Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators for participation in the debate. I will respond to their points as best I can. Senator Leyden suggested electrifying rail lines. We will examine all technologies, but the point I tried to make at the outset is that we have looked at technologies based on what we know of them and how they will evolve over the next ten years and picked those that are most cost effective and the least burden on people to implement first. It is not that technologies that are not immediately identified in the plan will not be considered but that they do not stack up as the cheapest and most effective thing to do at this stage.

Senator Leyden also asked about the cost detail. We set out a €30 billion national development plan in climate action and sustainable transport. It includes €3 billion for retrofitting homes, €13 billion for creating infrastructure for renewable energy on the grid, and so on. There is considerable cost, but as Senator Mulherin was honest in saying, we must recognise that the public will have to share some of this cost. The State or the taxpayer cannot fund all the change. That is what makes this so challenging. We can create mechanisms such as carbon pricing and refunding so there are incentives to make changes, but ultimately we either do regulation, which means the individual pays everything, or we have various market interventions where there is a balance, or we invest in new technologies and develop alternatives. Those are the policy options. The climate advisory group has told us bluntly that if, as Sinn Féin seems to suggest, we do not have carbon pricing, then we are trying to push water up a hill. It will be far more difficult to deliver our targets if we do not have that mix. This is not an ideological point but we must have a mix of regulation which creates a burden for people, but some regulations will be too burdensome so we must go the incentive route or develop other ways.

I agree with Senator Lombard that getting communities involved is central.We will fail if this ends up as farmers against industry, urban against rural and if we pit this as the sort of a challenge where we all start pointing fingers at someone else who should move first. It was Brendan Behan who referred to the first item on the agenda as being the split. If that is where this ends up going, then we will fail. I acknowledge the work of Senator Devine and others on the Oireachtas committee. We have sought to be faithful to the work of that committee, particularly in the area of governance. Senator Devine has criticised the plan for not focusing on having more done in the earlier period and not putting tougher demands on the system in the years to 2030. She then cast extraordinary doubt on all of the things to which we are committing and doubting whether we can hit targets for electric vehicles or retrofits, and implementing those sorts of changes.

The Senator cannot have it both ways. She cannot demand that we do more, then find fault with everything and more or less suggest that we should not be undertaking the electric vehicles initiative. They have been chosen because they are the most cost-effective and least costly way of abating our carbon impact. They are cheaper than going for a higher level of renewables on our grid in the early period. I know that Sinn Féin is advocating for more emphasis on the grid and less on vehicles. That approach is more expensive, however. We have tried to pick the things that are most cost-effective. I dispute strongly that we cannot deliver on the target of one third of vehicles being electric. Some 280,000 vehicles are purchased in Ireland each year. Three million vehicles will be purchased over the next 11 years. We are stating that one third of those vehicles should be electric and that is not outrageous.

Some 12% of vehicles purchased now are already electric, if we include hybrids. I admit that we have to move away from the non-plug in hybrids and just go for the others. They are running at the moment at about 3.5% to 4%. That is ramping up rapidly, however. The purchases of pure electric vehicles are three times greater than last year. That includes plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, PHEVs. If we count just EVs, purchases are five times greater than last year. There is no doubt, as Senator Reilly stated, that the price of batteries is coming down. By 2023 or 2024, we are advised, that if all taxes are excluded, it would pay a person on a whole-life basis to shift to an electric vehicle. When we add in the lower taxes on electric vehicles, including the lower vehicle registration tax, as well as the higher prices for fuel for diesel and petrol vehicles, that is a dramatic difference. People will make that change.

