Dan Boyle (Green Party)

It is opportune to have this debate so soon after the Seanad addressed the issue. In the interim there have been several important international events that require comment to put in context the international debate on climate change. The first was the United Nations conference in Bali, which excited a good deal of media attention, not all favourable. The Irish contribution to that was quite forthright and positive, in a conference that ultimately generated more hope than success. Even that is removed from what, today, we must accept as the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, which has turned out to be an exercise of running to just stand still. Much of that was because the governments of certain nation states operated to ignore and frustrate the will of the rest of the international community, as regards identifying the scale of the problem of climate change and then refusing to make a proportional contribution towards alleviating its consequences. The chief government involved was that of the United States, a country with 5% of the world's population, 5% of the earth's landmass, which consumes 25% of all energy resources. That may alter because of political changes occurring in the United States in an election year, but at least Bali brought about some type of admission from the American delegation. It means that we will be adhering to a roadmap that, hopefully, will allow for decisions in Copenhagen about a more successful replacement for Kyoto. That is the best we can hope for in the immediate international political climate.

The United States was not operating on its own, however. A number of countries, while not being as belligerent as America in denying climate change, nonetheless were on a par in ensuring that international action did not occur. It is interesting to see what has happened in many of those countries. Australia was the US's largest ally in much of this debate. It has now had a change of government, where the policy has been altered. There is now a Labour Government in Australia, which has gained office through the help of a significant increase in the Green Party vote there. The Green Party presence in the Australian Senate is now two and a half times what it was. Countries such as Japan have finally committed to targets, as the European Commission has suggested for 2020.

We are coming to the end of the process and internationally, the Administration in power in the United States is becoming isolated. It is also fair to state the debate within the United States has challenged the orthodoxy of the US Government's position. At state and municipal levels action is being taken on climate change policies in defiance of the policy advocated by the US Government. I am optimistic that when a change of administration occurs, even if another Republican president takes office, the process will continue and increase in speed.

The second international change which occurred in the interim is that the European Commission has made proposals on how the European Union collectively, and individual European Union member states can address the idea of carbon reductions in the period up to 2020. This was the focus of the Minister's speech today. Within the EU, Ireland was treated very generously under the Kyoto Protocol. We were allocated a 13% increase above 1990 levels, which we have exceeded by almost twice the amount. In view of this and the economic wealth we attained we will now be asked by the European Commission to initiate large cuts in carbon usage. This will have an economic effect. Fortunately, it seems to be in line with the commitment which exists in the programme for Government that a 3% cut will be achieved on average in the lifetime of the Government. It is hoped succeeding Governments will continue this.

In previous debates in this Chamber we recognised that this should be not a Government versus Opposition issue but one on which all political parties sing from the same hymn sheet. We will have a period of adjustment prior to achieving this stage of political maturity. This Government, which has Green Party participation, has only been in office since June of last year. Several small-scale initiatives have been put in place with regard to tackling the overall problems in this area. However, the reaction these small and modest measures have provoked has not reflected well on the nature of politics or the practice of opposition as usual politics.

This is the case in particular with regard to the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with CFL and LED lighting by 1 January 2009. This proposal was made in the first instance to allow a lead-in period to establish whether it could be done directly and whether problems had to be overcome in terms of consumers and the industry. However, the reaction we saw in certain political circles involved spurious arguments about the health and safety aspects of goods which were already checked and approved for use in households.

Other arguments about losing heat through the replacement of incandescent light bulbs take the nature of the debate we need to have into the realm of the surreal. It does not reflect well on the people making these arguments, and they will face political consequences. I hope now that they have been made the debate can move on to another context. The arguments heard in political circles have been reported in certain media organs.

The interpretation of particular reports or the publication of reports themselves have not been helpful in allowing us to understand the scale of the problem we must face. In its most recent quarterly economic commentary, the ESRI had as an addendum a small report on the possible economic effects of climate change and the policies put in place. It was a dishonest document because its basic thrust was what the cost would be if only one particular action were taken. We saw it repeated on the front pages of certain newspapers, which printed that if we put all the cost onto an electricity bill it would cost households €440. No one is making the argument that we should only do one thing. Government policy is a mixum-gatherum of a range of policy approaches.

As the Minister stated in his speech, these involve defining whether energy use is necessary in all circumstances and seeing where it can be made more efficient. It involves examining whether the buildings we operate can be brought up to speed to achieve maximum efficiency and not only with regard to the production of energy and its ultimate use. It also involves an entire series of measures to reduce dependence on fossil fuel energy by promoting renewable energy sources.

During recent months, a number of measures have been introduced which reflect all of these policy areas, including incentives, carrots and small sticks. Part of this process will see the publication today of a Finance Bill, the second part of a budget package which will contain additional measures. These will show not only the impact of the Green Party in Government but also the need for many of these incentives to be put in place as quickly as possible.

The other aspect of media coverage I wish to discuss is with regard to one media organ. I am slow to refer to it because as a publication it is very much a comic and should not be referred to as a national newspaper. It is the Irish Daily Mail. Recently, it published the story about €440 being added to the cost of an electricity bill. The same newspaper is not averse to taking on the fashionable aspects of environmentalism. Two days after publishing that front-page story, a banner was on the front page advertising a give-away. Normally, such giveaways involve a film DVD or a music CD. However, on this occasion readers of the Irish Daily Mail were offered two free CFL light bulbs, which the newspaper had regularly castigated during the previous month as being unsafe, unsound and a contributor to the ruination of humanity.

It is important that not only this debate but the ongoing debate we have in the country is properly informed. Mischievousness and politics for the sake of politics is not the order of the day. It is too important an issue to be debated in this manner.