David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, and compliment him on his speech which was clear, confident and precise. The Climate Change Response Bill is weaker than several of us would have liked. I am sure the Minister and the Green Party would have the same view. People have spoken about the necessity of keeping the Government going to get the finance Bill through. The Climate Change Response Bill is just as important and a good reason for the Government to stay in power for a brief time.

I pay particular tribute to Senator Bacik who pioneered discussions on this matter in the House. With the help of several lobby groups, she developed a climate change Bill which was introduced in the House. She persistently harassed the Government to commit to a timescale for the passage of her Bill, commitments which were broken. Now with the last gasps of the collapsing Government, climate change legislation must go through. For that reason, I will not be supporting the amendment of the Fine Gael Party which which wants to long-finger the issue and decline to give the legislation a Second Reading until there is all-party consensus. As I pointed out on the Order of Business, that all-party consensus has been achieved on two occasions by the relevant committee. I am not sure, therefore, about what those in Fine Gael are talking. I have many friends and colleagues in Fine Gael whom I greatly respect. However, I will not support the party's amendment under any circumstances because it is destructive in nature.

A number of extremely fine contributions have been made on this issue, although I must admit I am not in agreement with everything that has been said. I was extremely impressed by Senator Coffey's contribution during which he referred to the energy audit he had carried out in his home, to the fact that he had changed his car to a model with a smaller engine and to various appliances he used. The fact that he has taken action gives him a certain moral standing. However, he then stated that if we put our heads above the parapet, we would be in danger of inviting adverse competition from less responsible governments. That is not a moral argument. In circumstances where we are facing a catastrophic situation, it is an argument which has very little substance.

Senator Coffey's contribution was followed by that of my good friend Senator O'Reilly who stated he was not contesting the science of climate change. However, he also remarked that we should be careful not to be ahead of the posse but that we should still lead. If we keep our heads below the parapet and do not move ahead of the posse, I am not sure whether we would be providing any leadership.

There is time left for discussion on this matter, particularly as the Bill has not yet been considered by the Dáil. It is important, therefore, that certain aspects should be taken into account. For example, viewing legislation of this nature as aspirational would be fatal. As political realists, we are all aware of what happens to people's aspirations. What is needed is action.

I wish to clarify one matter which arose in the context of the contribution of my good friend Senator Glynn. Like me, he comes from a farming background. My grandfather farmed extensively and I am aware of the heartbreak that can accompany farming. As a result, I understand the concerns expressed by the IFA and so forth. Rather confusingly, Senator Glynn stated Oxfam had been critical of the Bill. I checked with that organisation's representative in the Visitors Gallery and was informed that it had criticised the Bill because it did not go far enough, not as a result of the weakness of its provisions. I would not like the misunderstanding to continue.

I read both the Bill and the explanatory memorandum with great interest. I am glad that climate change-proofing will come into play in Departments and that an expert advisory body is to be established. I do, however, have a number of concerns about the latter. I do not share Senator Glynn's joy in the fact that the Bill contains targets rather than specifically legally enforceable requirements. I would have preferred if the latter had been included. Again, however, we must deal with the political reality and what is proposed in the legislation is something on which we can build.

Friends of the Earth, Stop Climate Change and other organisations have, with reservations, welcomed the introduction of the Bill. The Minister of State generously indicated that he would be happy to supply further information on, in particular, the definitions contained in the Bill. I wish to put one question to him in respect of the definition of "sink". Will it include grassland? That is one of the concerns of the IFA and should be addressed. People must understand grasslands do act as sinks in a much more significant manner than had previously been supposed. If provision in this regard has not been made in the Bill, I serve notice of my intention to table an amendment to ensure grasslands will be included in the definition of "sink".

The Minister was clear with regard to the unprecedented nature of the threat posed by climate change. I have just returned from Cyprus. The annual autumn temperatures on the island are now consistently three degrees above normal. There is no question or doubt that summers in Cyprus are becoming hotter and a number of extremely severe weather events have occurred there. However, they have not been half as severe as those which have occurred in Australia or on a number of Pacific atolls, some of which are accredited members of the United Nations and which are facing the prospect of extinction as they are overwhelmed by the ocean waves.

The Minister of State made a good point when he stated, "Our future as a responsible society must be sustainable on economic and environmental grounds" and that "Economic prosperity and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive." To the latter I say, "Hear, hear". Of course, they are not mutually exclusive.

I offer a minor aside in respect of carbon emissions, etc. I am aware that there will not be much time to do so before the Minister of State leaves office, but it is important that we revisit the Keating regulations which again vest in the people some profit from the country's natural resources. In this regard, I refer to the Corrib gas and oil field which is vast and the profits from which could solve most, if not all, of our economic problems.

The Minister of State has indicated that the targets set in section 4 "are not justiciable". Perhaps he could expand on this, but I presume it means there cannot be recourse to the Irish courts.

I was particularly intrigued by the Minister of State's comment to the effect:

Government policy has inevitably focused on mitigation to ensure Ireland complies with its binding requirements under EU and international law. We cannot defer indefinitely the adoption of an appropriate and effective national policy position on adaptation. The incorporation of both mitigation and adaptation in the process will rectify the current policy imbalance.

