Dáil debates

Wednesday, 15 July 2015

Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015: Report and Final Stages

 

5:35 pm

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1, in the name of Deputy Stanley, is out of order. Amendment No. 2, in the names of the Minister and Deputy Cowen, arises from Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 6, 37, 45, 48, 49, 57, 60 to 65, inclusive, 69, 75 to 95, inclusive, 97 to 123, inclusive, 125 to 129, inclusive, 132, 133, 135, 137 to 139, inclusive, 141 to 145, inclusive, and 150 form a composite proposal. Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 63. All may be discussed together, by agreement.

Photo of Ann PhelanAnn Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 9, to delete “An Chomhairle Chomhairleach Shaineolach Náisiúnta um Athrú Aeráide” and substitute “An Chomhairle Chomhairleach um Athrú Aeráide”.
All these amendments have one aim, that is, to change the name of the National Expert Advisory Council on Climate Change to the Climate Change Advisory Council. A corollary to this is that the short title of the council, namely the Expert Advisory Council, will become simply the Advisory Council.

This issue was raised on Committee Stage and by the environmental NGO community with the intention of modelling the format on the Fiscal Advisory Council. Although I place limited value on the title of the council, I have, in deference to the wishes of others, tabled these amendments to effect the name change throughout the Bill. I hope the entire House can support them.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have tabled one of the amendments but the reality is that it is just a bit of a sop. The change was obviously at the request of Friends of the Earth in order to change the name of the group. However, it really only makes sense if the ex officio members are to be taken off the panel. To me, the proposal is just an attempt by the Government to say it is really listening to the submissions that were made but in reality there is only a name change. It does not alter in any way the content or orientation of the body, which would be necessary if we were to have some meaningful action. I will not waste time on it because there are more important issues.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. The future of the planet is probably the most important matter we can discuss. Many amendments have been tabled and many have been ruled out of order. Members in these benches have put a lot of work into the legislation in recent years. In the summer of 2013, many of us spent nearly two weeks in the bunker under Leinster House 2000 producing the committee report. The report, produced along with Professor John Sweeney, mapped out a way forward. It is disappointing that the Government has not taken on board the key recommendations.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy may speak only to the grouped amendments. The Minister of State has no role in the ruling in or out of order of amendments. This is decided upon independently.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just disappointed that they have been ruled out of order. I am not blaming the Minister of State. Are we taking all the grouped amendments together?

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments I read out are grouped and are to be discussed together. It was not my decision to group them; it was an independent decision.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that. The amendment on which I wish to focus-----

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The grouping list has been circulated to Members.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have it here.

I want to focus in particular on greenhouse gas emissions in the agriculture sector. While emissions must be reduced in other areas, we want to keep production at its current level in agriculture. That obviously presents a significant challenge. I have submitted amendments on this. The challenge concerns Harvest 2020, the Common Agricultural Policy greening requirements and the issue of Food Wise. There is great pressure to improve output and I certainly want to see strong beef and dairy sectors. The question we have tried to reflect in the amendments concerns how to keep agriculture strong without exceeding the imposed limits.

We need to consider restarting the beet industry. It was closed down in 2006 and 2007, unfortunately. This was very much an incorrect decision. Bearing in mind the great pressure to improve output, if we rely too much on the beef and dairy sectors, whatever Government is in power will end up buying carbon credits. They do not come cheap, never mind the damage we would be doing to the environment. Let us keep a good, strong beef and dairy sector but remember it has its limits in terms of farm expansion and production expansion. Beet is an excellent cash crop and break crop. It is a very sustainable crop for crop rotation, particularly with barley. Beet Ireland estimates that we import sugar products worth approximately €400 million. Beet has enormous potential to be of help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike cattle production, beet production does not result in greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the beet crop has the advantage of being a valuable carbon sink because it is a covering crop with big, broad leaves, certainly for the second half of its growth. This issue needs to be addressed.

5:45 pm

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about a change of name. I hate to be technical but we are dealing with Report and Final Stages.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While the beef and dairy sectors are important, we should not put all our eggs into one basket. In tandem with that, we should try to develop a strong tillage sector. In particular, we must give the beet industry the attention it needs and restart it.

