summit in New York, hosted by the UN Secretary General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39835/14]

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

17. To ask the Taoiseach the position regarding his recent speech to the climate change summit in New York, hosted by the UN Secretary General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39836/14]

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

18. To ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change last met. [39837/14]

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

19. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on any side meeting he had concerning climate change at the UN summit in New York; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44780/14]

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

20. To ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change last met. [44781/14]

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

21. To ask the Taoiseach when the Cabinet sub-committee on climate change and the green economy last met. [44906/14]

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputies. The Taoiseach is answering questions.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 21, inclusive, together.

These questions relate to the Cabinet committee dealing with climate change and my attendance at the climate change summit hosted by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York in September. I have been asked about meetings of the Cabinet committee dealing with climate change. The most recent meeting took place on 11 November. This was the second meeting of the newly constituted Cabinet committee on economic infrastructure and climate change, which will ensure that discussion of the climate change agenda is fully integrated into broader discussions on economic infrastructure. The next meeting of this committee will be scheduled as required. In the meantime, senior officials from relevant Departments continue to meet on a regular basis to deal with climate change issues. The issues are also dealt with, when appropriate, at the Cabinet committee on European Affairs.

I have also been asked a series of questions concerning my attendance at the UN summit on climate change on 23 September last. I attended this summit at the invitation of United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who hosted the event at the UN headquarters in New York. The summit was convened in an effort to add political momentum to ongoing negotiations to have a binding global climate change agreement. It is hoped that agreement on a deal will be reached by the end of 2015 when Heads of State and Government are due to meet in Paris under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The summit in New York was an important stepping stone towards next year's UN conference in Paris. Representatives of almost 170 nations attended the event, making it the largest gathering of Heads of State and Government to discuss climate change issues since the 2009 UN conference in Copenhagen.

During my address to the plenary session, I emphasised the need for progress towards a globally binding agreement and called on other nations to step up to the plate in dealing with the challenges posed by climate change. The global community cannot afford another failed set of negotiations, as happened in 2009 at the Copenhagen conference. I indicated that Ireland supported the EU objective of bringing forward our contribution to a global climate deal by the first quarter of 2015 at the latest.

In my address, which had input from a range of Departments before I finalised it, I highlighted areas where Ireland was making significant progress in addressing the climate change challenge. This includes our world class performance in regard to carbon efficient agriculture and food production; our implementation of a range of carbon pricing instruments, including a carbon tax; our long-term policy objectives to support the transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy; and our intention to enact climate legislation in the near future. I also highlighted Ireland's strong contribution to aiding the climate mitigation and adaptation efforts of other countries, particularly through our contributions to fast start climate finance and to supporting the climate justice agenda.

I attended both the opening session and the plenary session of the summit. I did not have any side meeting. Deputies will be aware that the former President of Ireland, Ms Mary Robinson, was appointed earlier this year by UN Secretary General Ban as his Special Envoy for Climate Change. She played a pivotal role in ensuring the success of the climate change summit in New York. While I did not meet the former President on the day of the summit itself, I did have a very useful meeting with her here in Ireland before I departed for New York. Mary Robinson is an internationally respected figure whose foundation does tremendous work in addressing the climate change challenge, and particularly the important issue of climate justice. In her latest role as Special Envoy for Climate Change, she helped ensure that world leaders joined the summit in a very significant way and numbers, and added to the awareness of the need to achieve a global agreement by the end of next year.

Notwithstanding our constrained investment capacity, Ireland is playing its part in relation to this important challenge, like increasing levels of renewable energy and addressing emissions from agriculture while at the same time maintaining our commitment to meeting global nutrition and food security objectives in a carbon-efficient manner. We continue to work closely with other member states and the European Commission to devise ways to improve continuously the level of carbon efficiency in our agriculture sector. Now, we have signalled our interest in the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture and look forward to working with partner countries outside the EU to advance further our understanding of how to produce food for a global population while at the same time maximising our contribution to the global effort on climate change.

Within the European Union, Ireland is making a strong contribution to the overall effort despite an extremely challenging set of 2020 targets compounded by the impact of the economic crisis since those targets were set. While the Government supports the principle of an ambitious contribution by the European Union for 2030, it is determined to ensure the sharing of that contribution across the European Union's member states is fair and recognises Ireland's specific challenges and specific circumstances. This means taking proper account of Ireland's agricultural sector, which already is highly carbon-efficient, as well as recognising the severe limitations on capital investment over a number of years arising from the fiscal crisis and the constraints of Ireland's EU-IMF programme. At the European Council last month, I emphasised these concerns strongly and am satisfied we are making progress in what will continue to be challenging negotiations in the coming months.