It is already becoming clear that that is happening. The advertisements on the radio every day are about electric vehicles. Battery technology will improve, as the Senator said. Many of those complaints regarding the high carbon impact of battery technology draw on battery production in countries where electricity is produced by burning coal. It is not inevitable, however, that battery production is powered by coal-burning generators. It can be done through renewables and that would dramatically bring down the carbon impact of batteries. The key aspect is that we have to move to renewables. Senator Norris has left the House, but he raised the issue of why we do not stop all exploration for fossil fuels. The core reason we do not do that is that we are 85% dependent on the use of fossil fuels. We are getting some very welcome sources of gas from the Corrib Field. If there was another discovery beside that which provided us with more gas, then that would help us to make the transition.

We will still be 69% dependent on fossil fuels in 2030. This is a tough journey. Even if we hit the 70% target for the use of renewables in our power system, we will still need a gas standby. I am not stating that we should not, in time, change our exploration operations. There is a case for looking at exploration in the context of a transition and energy security. That has to be done in a balanced way, however. It is unreasonable to suggest that we should just stop exploration tomorrow without looking at the impact such a change would have. We will have legislation. Senator Mullen referred to living simply so that others can simply live. Again, however, he was viewing everything we have put forward in the plan with a certain scepticism. We have a choice to make. We have to accept an obligation to make changes or accept that doing nothing will see the resultant consequences explode. I have seen figures estimating that €400 trillion is the damage that will be done by doing nothing versus the investment of nearly €45 trillion to undertake changes. It is nearly 10:1 in respect of the costs involved.

The Senator, however, seems to be advocating that we should become very conservative about making the investments now and that we should instead wait and see. If those figures are to be believed - there will of course be some scepticism - we will be waiting for ten times the damage to be done. Let us take the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which is not, I suppose, the most radical source of information. It is stating that a tonne of carbon that last year was priced at €8 per tonne will be priced in 2050 at €265 per tonne. Measures taken to abate a tonne of carbon today, at whatever cost, saves us that dramatic escalation of cost. Let us also not forget that carbon impact is cumulative. Each year that we leave that tonne there, it is accumulating in the atmosphere and creating damage.

I acknowledge the support of Senator Humphreys. It is very much on the money. We do have to design new approaches in our cities. That is not, unfortunately, an alternative to electrifying our car fleet. It is complementary and it does need to be done. Career changes will be difficult but let us not forget that we have been through a decade where we saw some 200,000 jobs lost in the construction industry. We have, however, created 500,000 jobs elsewhere. We have been through very radical restructuring of our economy but these changes will be done on a much more managed and time-based system. I am confident, therefore, that we can do it.

The Mercosur issue is not my brief. I will observe, however, that this is the first time that I have seen a trade agreement where the obligations imposed by the Paris Agreement are written. The Mercosur trade agreement will be torn up if those obligations are not honoured. This is the first time that has happened. As Senator Mulherin said, it is right that we should scrutinise that process and how it is executed. Turning to the matter of beef exports, a figure of 99,000 tonnes is high but it was originally proposed to be 300,000 tonnes. That 99,000 tonnes is 1.25% of the European beef market. Protections exist, however. Some 45% of the exports will be frozen and there will be no diminution of European food safety standards. There are, therefore, protections for farmers who fear that this these imports are going to be low quality, hormone and antibiotic-treated meat. The best position to take is to scrutinise and examine this deal and then making our decision.

There is a danger of trying to include everything into a trade agreement. I will take a simple example. We might not like the fact that Poland has coal and predominantly coal-burning technology. A just transition for Poland, however, requires that country to change gradually and meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement. We cannot tell Poland that we are not going to buy its goods because the country has a coal-based system. We have to bring people with us. People started from wherever they were, they made commitments in Paris and now they have to meet their obligations. That is how we get collective agreements. We cannot state that we are worried about some sector and therefore that we will seek out the faults of another country so as to undermine its trade agreements. That is not fair. It would not be fair to the Poles if that approach was taken to Poland and it is not fair with other countries. We have to ensure that each country meets its responsibilities. That is the approach that should be taken. I welcome that the Paris Agreement obligations are at least built into the Mercosur trade deal. That is the first time that has been done in a trade agreement.