As the matters to which he referred appear to be closely linked, again, I felt obliged to consult those in the Visitors Gallery. I telephoned a friend, so to speak. I do not wish to appear to be claiming credit for what I consider to be a most brilliant encapsulation of the position. In that context, those to whom I spoke in the Visitors Gallery informed me that mitigation was avoiding the unmanageable, whereas adaptation was the management of the unavoidable. It is useful to express this very good definition. Certain things about which we can do nothing have happened. I refer to the large amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, the floods that have occurred, etc. We must ensure we introduce measures which will mitigate the effects of the aforementioned, but we must also adapt.

My colleagues and I have been briefed by the IFA. As indicated, Senator Glynn's welcome for the Bill was somewhat lukewarm. The IFA has stated the provisions contained in the Bill surpass what is required under international emissions reduction obligations. I do not believe that is the case. I have considered the matter and will give what I believe is the correct figures in this regard. It is important to discuss these matters. In that context, the inclusion of the farming lobby and IBEC in the discussion is an important development. However, their views should not be allowed to prejudice the debate on the Bill.

The IFA has also stated an estimated increase of €4 billion in agricultural exports could be placed in jeopardy. I hope this will not prove to be the case and we must consider the position in this regard. The matters under discussion can be managed intelligently because we are a creative and intelligent people. The IFA has further stated the Bill will lead to an increase in gas emissions internationally because everyone will be purchasing beef in larger quantities from Brazil and other countries in the Amazon basin which are not so picky when it comes to climate change. That is a matter for diplomacy. The Government of Brazil should be shamed into becoming involved with international concerted action on this matter.

The IFA has requested that the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets not exceed Ireland's international obligations. This request should be considered, but I do not believe the targets exceed our obligations. If they do, it is only by a very small amount. The IFA states agriculture must be given direct credit for current and future carbon offsets, generated by forestry, etc., up to 2020. Why not? A certain amount of what the IFA has stated can be welcomed.

I wish to discuss my reservations about the Bill. As stated, the legislation is significantly weaker than what was proposed by the relevant joint committee with all-party support, including that of Fine Gael. Although the Bill is well worth supporting as a form of staging post mechanism, it is strange that it does not contain any five-year targets or carbon budgets. The first target with which the Government is going to be confronted is that relating to 2020. As everyone is aware, a week is a long time in politics. Governments change and the next Government will probably serve a term of four years. It will, therefore, be out of office well before the target set for 2020 has to be met. When it signed the Kyoto Protocol, the then Fianna Fáil-led Government thought it would not be in power when the targets had to be reached and was, therefore, intent to land the responsibility on someone else's lap. This could happen again.

We must also consider the climate in political circles in respect of soundbites and the 24-7 news cycle. The approach being taken to this entire matter appears extremely suspect when one considers that 2020 is almost ten years away, while we have a five-year electoral cycle.

Under the new Bill, the Government we elect in the coming months could face any target. After 2020 the next target is 2030, and after that it is 2050. Most Governments, therefore, will not face any target. That is a significant weakness in the Bill and I believe it should be amended to set in place five year targets for the Government to achieve. That will come into much greater alignment with what we know are the political realities of Government cycles. If the Government does not table an amendment to that effect, I will do so.

On the absence of carbon budgets, the programme for Government and the framework document refer to carbon budgeting, but where is it? It is not in the Bill. The carbon budget is just a statement, like a fiscal statement. We have fiscal statements about our economic targets in that by 2014 we will achieve a 3% reduction. Why not take the same philosophical position with regard to climate change? The five year carbon budgets are the best way of managing the delivery of the targets. The point about the difference between a target and a budget is that a target is about emissions at a single point in time. It is being tied down specifically to five years in the future where the budget is the total emissions over the five year period.

The Government has stated previously, and Ministers are on the record with regard to this, that Irish climate law will be modelled on the United Kingdom. In general outline perhaps it is, but it stated it would improve upon it and it has not. The Government has not managed to reach what the UK has done because under the United Kingdom Act the British Government announces three five year carbon budget targets at a time, and the first of those is legally binding, which none of ours appears to be. This is very important because apart from anything else, the next 15 years will be vital if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

With regard to the objections of IBEC, that organisation objects on economic grounds and states that the Bill is much more demanding than the European Union targets. I have looked at the figures with the assistance of some advisers and my understanding is that IBEC is right. I have to admit that and my reading is wrong. It is absolutely right, if one wants to be a nit-picking nitwit, because the target in the Bill is 52.5 Mt whereas the EU package is 52.4 Mt, a difference of 0.1%. Technically, it is right but it does not matter a fish's tit. I beg the Cathaoirleach's pardon for the unparliamentary language. The IFA also is not entirely correct because as I said earlier, the Oireachtas committee Bill had stricter targets. I do not believe it will be difficult.

With regard to the advisory body, it is independent, and I welcome that, but it should be able to publish its report in its own fashion and within a comparatively short time. Otherwise, we will be subject to leaks. That will also give us certainty, and certainty is very important for our own industry, agriculture. It is important to target, map and provide for what we are doing and, most significantly, it will attract international investment. I know Senator Glynn questioned this but he may have been thinking about some of the nastier of the international, multinational combines.

In terms of research and design, we will get investment in green technology, where we are helping to lead the way in terms of wave and wind technology, if we pass this Bill and if we strengthen it by amendment in this House, as I hope we will do. I wish it every success.