I also indicated Ireland's support for a number of important international initiatives on climate change. These include a World Bank statement on carbon pricing, the phasing down of climate potent hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, and the global green freight action plan. I also signalled Ireland's interests in a new initiative on climate-smart agriculture. These are just the latest of a number of examples in which Ireland is working closely with its counterparts within the European Union and internationally to deal with the climate change challenge.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his address to the United Nations climate change meeting in September, the Taoiseach spoke about the need for a collective global response and about the need for corporations to take responsibility, to define objectives and to take action. He also spoke about the need for sustainability. The Taoiseach is correct that a global response is needed urgently considering the imminent threat of rapid rises in global warming rates, the huge environmental damage to ecosystems this will do and the huge impact it can have on weather patterns, sea levels and so on, which can have devastating effects on coastal communities, many of which are in a highly vulnerable condition. In respect of this critical issue of climate change, did or does the Taoiseach reflect at all on the fundamental conflict that exists between a world economic system that on the one hand is driven by powerful corporations with the maximisation of private profit and super-profits as their key aim and how on the other hand, this threatens the climate by virtue of the cost-cutting emissions put in by those corporations and their disregard for the vulnerability, needs and horrific poverty of hundreds of millions of people?

Is the Taoiseach aware of the world-famous Canadian author and activist, Naomi Klein, and her recently published book on climate change and its catastrophic effects, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate? She states the world has not "done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because these things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism", which is the reigning ideology. She states further that greed, "fully liberated by lax regulation and monitoring", is hugely at the source of the types of pollution and emissions that cause global warming. Is the Taoiseach aware of the report some time ago in the journal, Climatic Change, which stated that a mere 90 companies worldwide have produced 63% of the accumulated global emissions of industrial carbon dioxide and methane between 1751 and 2010? Moreover, it states that nearly 30% of those emissions were belched out by the top 20 companies and that half of the estimated emissions occurred in the past 25 years. Is this not a really alarming picture regarding the causes of climate change?

How does the Taoiseach envisage this issue being resolved worldwide when one has this fundamental conflict between what is causing change and the fact that governments in Europe and all over the world are in the pockets of those same corporations, if not corruptly then through ideologically sharing the same ideas? In addition, as can be seen in Europe for example, there is the huge lobbying power of these massive corporations, which have ready access to the European Commission and to Ministers and Prime Ministers from every Government throughout the European Union. What hope is there of a radical challenge to the activities of these corporations and the profit maximisation that is militating against serious measures being taken to cut emissions radically in the interests of humanity and of the future of our environment and ecosystems?

Does it not make a mockery of ordinary people throughout the world how even climate change is being turned into yet another type of global market situation in which the emissions trading scheme essentially has major corporations buying the right to pollute? Is this not quite an obscene development? What is the Taoiseach's view this regard? What practical steps does the Taoiseach believe should be taken and spelled out to people here and internationally to challenge this established situation which, unless it is challenged and changed, will continue to wreak further havoc?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Higgins for his comments and broad analysis of the challenges we face. At European level, Ireland obviously participates in the general consensus that one must take political action in this regard to meet the targets that have been set out. However, the Government also is conscious that Ireland has arrived at a position in which its agrisector is highly energy and carbon-efficient at present. As quotas go in 2015, it will lead to a situation in which one can increase substantially the output, particularly from the dairy sector, in an area in which it is known that Ireland is one of the few countries in the world to be leading in terms of the carbon footprint of the agrisector. While Ireland has been constrained for many years by virtue of the quota system being in existence, a freedom now is building up that is evident in the transactions of land and the preparation for the opportunity, especially for young farmers, in the agrisector where they see these opportunities piling up. This is tempered on the other side by the fact it is extremely difficult to get agreement on some of these areas, given our position as a member state of the European Union and the targets that were set for us for 2020. The purpose of the last European Council meeting was to set out targets for 2020 to 2030 and there will be no hope in high heaven of Ireland being able to reach those targets. It will be exceptionally difficult for us to achieve the targets set by 2020.