In respect of other points relating to the amendments-----

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hate to be technical but we are dealing with Report and Final Stages. It is about a name change rather than what is being articulated by the Deputy. I want to be fair to all Members of the House.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I submitted 17 amendments. The question that arises concerns the advisory panel. I note that the Government is changing the name from the National Expert Advisory Council on Climate Change to the Climate Change Advisory Council. I am curious about the rationale for that. The Minister of State might address that. The lack of targets and the fact we are saying we will comply with EU targets and we are part of the EU-----

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not part of this. We are dealing with Report and Final Stages.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that. Are we dealing strictly with amendment No. 2?

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are all grouped together.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What are they being grouped with? Is it amendments Nos. 2 to 4?

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy want me to read them out?

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 are what I have here.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 6, 37, 45, 48, 49, 57, 60 to 65, inclusive-----

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Up to amendment No. 123.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy wants me to read them out, I will.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I have them here. They go up to amendment No. 123. I have the same sheet as the Acting Chairman.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All the amendments that have been grouped concern one issue, which is the name change.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can change the name but the real deal is what is in the Bill. I suggest that this Bill does not do what it should do and I will leave it at that.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Cowen.

Photo of Barry CowenBarry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will acquiesce in the Minister of State's agreement in respect of amendment No. 2 and others relating to the name change and I propose we move on.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State wish to reply?

Photo of Ann PhelanAnn Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This was raised on Committee Stage. People wanted the name change and this is the response.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Ann PhelanAnn Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, lines 10 and 11, to delete "National Expert Advisory Council on Climate Change" and substitute "Climate Change Advisory Council".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Ann PhelanAnn Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:" "Advisory Council” has the meaning assigned to it by section 8(2);".

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:" "baseline” means the aggregate amount of—
(a) net Irish emissions of carbon dioxide for 1990, and

(b) net Irish emissions of each of the greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide for the year that is the baseline year for that gas;
"baseline years" for greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide are—
(a) for methane, 1990,

(b) for nitrousoxide, 1990,

(c) for hydrofluorocarbons, 1995,

(d) for perfluorocarbons, 1995,

(e) for sulphur hexafluoride, 1995;".
There is no reference in the proposed Bill to any baseline years for any of the greenhouse gases listed on page 4 of the Bill. This amendment will allow us to have a reference point for these greenhouse gases against which the advisory committee, or whoever is involved in the monitoring process and the drawing up of the action plan, can measure our progress and around which it can organise. Without a baseline to work off, the Bill makes little sense and without targets to reach that reference, the Bill as a whole does not amount to anything. Obviously, the years proposed for the baselines in this amendment are highly ambitious, but that is exactly what we should be trying to do with this legislation. Scotland has similar years referenced in its legislation on climate change which is, in stark contrast to the Bill we have before us today, an example of international best practice.

On Committee Stage, the Government ruled out of order any amendment that included a reference to targets on the basis that Opposition Deputies cannot propose amendments to legislation that may have a potential cost to the Exchequer - perhaps the second most undemocratic instrument in Irish politics after the Whip system - and gave no defence of the ruling. By refusing to commit to ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, this Government is incurring a cost to the Exchequer and a global human cost that is only going to get worse. Those who live on or near the Equator line are already faced with daily life or death circumstances as a result of climate change and this Government's lack of action makes Ireland complicit. However, the insular and short-sighted thinking that dominates Irish politics today has no room for this reality nor does it see the lives of people - either those in Ireland or abroad - as having any real value, as evidenced by the decision to rule out any possibility of climate justice or real climate change mitigation because there might be a short-term cost to the Exchequer. If this analysis is too harsh, we can at least say that this Government understands the value of money but not the value of humanity.

Therefore, let us speak its language of quantity above all else. According to the European Commission, "early action on climate change will save lives and money. The EU-wide cost of not adapting to climate change could reach at least €100 billion a year by 2020, rising to €250 billion a year by 2050." Elaborating on the internationally accepted position that climate change poses a threat so serious that it could reverse the past 50 years of progress in global health and development, the European Commission has said that climate action would bring benefits of €38 billion a year in 2050 through reduced mortality caused by air pollution. The World Health Organization has estimated that, considering only a few of the associated health risks and assuming continued progress in economic growth and health protection, climate change would still be likely to cause about 250,000 additional deaths per year by the 2030s. A recent report by researchers at the International Monetary Fund identifies the omission of health damages from polluting fuels as the largest of the subsidies provided to global energy production and use, which will total $5.3 trillion in 2015, which is more than the total health expenditure of all the world's governments.

