Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Climate Change Response Bill 2010 because an all Party consensus has not been agreed on a green house gas emission reduction strategy."

It is regrettable that we have had to table this amendment. While much progress has been made by the joint Oireachtas committee on trying to achieve an all-party consensus and approach to what is essentially a long awaited climate change Bill, the manner in which this Bill has been brought before this House, even before the consultation period has ended - it is due to end on 28 January - is regrettable.

As with every Bill, it is important a full consultation process takes place giving all stakeholders an opportunity to put their views in order that we, as policy makers, can consider them in a reasonable timeframe.

The Minister of State stated in his concluding remarks that he accepts the timeframe is not ideal and he appreciated the accommodation of the House. However, he also stated that both the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and he had invested substantial time in the preparation of the provisions of this Bill. Has the main party in government had any hand, act or part in preparing these provisions? If so, why has the Minister of State not said so? Do Fianna Fáil Members matter at this stage in the equation? The majority party in the Oireachtas should surely have a say on very important legislation such as this.

The window of opportunity for consultation is one month. I appreciate that various stakeholders have had opportunities at the joint committee and other fora to set out their stall regarding the legislation. Fine Gael supports it in principle and we have been co-operative at all levels in the Oireachtas and at other forums to achieve an all-party consensus, but a realistic target or an achievable objective must be provided for in law because if it is not, it will only create problems for our society and our economy. It needs to be properly thought through and while the legislation has a great deal of merit and contains good provisions, it puts the cart before the horse by setting targets without proper consultation and without a proper strategy. I acknowledge a strategy and plans are identified in the Bill but they should be properly thought out and agreed prior to the targets being set and prior to enactment of the legislation.

It is acknowledged that the transport and agriculture sectors are the two largest contributors to carbon emissions. Many stakeholders and lobby groups have approached all parties in the House to outline their views, which I welcome. It is important we get everyone's view. I have been lobbied by Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and various other groups which fully support he legislation but which believe it does not go far enough. On the other hand, IBEC, IFA, ICMSA and other organisations believe there has not been proper consultation, the Bill has not been properly thought through and it will have major implications for the sectors in which they operate. We must listen to the stakeholders because we are depending on them to turn our economy around. While the ideology is good and Fine Gael and the State agrees to our international and EU obligations on climate change and carbon emissions, it is essential we agree realistic legislation. Our economy is in recession and in crisis and while it is nice to have good ideology and principle, we must have realistic mechanisms to deliver that ideology. Fine Gael remains to be convinced that we will not have serious difficulties with this Bill because we have not had the buy in from stakeholders that is essential in the current economic climate.

Previously the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, of which the Minister of State is a former member and to which he has contributed enormously, as have I, produced its own draft Bill, which I accept set high targets. Representatives of the forestry sector attended a meeting of the committee earlier to outline how they could contribute by developing a good carbon sink to address emissions issues in the State. The consultation process is ongoing but the legislation is being rushed and shoehorned. I am not sure it has the full support of the Government parties. Will the Minister of State clarify the position?

There is a great deal of confusion and debate about targets. I agree with the Minister of State that it probably stems from the fact that various bodies are using different baseline figures. I compliment the staff of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service who produced a beneficial, independent and objective paper on the legislation. They have identified, as has the Minister of State, that the target is 26% by 2020 using the 2008 baseline figures. That goes well beyond our EU and international obligations in the view of many. The nub of the problem is not the target but that stakeholders have not bought into achieving it. We should always set targets but unless mechanisms are in place to achieve them, they are of no use and they will only cause huge problems in our economy going forward. The targets are outlined in the Bill.

There are a few inescapable facts when considering the issue of targets. First, Ireland is reliant on an expensive EU-IMF emergency bailout to fund itself. Second, Ireland has to reduce its deficit to agreed levels by 2014 and the only way to achieve this is by growing our economy because tax increases and public spending cuts will not meet the required adjustment. There must be growth in the economy and legislation must be properly pressure tested. If a business is starting up, the owners must produce a business plan in order that any decisions they make will not impact negatively on the business. There is no reason to fail to implement the same methodology regarding this legislation. We should pressure test it to prove its consequences will not negatively affect economic growth. Third, to increase growth, we need to become more cost competitive to make Ireland a better place in which to do business and to create jobs. Weakening our cost competitiveness between now and 2014 would set back our economic recovery and this is where we might differ with the Minister of State. Account must be taken of these facts in the current climate.