4 o’clock

Those targets were set on the basis of different kinds of evidence drawn from various sources of scientific analyses. The country was left in a position where it would not be able to meet such targets. The conclusion of the European Council was to support Ireland's particular profile, which is very similar to that of New Zealand in the context of agri-output, and to create a situation whereby afforestation and sequestration will allow for a recognition in respect of that element of the target which we must achieve between 2020 and 2030.

With regard to what action is going to be taken, at the European Council meeting there was a genuine response from the 28 member states to the effect that this matter should be able to be dealt with in a global context at the Paris conference next year. In that regard, intensive rounds of discussion and negotiation will begin in the new year. That to which the Deputy referred is already having an impact, particularly in terms of the analysis the OPW is being obliged to carry out in respect of flood defences in Cork, Galway and Dublin and at many other locations throughout the country. During our lifetime, weather patterns have changed significantly and we have witnessed the havoc which massive tides backed by storm-force winds can wreak on the economies of many of our towns and cities. One need only consider the impact of last year's floods in order to obtain evidence in this regard.

The fifth and final report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, which concluded what the panel terms the "fifth assessment", brought together the key findings - involving thousands of inputs - issued by all the major working groups in the past 14 months. The IPCC's report is valuable in the context of facilitating sound decision making and the development of science-based policy at all levels and it provides the evidence base on which the work being carried out nationally and internationally rests. Its publication was timely, especially as we begin the process which will lead us towards the conference to be held in Paris at the end of 2015. As Deputy Higgins is aware, this the strongest and clearest report issued by the IPCC. It reiterates the warning that climate change is unequivocal, that the human influence is clear and that climate change is having widespread impacts on human and natural systems on all continents and across all oceans. Of course, some parts of the globe have been much more adversely affected than others.

The combined findings of the report are striking. They indicate a clear rise in average global temperatures by almost 1° Celsius since the 1880s and project a further increase in the coming decades. According to the report, the widespread loss of ice sheets in the Arctic Ocean will result in a rise in sea levels and changes in rainfall patterns. The latter would both be major concerns for Ireland, particularly as they are expected to result in much more intense rainfall and an increased risk of flooding. We have had some evidence of this in the past couple of years. The report is also clear on the consequences of inaction. Even with adaptation, the continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. One such impact would be in the context of food production.

Crucially, however, the report highlights the actions we can take. It notes that substantial near-terms emission reductions can reduce risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation and contribute to climate-resilient pathways which can lead to sustainable development in different countries. It is in that context that work is under way to draw up a national low-carbon development plan - which will be underpinned by legislation - to ensure maximum certainty for the future. Through Irish Aid, this country is helping developing countries to adapt to climate change. At home, work is under way on the sectoral adaptation plans.

The IPCC report also notes that the problem of climate change is a global issue and that it, therefore, demands a collective response. At EU level and in participation with all countries involved with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, Ireland is assisting in working towards a new global agreement in respect of this matter. I listened to quite a number of the speakers who addressed the UN climate change summit and while many delivered set-piece speeches, it was obvious that there is a very strong consensus to the effect that it will not be possible to deal with this problem unless all the big nations - including the major players in the Far East and the United States - are involved. Whereas Europe, as one of the older groupings of developed nations, has been leading the way in terms of climate change, there is no doubt that much more needs to be done and that a global response is required. There would be no point in putting some countries to the pin of their collar in the context of achieving targets to keep carbon emissions down while other nations are not participating. The effect of the statements made by the UN Secretary General and the major global players was to highlight the absolute necessity of full participation by all nations across the globe.

Ireland supports a number of initiatives, including that which relates to climate-smart agriculture. We have already indicated our agreement in respect of initiatives in a number of other areas and we will work towards taking action on these. Food security and food shortages are global issues. We are of the view that we can continue to produce food of a much higher integrity and standard - while ensuring that we keep the situation with regard to our carbon footprint in check - than that produced in countries which do not have in place regimes to control carbon emissions. We see this as part of the European Union response and we will play our part in respect of it. While the targets we were set for 2020 were both challenging and unachievable, we are not without ambition - particularly in light of the footprinting system we have developed for the agri-sector - with regard to we can achieve between 2020 and 2030.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to ask approximately five or six questions on this matter. The Taoiseach referred to the International Panel on Climate Change but the Government has essentially taken a step backward in the context of climate change. It has been talking a good game at the United Nations but in reality the issue of climate change has been removed from the domestic debate. That is in stark contrast to the position which obtained in the years prior to the Government entering office. Basically, it has adopted a policy of actively stepping back from taking assertive action since 2011. The former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Commissioner Phil Hogan, was probably of the view that even discussing climate change would have negative electoral consequences. That is something I have noticed in the context of a lack of debate or discussion on climate change. There is no sense that the alarm expressed in the international panel's fifth report has had an impact in Ireland. There is no indication that the catastrophic impacts which will result from climate change, as it unfolds, have entered public discourse here.