What is clear is that climate change and its causes are the greatest risks facing human health. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that when making a climate change mitigation plan, the Government has a reference point from which it can make long-term national commitments that are binding and those in power can be held accountable if they fail to protect the Irish people and the wider world. It is obvious that fast and meaningful action on climate change will have economic benefits for Ireland, but more importantly, it will mean the Government cares about the well-being of people. Failure to commit to targets and a fast-track of the mitigation plan will demonstrate that the opposite is the case.

As I have outlined, there is a wealth of peer-reviewed research showing that climate change will result in astronomical costs to governments the world over. There is also a long series of very coherent arguments from scientists, economists and international bodies that highlight the immense savings that will accrue from co-ordinated, effective and sustained commitment to ambitious emissions reductions targets. In light of these facts, a situation where the Minister refuses to entertain amendments that would commit us to national emissions targets on the basis that to do so would incur a potential cost to the Exchequer is Kafkaesque. This stance by the Minister is one of the starkest examples of the Government sticking its head in the sand on an issue. We would like to challenge the Government's use of Standing Orders as an excuse not to have to take seriously our concerns about the lack of any commitment in this Bill to reduce carbon emissions. Our argument is that contrary to the Standing Order ruling, it is the Opposition Deputies who are trying to save money for the Exchequer and it is the Government which wants to burn it and, simultaneously - I am not being over-dramatic here - the world with it.

A closely monitored and targeted emissions reduction strategy is essential for the economic and social well-being of this and every other country on Earth. The end result of refusing to commit to a significant target will be our collusion in the deaths of untold millions of people.

The purpose of the amendment is to give some meat to the Bill. As it stands there is no reference to a baseline or an end goal, making the Bill effectively not fit for purpose. The amendment is based upon the text of the Scottish Parliament's Climate Change Act 2009. That Act, in stark contrast to the proposed Bill, clearly outlines the targets to be met, the criteria under which those targets should be assessed in their feasibility by an independent body, an ambitious timeframe for the publication of that advice and the framework around the responsibility of the Minister in regard to that advice.

The proposed Bill has little or no detail surrounding this issue and at worst, it allows an advisory panel that is not genuinely independent to draw up proposals that will not be provided to the public before the drafting of the adaption plan or sectoral adaption plans. Furthermore, as is clear from a reading of the Scottish Act, the aim there is to arrive at the highest target possible and that a full explanation as to why higher than their proposed minimum targets cannot be achieved. The proposed Bill comes nowhere near this level of commitment to tackling climate change.

By failing to act on this issue, this Government is cementing its legacy as a regressive and destructive force wholly bound to free-market ideology, no matter what the cost to the planet or the people on it. This is a crisis that needs governments to lead by example and to rein in the economic system that has brought the human race to the brink of extinction. This would mean an end to privatisation and an end to austerity, an increase in public spending to build up the public services and infrastructure that will be our best protection against climate change. It will mean reining in the behaviour of the biggest polluters, for example our beloved FDI partners, instead of the current practice of corporate welfare that is so widespread today. It will mean fighting for better building regulations rather than the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government effectively banning international best practice for building properly insulated homes, as happened recently.

We should be investing in the public transport sector, especially light rail, instead of concentrating almost exclusively on the roads network and selling off bus routes to the private sector, while we are at it. We need to challenge the ideology that places the endless pursuit of growth above all else. The world is finite, but one would not think so to listen to those on the Government benches. The fact that we gave our oil and gas fields off County Mayo to one of the worlds biggest polluters as a present and then brutalised and imprisoned the local people who objected, is a bad signifier on this front-----

5:55 pm

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is straying from the Bill.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is intrinsically linked to it.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for his guidance.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to be fair to everyone.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. The Deputy is a very fair Cathaoirleach.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy.

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In view of this it does not come as much of a surprise that this Bill is toothless.