Fine Gael feels that shoehorning the Bill into both Houses in the dying days of the Government equates to political expediency on the part of the Green Party. It would be better to bring all parties along on this and this is not the way to go.

I acknowledge the effects of global warming domestically and internationally and this has resulted in serious flooding and other natural disasters. A wider international debate is ongoing about how to tackle it. We cannot address climate change on our own as Ireland is only a drop in the ocean. We need to work with our international colleagues and lobby them to bring them with us, but we cannot do it on our own. If we put our heads above the parapet, we will put ourselves at a huge disadvantage economically.

This is especially true of the agriculture sector. There is great concern within the sector that the legislation will have a significantly negative effect on beef and dairy production. Teagasc, an independent agency, estimates that by 2020 the legislation could cost the sector up to €600 million to meet the targets set out. On the other hand, the Government deserves credit for its exciting Food Harvest 2020 policy. This has huge potential for growth but the legislation could have a negative impact on the policy. The targets for the agriculture sector could mean a reduction in the national herd of up to 40%. The Minister of State may shake his head but such issues need to be teased out in various fora to put them to bed because agencies in this sector are concerned about them. We must listen to them. If the Minister of State, by shaking his head, is saying they are wrong, let us prove that and justify it in proper, timely and adequate debate.

Ireland has one of the lowest carbon emission models in the agriculture sector in the world, let alone Europe, due to its grass-based beef and dairy production. The emissions over recent years have reduced considerably. The good news is that both IBEC and the IFA want to engage with the Government to find ways and strategies to reduce carbon emissions by using technology and new procedures and systems that can be supported by all members of society. It is important we listen to them.

I have made many contributions to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security which has tried to debate this issue. I regret there has not been as much engagement with that committee on the part of the Government as there should have been. I outlined my concerns regarding the agriculture sector to the committee. At a time when there are major issues surrounding food security, we cannot try to restrict in any way Ireland's significant potential for the production of dairy and beef produce. It will result in beef being imported from the other side of the world and from less efficient carbon producing countries. That must be taken into account.

While IBEC has raised very serious concerns, the Irish Academy of Engineering has focused specifically on the areas of adaptation and mitigation. It favours more emphasis on adaptation in the way society functions. I agree with that view. We must examine our culture, critical infrastructure, energy, production, transport, which is a huge contributor to carbon emissions, and our domestic and cultural behaviour. Before we impose targets on these important economic sectors we must see how Government policy is genuinely attempting to reduce carbon emissions. I can offer some examples.

In the transport sector my constituency experienced the closure of the railway from Waterford to Rosslare Harbour. Rosslare Harbour is a europort, as is Waterford Port. However, we have seen the closure of critical infrastructure at a vital time. I am not making a political point but this is Government policy. State agencies are closing this infrastructure yet, in this Bill, the Government is trying to impose targets on other sectors when it cannot live up to that same policy.

Aside from the rail freight issue, there are other examples throughout the country. Waste treatment policy is extremely conflicted at present. Government policy says one thing while the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government says something else. There is no clear direction. Waste management plans in the regions are doing one thing while Government policy is doing something different. There is great confusion in that area. It is contributing to carbon emissions owing to there being no clear direction or policy.

The smart metering initiative was welcomed by all and sundry. Where is it today? There was a pilot project. Why was it not introduced in all towns to try to change domestic culture with regard to carbon emissions? Consider also the issue of bio-fuels. Many people invested in that sector in the hope that they could grow our economy, generate business for themselves and reduce carbon emissions. Again, there was little policy support and barriers everywhere. There is also the issue of the interconnectors and large-scale wind farms. The Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, was a member of the committee and heard about the problems being experienced in acquiring foreshore licences and securing interconnection to the national grid for large-scale wind farms. There is a vast number of problems and the Government has a direct responsibility for solving them and removing barriers before it starts imposing targets on other sectors that are struggling but which are our only hope for the recovery of the economy. It is important we debate these issues and bring them out into the open.

The ideology is good and I believe in it. I have exchanged my 2.5 litre diesel jeep for a 1.6 litre saloon. I installed geothermal heating in my home prior to the existence of any grants for doing so. I was a pioneer and I have tried to my bit. I carried out an energy audit of my house. However, we must do these things as a society. The Government must do it before it starts imposing these targets. It must bring people with it rather than drive wedges or divisions between them. It is essential to have stakeholder buy-in and all-party consensus.

The joint committee has made a great deal of progress on which we can build. We should draw up our strategies and plans before setting targets and imposing this legislation.