Prior to this Government coming to power, Ireland was very active in respect of matters relating to climate change. A broad series of policies were announced and implemented. I refer, in particular, to that which related to seeking an advantage in the context of creating green economy jobs. On reading the speech the Taoiseach delivered to the UN in New York, one might actually believe that he is engaged with regard to this matter and that his Government is highly active in respect of it. The Taoiseach called on his fellow leaders to show conviction, clarity, courage and consistency. Is he of the view that he has shown such conviction, clarity, courage or consistency? In some respects the Taoiseach's speech was cynical in nature. For example, he claimed credit - fair enough - in respect of initiatives which predated his arrival in office. He has not acknowledges this but, in effect, that is what he did. To some extent the claims he made camouflaged the Government's decision to - in terms of the domestic agenda - downgrade climate change since it came to office. In this context, I refer to the fact that initiatives relating to the provision of fast-start finance in respect of clean energy and carbon pricing instruments predate the Government's entry into office and that the concept of developing a green IFSC in order to make Ireland a world leader in supporting the financing of carbon reduction technology was championed by the Taoiseach's predecessor.

I ask the Taoiseach to instruct his legacy-focused Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to come up with some real medium-term objectives and policies on climate change. The draft legislation published by the former Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, in early 2013 is more regressive than anything that was produced before. If one contrasts the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Bill of 2010, the Labour Party Bill of 2009 and the all-party Bill with those produced by the current Government, one will see a stark difference, particularly considering that there is a lack of any strategic targets for 2050, for example. I do not know why the Labour Party saw fit to acquiesce in all of this and broke its promise to legislate for the goals it included in its legislation in 2009. That party has now settled for flawed, emasculated legislation, but that is a matter for it. The Bill has been roundly criticised by many environmental organisations and groups for its lack of vision and a meaningful strategic framework.

Deputy Higgins has said deregulated capitalism is the great enemy of action on climate change. I do not necessarily agree with that in the sense that there will always be a will to survive and to do what makes sense economically eventually. I accept that short-term greed can and is clearly getting in the way of meaningful international and global action but, notwithstanding that, there has been a change at European level. Germany's decision to have nuclear-free energy production means it is moving back towards coal production. It is actually encouraging others, including multinationals and other big companies, to start expanding coal production to fuel its economy. It is approaching a crisis in terms of where it will get its energy. It is the bigger states that have taken a decision to be less ambitions in terms of the targets at European level. That is a fact with regard to renewables also. I refer to the scaling down of what were ambitious targets in regard to renewable energy.

The two countries that stand out in terms of having taken a proactive decision to do something about this were the United Kingdom, under Mr. Tony Blair and Mr. Gordon Brown, and Denmark. The United Kingdom saw that climate change could have an economic dividend because of innovations, new technologies and the development of alternative industries right across the board. In Denmark, an industry was made out of renewables and employed up to 30,000 to 40,000 because of targeting 15 to 20 years ago. Denmark would say that it was in the 1970s that it decided to become fossil fuel free. First it got rid of imports and then developed its own oil and gas industry, which will be eliminated by 2050. It has a clear, strategic plan in this regard but we do not have such a plan anymore. I do not get any sense from the Government that it is clear about what it wants to do.