A national commitment to a reduction of 80% by 2050 is essential if this Bill is to carry any clout. Anything short of this will be leaving things in the hands of Europe and international agreements which have already been dumbed down. The 2030 targets of 40% recently set by the European Commission are clearly inadequate to meet the EU's own target of limiting global warming to 20 C. We need to give meaning to the words uttered by our leader, the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, in New York last September when he said, "Leaders, governments and corporations have a responsibility to define objectives, make policy decisions and take action to preserve our planet and secure a prosperous future for its inhabitants". The Bill, as it stands, has no defined objectives. Was the Taoiseach talking something different because it does not match up with the provisions in the Bill?

As well as health and social issues, a changing climate poses potential risks to global security, in particular, to secure, sustainable and affordable supplies of key natural resources such as food, water and energy, that are essential for economic prosperity and well-being, but the only food security that we seem to be worried about is the security of our beef exports that are having such a detrimental effect on the environment and on climate change. We need to have targets in this Bill and an 80% reduction by 2050 is in line with the EU commitment to stop the rise of 20C degrees rise in the global temperature. Anything short of this and the Government will not only have failed the Irish people but we will continue to play an active part in the devastation affecting billions of people in the most climate change-vulnerable regions of the planet. The situation we are faced with is stark and we need to take the lead in standing up to those who pose the greatest threat. We also need to sort out our own affairs while we are at it.

Naomi Klein summarises the precariousness of the scenario:

In 2011 the London based Carbon Tracker Initiative conducted a study that added together the reserves claimed by all the fossil fuel companies, private and state-owned. It found that the oil, gas and coal to which these players had already laid claim - deposits they have on their books and which were already making money for shareholders - represented 2,795 gigatons of carbon (a gigaton is 1 billion metric tons). That's a very big problem because we know roughly how much carbon can be burned between now and 2050 and still leave us a solid chance (roughly 80 per cent) of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius. According to one highly credible study, that amount of carbon is 565 gigatons between 2011 and 2049. And as Bill McKibben points out, "the thing to notice is, 2,795 is five times 565. It's not even close." He adds: "What those numbers mean is quite simple. This industry has announced, in filings to the SEC and in promises to shareholders, that they're determined to burn five times more fossil fuel than the planet's atmosphere can begin to absorb."
This Bill needs concrete commitments to national targets for emissions reductions for now and well into the long-term. Anything less is a monumental failure of the political class on this island to do something that will really make a better world, at home and abroad, now and for the remainder of our time on this planet.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer to some of the points made by Deputy Stanley. It is a disgrace that the discussion of this Bill is rammed into a half an hour the day before the summer recess. I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State but the fact that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is not present for a discussion on the biggest challenge facing our country and our planet is a little gobsmacking, to be honest.

This amendment is a critical addition to the Bill. It provides for national emissions reductions targets and Ireland's part in leading the way in tackling climate change. In order to be able to formulate an action plan for implementing climate change mitigation, we need a reference point from which to start so that we can measure our progress against it. Last September at the UN climate change summit in New York, the Taoiseach referred to long-term objectives for 2050 of an 80% reduction across electricity, transport and the built environment. Yet this Bill contains no reference to any targets whatsoever. The closest the Bill will come to mentioning a target is by way of the new amendment No. 17 from the Minister. This proposes to change the Bill to the effect that when the Government is drawing up its action plan in a few years' time, while making sure that all measures are cost-effective they will have regard to the policy of the Government on climate change. That is all the amendment proposes. The official Government policy published around the time of the first drafting of this Bill, is that we were in pursuit of low-carbon Ireland by 2050:

[T]he Government shall endeavour to secure an aggregate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of at least 80 per cent (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050, across the electricity generation, the built environment and transport sectors and in parallel, an approach to carbon neutrality in the agriculture and land-use sector, including forestry, which does not compromise capacity for sustainable food production.
Some aspects require clarification. This is not an airtight commitment to a 2050 target. Even if it could be construed as such, the Government policy only references carbon dioxide and none of the highly dangerous greenhouse gases listed in our amendment. In the first two decades after its release, methane is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Both types of emissions must be addressed if we want to effectively reduce the impact of climate change. If our amendment is not included in the Bill, this will not happen.

A plethora of amendments were tabled on Committee Stage which were ruled out of order because they made reference to emissions reduction targets. It was argued without any supporting documentation or argument that reduction targets cost the Exchequer money and that opposition Deputies are not allowed to put forward amendments which will cost the Exchequer money.

Debate adjourned.