Seanad debates

Wednesday, 19 January 2011

Climate Change Response Bill 2010: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

11:00 am

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)

Having criticised the delay, I make it clear we do not want to delay the Bill any further. It would have been better not to introduce it in the dying days of the Government, but it is better than nothing. It is a little like the civil partnership legislation which we supported having introduced our own model. We did, however, point to the flaws in that what was proposed did not amount to equality, in the way marriage would have done.

I want to focus on the weaknesses and flaws we have identified in the Bill and make comparisons with previous legislation such as the Labour Party Bill and the recommendations of the joint committee. A key issue concerns the targets set in the Bill which have been the subject of controversy. Both the IFA and IBEC have suggested the targets are more ambitious than those set by the European Union. I am grateful to Friends of the Earth for providing an analysis. It is both coherent and detailed and ultimately shows that the targets set are no greater than those set by the European Union, but that comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges because different measures are used.

The real controversy has been about the targets set for 2020. The Minister of State needs to nail this. I listened carefully to what he had to say about the targets set and there is still a lack of clarity. Ireland's EU and Climate Change Response Bill targets for 2020 are difficult to compare for four reasons. First, the baselines are different. The Bill's reduction target for 2020 relates to the 2008 baseline whereas our EU reduction target relates to a 2005 baseline. Second, the scope of the emissions covered differs in that the Bill's targets cover 100% of emissions whereas Ireland's EU reduction targets only cover the non-emissions trading system, ETS, sector. Third, there is confusion about the 2.5% per year reduction. The way this measure is framed in the Bill is unfortunate, but everyone agrees on it being a compounded reduction. Therefore, each 2.5% decrease will be a reduction on the previous year's. Emissions in 2020 need to be 26.2%, not 28% or 30%, lower than they were in 2008. Fourth, the Bill and the EU treat carbon sinks differently. The Bill's target is for net emissions, those being, gross emissions less emissions removed by the growth of carbon sinks. Ireland's EU 2020 target is for gross emissions, although we understand this may change. Indeed, it has been stated that even the EU target may increase to 30%. We believe it is reasonable for the Government to set targets in this legislation that are the same as the current EU target without trying to predict what the latter will become.

The Bill's targets for 2030 and 2050 are at the lower end of the scale, for example, 80% from the 1990 baseline by 2050. Developed countries have an obligation to reduce by 80% as a minimum. The range is 80% to 95% relative to 1990. The longer-term figures are less ambitious than the maximum reductions required.

A part of the controversy about what the targets mean is that the first target has been set for 2020. The Bill needs more interim targets. The Labour Bill used a five-year target mechanism, which places more pressure on a Government. Whatever Government takes office later this spring or this year will not be bound by any particular target under this Bill other than the 2.5% annual reduction, given that no other targets prior to the 2020 target have been set. This makes abiding by targets less pressing on an incoming Government. We will table an amendment on the need for five-year targets.

That the Bill does not refer to carbon budgets is a weakness. The Government stated it would be committed to five-year carbon budgets as the best way to manage the transition of which the Minister of State spoke. The Government recognises this idea in an economic context, given the four year plan. According to the Minister of State, carbon budgets are too narrow a mechanism and he favours a compliance-based approach. We know where principles-based and light touch regulation got us in the financial services sector. The Bill should contain a better method of regulation. It is strange that carbon budgets have not been included in this legislation, given their inclusion in the programme for Government. Does this signify a change in the Green Party's view on carbon budgets?

Timing is an issue. Section 5 refers to the national climate change strategy as having a seven-year cycle. According to the Minister of State, this is to allow it to fit within the cycle of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. This is not sufficient reason. It would be better to set a climate change strategy within five-year periods for interim targets. The Labour Party Bill contained this proposal as a more sensible and effective way of meeting interim targets.

Last week, I raised the question of the expert advisory body under section 9. It is key that the independence of any such body be guaranteed. That the advisory body was originally to have been a commission is interesting. The language has changed subtly and amounts to a downgrading of status. I would be grateful if the Minister of State could explain why it is no longer being referred to as a commission, given that "commission" was the word used in previous documents.

The expert advisory body will publish reports. Section 9(3) states: "The Expert Advisory Body shall, subject to the consent of the Government, publish an annual report in such manner as the Government determines." This provision poses a difficulty in that it suggests that reports will be open to ministerial veto. This problematic measure will undermine the body's independence and should be amended. The Minister of State skipped quickly over these words. In Britain, the equivalent provision calls for the reports to be given to a Minister, but the commission itself can decide when to publish. This is an important point. How could one get hold of an unpublished report? Would it be subject to freedom of information requests?

Regarding flaws, I will refer to the non-justiciable clause in section 3(2). I welcome the Minister of State's comment to the effect he will consider an amendment. Such a clause is unusual, given that the matter is one for the courts.

We welcome the Bill in principle, but we have reservations about its timing and content. Given the cross-party support for tackling climate change legislatively and the fact that stakeholders could have bought into a particular Bill, it is a shame that this Bill was not introduced sooner. I have criticised the Green Party throughout, but Fianna Fáil needs to tell us its policy on climate change. I am disappointed it will not bite the bullet and make a strong statement of support for the Bill in this or the Lower House. If Fianna Fáil is serious about tackling climate change, it must sign up to this Bill.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.