Consider the transport sector. We talk a lot about agriculture and food, on which we are in agreement. We have long been considering forests as comprising a carbon sink that should mitigate against losses. Transport, however, is one of the biggest challenges facing the country. I do not seen any major initiatives emerging from the Government in regard to the transport sector that could reduce our carbon emissions. What is planned for the transport sector in respect of the climate change agenda? We need to play our part but we can do so in a constructive and productive way that could actually yield jobs in the future and that need not undermine economic growth or recovery.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point is that there is a difference between targets and principle. One could set targets that might not be completely realistic for the period from now until 2050 and probably find oneself in the courts most of the time over not being able to achieve them. One must have the discussions and negotiate to determine what realistic targets could be achieved, accepting that we have to and want to participate, and that we want to be ambitious about what we are doing. The fact of the matter is that the targets set for 2020 have proven to be completely unrealistic. Ireland was actually given the highest greenhouse gas reduction target of all the member states, a target of -20%. Who sat down and negotiated that? On what basis was a target negotiated that was utterly unrealistic. Deputy Martin knows that the fines that will apply from 2020 to 2030 are enormous. The sacrifices people have made here over recent years to put our economy in a sustainable position will be wiped out by a series of enormous fines because targets have not been achieved. Can somebody explain to me the basis on which this country was given the highest greenhouse gas reduction target of all the member states, -20%. This target was completely problematic and unrealistic, and it was even more severely compounded by the unprecedented economic catastrophe our people had to face here. The catastrophe led to a decade of delayed progress on the challenge of mitigation; that is a fact.

The extent of the challenge posed by 2020 is very well understood by the Government, and it is reflected in the national policy position on climate change and low carbon development and the general scheme of the climate action and low carbon development Bill, both of which were published this year. Notwithstanding the difficulties, we are still performing well regarding the big challenges here by increasing levels of renewable energy. We are addressing emissions from agriculture in a more carbon-efficient way, while at the same time maintaining our commitment to meeting global nutrition and food security objectives. We are broadly on course to comply with the annual mitigation targets in the first half of the compliance period. The immediate focus of the national low-carbon roadmapping process will be on making further progress in the second half, from 2017 to 2020. That is why Ireland's negotiations on its next set of targets, for the period to 2030, are focused on achieving a fair and manageable adjustment for that period.

When the Deputy speaks of principle and targets-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I said nothing about principle.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy did speak of targets; the principle is accepted. The reduction target that was set for 2020, -20%, was the highest of all the targets for all the countries in Europe. That is a fact. This was compounded by the fact that we were still expected to meet the target although we went over the cliffs economically.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That helped. The lack of economic growth put us back on track.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have to be realistic about what we can achieve. I do not want to take any credit - I never have and never will - but must say that the European Council actually agreed with Ireland's position in that it has a very different profile from any other country in the European Union. The only country with a similar profile is New Zealand, because of its agricultural sector. This is why the European Council made a commitment on achieving consensus on what is fair and manageable but yet ambitious, given the fact that we can actually produce so much more and have a pretty sophisticated carbon footprinting situation.

From an EU perspective, the priority was to achieve agreement on an overall EU approach to climate change and energy priorities for the period to 2030. I am glad the European Union set an ambitious target. Headline targets under the EU 2030 climate change and energy framework include a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases, increasing the share of renewable energy to 27% and increasing energy efficiency relative to 2005 levels by 27%. These targets will put the European Union in a very strong position leading up to the UN conferences, this year in Lima and next year in Paris.

From a national perspective we had a number of concerns heading into the October meeting. The Cabinet sub-committee had discussed this in very considerable detail. Ministers and officials dealt with detailed negotiations with the Commission in the lead up to that Council meeting. Following the Council, I believe that these concerns will be addressed in a new way and that we have established the basis for a more realistic and achievable set of targets for 2020. The Council accepted some important principles about the scientific and economic realities of climate change mitigation. It is important to realise that none of this affects the overall EU ambition level. It simply sets out the basis for this country to achieve a fairer share of the burden than it has had up until now.

I believe that we achieved a major breakthrough in regard to agriculture. For the first time, the Council specifically recognised that agriculture emissions are more difficult to mitigate than man-made emissions from energy use. This ensures that there will be a greater coherence between the EU's food security and climate change objectives. It is particularly important for Ireland where the unique position of our already highly carbon-efficient agriculture sector has been fully recognised. The capacity of afforestation to sequestrate carbon has also been recognised as a potential part of the EU's solution to dealing with climate change. That is important for Ireland and we have already agreed major investments with a view to expanding that level of forestry cover. Work will continue over the coming months to determine how this recognition will affect the 2030 targets for individual member states.

