Derek McDowell (Labour)

——seven years ago. The Government committed to incentivise a move away from coal and it has since reversed that decision. The plan refers to an expansion in renewable energy but it is still at 4%. There is a proposal to bring it up to 33% by 2020 but I wonder how this will be achieved.

The maximisation of CHP is proposed but CHP has hardly increased in terms of the contribution it makes towards the generation capacity. The plan also refers to an enhanced demand energy programme managed by the Irish Energy Centre. I will return later in my contribution to the issue of demand management. With reference to the transport sector, the plan refers to fuel efficiency measures, further rebalancing of VRT and annual motor tax to favour more fuel-efficient cars. A provision was made for hybrid cars but other than this there has been no rebalancing of VRT or motor tax in the past seven years in order to favour fuel-efficient cars. Senators will be aware that it is a matter of only a few months since the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, announced precisely the same measure, except that this too will be subject to a year-long thought process which will also span the period of a general election. One would not need to be an arch-cynic to realise where that is coming from or going to. The plan refers to fuel economy labelling for all new cars but I do not know whether this is happening and the Minister may be able to clarify. The plan refers to modal shift measures which effectively amounts to a shift from road transport to public transport. It is a reality that 96% of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from transport usage come from road transport and there has been a significant incremental increase in the use of private transport in the ten-year period. The strategy suggested that a modal shift could take place in seven years but this has not happened.

The strategy refers to demand management and setting fuel taxes at appropriate levels but no effort has been made to achieve this target. It refers to the development of an integrated traffic management system. Anybody judging the way Dublin city works or does not work can make their own judgment on that. The strategy refers to achieving higher residential densities. This has been part of a number of different programmes the Department has produced, but it has not happened in any serious way. It refers to restrictions on out-of-town retail units — we could ask IKEA about that.

In terms of the industrial and commercial sector, it refers to market instruments, including targeted taxation measures and emissions trading. We are getting emissions trading but not targeted taxation measures. It refers to negotiated agreement with industry, with the option for firms to comply with agreements to reduce their tax burden. A pilot study in this regard was undertaken five years ago but was discontinued. It refers to the examination of investment support from the perspective of greenhouse gas emissions. I have no idea whether that happens but I doubt it. It refers to specific measures to tackle industrial gases, including the use of alternatives. There was a threefold increase in industrial gases from 1997 to 2004.

It then goes on to refer to the agricultural sector and reducing the national herd. The truth is the national herd has reduced in size and this has led to a significant reduction in the emissions of methane, but it will come as a surprise to the IFA and most farmers that this was a central plank of Government climate change strategy.

I hope the point is made. We need to examine why Government has done so little and failed so abjectly in this regard because there are a few key messages in the strategy from which we can all learn, not just the Government. The political commitment has not been evident across Government to do anything different. The actions of the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, tell us a certain amount. I have no doubt there are those in the Minister's Department — they may include the Minister and his predecessors — who firmly believe the climate change strategy is crucially important and who labour long and hard, and have done so over many years, to produce strategies, statements, endless speeches, press releases and so on.

The problem is there is no joined-up thinking. It is all very well for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to believe it is important we take measures to combat climate change, but if at the same time the Department of Transport and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, which is responsible for energy, are doing things which pull in exactly the opposite direction, the end result is stasis and we get nowhere.

Conflicting aims are at play. There are conflicting aims within individual Departments and within Government. It becomes a matter of which gains priority and it is crystal clear, considering the record of the past seven years, that tackling climate change does not take priority. Last week, the White Paper on energy highlighted the fact that the aim of ensuring diverse forms of energy supply and electricity generation is clearly weighted much more heavily than any notion of tackling climate change. It is all very well for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to suggest we want to move away from coal and towards cleaner, more efficient use of energy, and to reduce the use of energy. If at the same time, however, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources suggests we need to diversify and ensure we continue to use coal, I am not sure we are going anywhere.

We also need to make the point, because Government has been strong on this point, that we have not successfully decoupled the twin aims of economic growth and tackling climate change. If one considers the two primary indicators of transport and energy usage, they have increased——