Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Senators for their contributions. In particular, I appreciate the contribution made by Senator O'Toole. I say this in no patronising way. It is a stunning example of the paucity of thought in our Opposition. In all of the contributions made in both Houses, there has not been a single thoughtful or incisive contribution by the Opposition parties. The only party that made an honest contribution was the Green Party, which wants, as its answer to global warming, to shut the country down.

I have a certain sympathy with Senator Bannon who was obviously handed a script by the person who writes them for Fine Gael. I intend no comment on the Senator's character but I felt sorry for him having to read it into the record of the House. His contribution was a reiteration of the same old nonsense, half truths and innuendo. In short, it was derisory. I intend no disrespect to the Senator and, to be fair, the same script was read into the record elsewhere.

Senator Bannon stated that the European Commission stated that Ireland would not meet its Kyoto target. That is simply not the case. No such statement was made by the Commission. The Senator also stated that the Commission had criticised Ireland's open reliance on carbon credit purchases. Again, that is untrue. In its response under the national allocation programme — NAPS II — the European Commission criticised Ireland for not making provision in this regard. It is not the Senator's fault that he was given a script to read but what he said was appalling.

Senator Bannon referred to bold decisions being made on bio-fuels. It is interesting that mandatory addition levels relating to bio-fuels were in place in Ireland from the 1930s to the 1970s but that these were struck down by our joining the then European Economic Community. Such addition levels were a very good idea.

I point out to Senator O'Toole that this is a framework Bill designed to deal with the purchase of carbon credits on the international stage. The climate change strategy document I will publish on 2 April will deal with the specific issues raised by the Senator. The latter is, in effect, a synthesis document which draws together all of the other documents and policy statements that were published recently. The Bill before the House is framework legislation and does not set out the policy. The latter will be set out in the climate change strategy document. The Bill deals with specifics and is meant to give control of the carbon fund to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, to purchase credits on the international market.

I agree with Senators O'Toole's and Senator Daly's commonsense observation on incentivising. If we all subscribed to the Henny-Penny or Chicken Little school of public policy discussion, we would make no progress on this matter. There are good, solid and practical things that should be done, irrespective of the side we take in the global warming argument. I am of the view that the science regarding global warming is clear and that the economic imperative was dealt with and outlined in the Stern report. The logical and moral arguments have all been made. There are those who take the view that carbon emissions are not the big issue and that sunspot activity is responsible for global warming. This argument was put forward on the recent Channel 4 television programme.

We should not become involved in what is a sterile debate because we will not know who is right and who is wrong for 100 years. However, Senator O'Toole is correct. We should take these steps because that is the correct way to proceed. For example, it is the right thing to do to insulate our homes, replace incandescent bulbs with CFL bulbs and attenuate the methane that comes from cattle and waste disposal. Those things should be done because they are intrinsically correct and they make economic and environmental sense. Moreover, by doing those things, we put ourselves into a win-win situation. By replacing incandescent bulbs with CFL bulbs, we will make a stunning——