I took the opportunity at that meeting to emphasise the economic and fiscal challenge that our country has endured and the effects that we are still dealing with, fragile as they are. I made it clear that our agreement on headline targets is based on a clear understanding that our non-ETS targets, which include agriculture, will take account of our specific circumstances. That is some of what happened.

I have a number of other points. Deputy Martin mentioned the transport sector. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is looking at the question of the low carbon development Bill. The Government approved the drafting of that in April. On the basis of a submitted general scheme, the drafting of that Bill is currently being finalised with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Clearly, it involves issues of transport and emissions that will apply. In the first instance, the general scheme will include successive five-yearly national low carbon roadmaps and that will articulate a vision for low carbon transition and address greenhouse gas mitigation obligations on the State under EU law. Successive national climate change adaption frameworks will articulate a strategic policy to see that measures are taken at sectoral and local levels to reduce the State's vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change. In addition, the Bill will provide for the national expert advisory body on climate change which will provide advice to Ministers on the development of the national adaptation frameworks. Clearly, that includes the transport sector.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Taoiseach for his statement in which he outlined his role at the UN climate change summit but he omitted one part of a very progressive politically-correct speech that he made. In the speech, the Taoiseach stated there is no time to waste in the fight against climate change and then he went to the European summit the following month and argued for concessions on Ireland's carbon emission reduction targets. He explained here in some detail why he did that, but surely he sees the contradiction between the position he took up at the UN climate change summit in New York and then the realpolitik of his position at the European summit. The Taoiseach has not explained that contradiction. The sensible thing would have been for him to have stated at the UN summit what he later stated at the EU summit.

All of us are alert to the dangers to the planet and we all have seen in our own lifetimes how the climate in our own small island has changed. Some world leaders, including former President Mary Robinson, have done significant work in making this issue a global issue. I happen to agree with the broad principle that there is no time to waste but then I wonder why it took three years since the Government came into power before it introduced the climate change legislation. The heads of Bill were only published in April last. I welcome them but they display a lack of binding targets which is a fatal flaw in any legislation, no programme, no timeframe and no sense of setting targets which would be both binding and achievable. As I am sure the Taoiseach will be aware as he is around here longer than I am, any legislation which does not contain those elements is little more than aspirational.

If what the Taoiseach stated in New York is a statement of Government policy, if there is no time to waste, we need a specific set of targets and we need these to be combined with an overall strategy, which is about reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels and about the development of renewable energy, which, I am sure the Taoiseach will agree, would have the potential to create thousands of jobs. If we do not have that type of policy, then the agenda will be set by private operators, and perhaps that is the Government's agenda in the first essence. We have seen a lot of this, for example, the abandoned project to export wind-generated electricity rather than utilise renewables to reduce our CO2 emissions, which, clearly, should be an objective of any climate change legislation. Then, if I understand it properly, Dublin City Council voted against the Poolbeg incinerator project but that has been proceeded with. It is an issue the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government should be dealing with.

All of us have seen severe weather. We have seen it in flooding. We have seen the way our coastal regions have been hit with untypical weather. Therefore, climate change is a reality.

There is no point in going to big conferences and making the correct speech and then failing to take decisive action on the urgent issue. The Taoiseach draws attention to the big powers, China and India, which were both absent from the UN summit, but that does not mean we cannot act in our own place. We are teaching children to recycle. We cannot say to those children it does not make a difference because we are telling them that it does. Could the Taoiseach try to explain the "no time to waste" rhetoric of New York in the absence of no-time-to-waste legislation in the Dáil?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The difference is realism. As I already pointed out to Deputy Martin, this country was given the highest target to achieve of minus 20% carbon emissions. It was utterly unrealistic. Any Minister for the marine who has gone out to Brussels in the past 15 years has always been able to argue his case cogently for quotas in respect of fish or whatever,-----

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We gave away our fish.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----including in the Ceann Comhairle's years when he did exceptionally well, but it was based on accurate scientific evidence. What happened here, in setting out the targets for Ireland for 2020, was based on an amalgam of different pieces of information.

It set us a target that was utterly unachievable. One could ask whether we were to proceed on the basis that we accepted the target for 2020 and build on it for 2030, which would make it even more unrealistic, when the fines could increase to in excess of €1 billion and the concessions hard won by the people of this country would be wiped out. I say to Deputy Adams that it was important for us to be realistic about what Ireland could achieve. We have the scientific evidence to prove it and to back it up. We have drawn up a profile to show what we can do in the agri-sector, and what we are doing in terms of emissions.

The Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, has responsibility for the Office of Public Works, among many other things. Next year, for the first time ever, he will publish maps of the areas around the country that are prone to flooding. A total of 300 areas have been identified.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The people who live on flood plains know that.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Adams.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, they do not know.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important that we have a national picture of the areas that are liable to flooding. This country will have to set aside specific resources to deal with such matters as the loss of Arctic sea ice and the rise in ocean temperatures. We do not know whether it will be on the scale of €2 billion or more, but in the next 15 to 20 years we will have to make a strategic plan and make arrangements to deal with it. Next year will be the first time we will have an idea of the scale of the challenge the country faces on a national basis. The task remains to be dealt with by whatever Government is in office in the future. The analysis has been put together by the Office of Public Works in conjunction with local communities and local authorities. The catchment flood risk assessment and management plans will be published next year, giving Ireland its own idea of the scale of what we must achieve. I was in Galway last year when the high tide met the high floods and the situation was a disaster in a short time. Strategic measures must be developed and put in place in Cork city and in Dublin to attempt to cope with nature, which as we are all aware is virtually impossible to deal with when it gets really angry.

The intention was to set out principles and to follow that with legislation and to introduce targets based on scientific accuracy. It is only right that we should be able to go to certain areas and say that we want to play our part but what happened previously was not realistic. We indicated what is realistic and provided the scientific evidence to prove it. We outlined that we would measure up to the following targets. On the basis of the European Council recognising Ireland’s agri-sector, and the contribution of afforestation and the planting of new trees in terms of sequestration, that gives Ireland’s negotiators a really strong back wall against which they can plan for the period from 2020 to 2030. I do not wish to see a situation where the population is crucified with enormous fines because of unrealistic targets being set when we know what will happen will be different. The Minister will introduce the Bill in due course, as I outlined.

We have a carbon emissions policy at the moment. Hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, are very powerful man-made greenhouse gases, with warming effects hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than CO2. At present, they represent approximately 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but they are growing faster than any other greenhouse gas. The initiative supports a global phase-down of HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. It commits Ireland to taking action to promote public procurement of climate-friendly alternatives wherever feasible and a gradual transition to equipment that uses more sustainable alternatives to HFCs. During Ireland’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union last year played a key role in the negotiation on the new regulation on fluoridated greenhouse gases, which includes a phase-down of HFCs.

As a country that is highly dependent on road-based freight, the global action plan for green freight offers a welcome opportunity to learning and to sharing our experience with other countries, business and civil society. The action plan aims to raise the awareness and to work towards both aligning and enhancing existing green freight efforts through knowledge sharing, peer-to-peer partnerships and exchanges between Government and industry. We are currently examining a range of options to support a reduction in emissions. Such options would be aligned to the thrust of the action plan and would seek to minimise the negative impacts of freight on the environment in respect of costs, emissions and air quality. As Deputy Adams is aware, over the years the changes brought about in terms of VRT and taxation related to emissions has resulted in a reduction in emissions, which has played a not insignificant part.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach has turned it on its head.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Indeed.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Such was the contrast between the Taoiseach’s noble aspirations for urgent action on climate change in his UN speech and his attendance at the EU summit a month later to seek concessions to reduce Ireland’s contribution to climate change improvements, one environmentalist commentator accused him of having had the political equivalent of a lobotomy between the UN conference and the EU summit. It was suggested that the Taoiseach had “taken political recklessness and cynicism to new lows. History may judge that he [the Taoiseach] did more than any other politician of his generation to destroy the future of Irish agriculture”. The last point is important. It is not just the case that the concessions he sought were retrograde in terms of the environment, but what he and other environmentalists have been trying to point out is that the biggest cost we face if we fail to radically reduce our CO2 emissions is damage to agriculture. The cost of that would be far greater than the fines the Taoiseach has used as an excuse for seeking a reduction in the targets, because the biggest victim of the consequences of climate change is agriculture. If we do not deal with flooding in particular, the cost for agriculture will be enormous, the very thing the Taoiseach says he is protecting in seeking concessions from the European Union in terms of the targets. The Joint Research Centre’s report on climate impacts in Europe suggests that agricultural yields across Europe will drop by 11%, and in Ireland by approximately 2%, if radical action is not taken on climate change. That would be a massive hit for Irish agriculture in terms of revenue and growth.

