Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This question must be seen in the context of the claims by the Dublin Airport Authority, daa, that the development of the second runway will have very positive benefits in terms of the economy and job creation. I have no doubt that this is true but it is a very one-sided analysis if there is no full impact assessment regarding emissions and the environmental costs associated with the development. What studies have been done in that regard?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Clare Daly for substituting for Deputy Wallace. I am not sure who is the more formidable adversary in this House this time, but I will give her the same answer I would have given Deputy Wallace. The Deputy will be aware that the daa holds statutory responsibility for the management, operation and development of Dublin Airport. In line with this responsibility, it is a matter for the daa to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to facilitate the development of the airport and that there is sufficient capacity to meet existing and future demand.

It is my understanding that the runway development was subject to a rigorous environmental impact assessment, EIA, as part of the full planning process. At that time, the environmental impact statement, EIS, clearly stated that the impacts of the runway on carbon emission would not be significant and that mitigation measures such as improved aircraft engine efficiency, efficient airport operations and international climate agreements would address aviation carbon emissions. I also note that the 2020 national reduction targets under EU Decision 406/2009/EC (Effort Sharing) do not include international aircraft emissions so the north runway project will not have any direct impact on these targets.

Aviation emissions are to be addressed separately under an agreement reached at a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, in 2013 to establish a global market-based measure for aviation emissions. It is anticipated that the details of that global scheme, which will apply from 2020, will be finalised at the ICAO general assembly in September 2016. Currently, aviation emissions from flights within the European Economic Area, EEA, are subject to an emissions trading scheme known as the EU ETS scheme. This scheme imposes a cap on the emissions of individual airlines such that all intra-EEA flights to and from Dublin Airport are covered by this scheme.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is correct in saying that the daa is responsible for airport development but the rigorous EIS that was carried out will be 13 years old by the time the new runway is operational in 2020. Obviously, our understanding of emissions and climate change has developed since that original permission was given almost ten years ago. One of the difficulties is that we had originally tabled these questions to the Minister for Communications, Climate Change and Natural Resources only to have them referred back to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. There is a certain conflict in that regard.

Some of the issues are very pertinent. Aviation is responsible for about 5% of global carbon emissions. In respect of best practice, some environmentalists would say that there should be a moratorium on usage. If one looks at Dublin Airport, particularly post Brexit, one can see the number of passengers the airport now gets and the number it would need to offset the costs of the second runway that will inevitably drive up the number of flights and emissions. At the very least, a revised analysis of this would be necessary.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy will probably be aware that at the moment, the daa is in the process of examining the scope of a further EIS for the purposes of seeking a review of the operating restrictions foreseen for Dublin Airport under the existing planning permission for the north runway and has recently gone to public consultation on this matter. This consultation provides an opportunity to contribute to the content of an approach adopted in the EIS.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The problem is that the new scoping exercise for the new EIS is, as the Minister says, to look at lifting the restrictions imposed on the planning permission which is almost ten years old. There is a real problem with that on a number of fronts. First, our understanding of the impact of noise and environmental damage from aviation has progressed substantially in the past ten years, yet even at our lower level of understanding, An Bord Pleanála decided that permission could only be given with these restrictions. It is precisely these restrictions that the daa is attempting to lift, which will undoubtedly have an enormous impact. The Minister says it has done that as part of the new process. In fact, it is not really sure why it is doing it or where the information from that scoping exercise will go because it depends on what the Minister does in transcribing EU Regulation No. 598/2014, which is the subject of other questions on the agenda which will not be reached. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to how he is going to deal with the transcribing of that directive.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of emissions is obviously separate from the issue of noise. Both issues must be separated and will be rigorously addressed. I assure the Deputy that I will watch very closely the activities of the daa in mitigating noise. I can give her the assurances I gave her previously in the House that it is imperative that the interests of the residents are looked after, that the inconveniences and disturbance they have suffered are regarded as a very high priority and that the mitigating measures are adequate and satisfy normal, decent standards so that people are not disturbed to an extent that makes their lives miserable while the runway can go ahead.