The same report indicated that Ireland and the United Kingdom would be the worst hit by the increase in flooding that has resulted from climate change. We have seen the consequences of that. The Taoiseach has justified seeking concessions on the targets in order to prevent us being levied with fines, but on the other side of the equation, if we fail to deal with the impact of climate change we will incur a far greater cost in terms of reduced agricultural output and damage to agriculture generally. That is why I and many others do not accept the rationale behind the Taoiseach seeking concessions.

The Taoiseach was using quite colourful language suggesting that if we sought to meet these targets we would be completely screwed, as he said. It is interesting to note in the context of the debates about the use of colourful language these days that the Taoiseach himself is quite capable of using such colourful language. One might well say that we will be completely screwed if we do not meet the sort of targets that are being set.

On the issue of forestry, which has been discussed previously in the House, I am glad to hear positive sounds from the Government in this regard but the problem is that the sounds are somewhat like the hyperbole used in the UN speeches. Are the sounds about the expansion of forestry as a carbon sink and improving forest cover being matched with action? They are not. We are spectacularly underperforming in meeting our afforestation targets. We have consistently failed to meet our afforestation targets year after year, despite the fact that we have the most favoured climate for growing trees. Our State forestry company is precluded from contributing significantly to the afforestation programme and the private sector is simply not delivering substantial afforestation. What are we going to do given that we have the perfect conditions to grow trees but we are not hitting anywhere close to our afforestation targets if we are serious about reducing CO2 and using forestry as a climate sink, not to mention the significant spin-off and employment and economic benefits that could come from afforestation? Why is there not a major public State investment in afforestation which would result in those positive spin-offs?

I am unable to tally commitments to dealing with climate change and reducing CO2 emissions with increasing fare costs for those using public transport. It is a contradiction in terms. Fares are going through the roof and are becoming unaffordable for people to the point that it is becoming cheaper to use one's car than to use public transport. While this remains the case, the Taoiseach cannot be serious in talking about reducing CO2 emissions. What are we going to do to reduce public transport fares in order that we expand the use of public transport and therefore contribute to reducing climate change?

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know the environmentalist to whom the Deputy refers and from what he says I do not think I should read what he wrote, but that is neither here nor there. People are perfectly entitled to their views. The victims of inactivity about climate change are the people and not just agriculture. I make no apology for saying that the balance to be struck, as Deputy Boyd Barrett is well aware, is that milks quotas go in 2015. Our country has been constrained for very many years from reaching our potential in the agrisector, in the dairy sector in particular, because of those quotas which will be gone in 2015. An estimated increase in the national herd of approximately 300,000 cows is a natural consequence of the termination of quotas. On the one hand while we have a very sophisticated carbon footprint situation for our agrisector, we are in a position to produce far more food than we are producing. The Origin Green concept and the promotion by Bord Bia of high-quality food of great integrity is important in a world where there is starvation in many places. We are in a position to export high-quality, high-protein food for those who need it while maintaining our low carbon footprint, as against food that is being produced in other countries, possibly to an inferior level and with much higher emissions. That is one part of our profile which is relevant to our economic situation. If the Deputy is arguing that we should leave things as they are and that we allow others to produce low integrity food with high emissions, I do not agree with him.

The Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, has been dealing with the forestry situation for some time. I refer to the late 1940s when the then Minister, Joseph Blowick, was the first to initiate the forestry scheme. The Minister of State has completed his negotiations and his work on a very strong programme to incentivise forestry. People will not set land aside for afforestation unless it results in a worthwhile income stream, and why should they. Considerable areas of land are very suitable for the growing of particular trees such as spruce, for example. However, the scheme has never been as attractive as it should be. The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, has done a great deal of work and he will lay out his scheme very shortly.

As I said in reply to Deputy Martin and Deputy Higgins, Ireland is being realistic about achieving our ambitions. Deputy Boyd Barrett will be aware that in my contribution at the UN conference in New York I stated that Ireland, along with its EU partners, has exceeded our first Kyoto Protocol targets. We have implemented a range of carbon pricing instruments, including a carbon tax. We have long-term objectives for 2050 of an 80% reduction across electricity, transport and the built environment, and we are a world leader in carbon-efficient agriculture and food production which is a major component of the Irish economy. The Deputy's environmentalist friend thought fit not to mention that.