Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. It is very clear that we need a radical, joined-up approach to climate action. As discussed in this House, we face multiple crises. We are facing an ecological crisis, given that 200 species become extinct each day across the world. There is a huge loss of habitat biodiversity. There is an interlinked crisis with climate change and its devastating impact. We also need a joined-up approach that reflects how our climate actions intersect with the sustainable development goals and development models that are sustainable socially, environmentally and economically.

I wish to focus on a couple of specific issues, beginning with scale. We are aware that Ireland is not simply a laggard. It is not about name-calling or a gold star badge of approbation or criticism we might express; it is literally about the work not being done. Ireland has fallen horribly behind. Given that we were meant to have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, which is just a couple of months away, we are looking instead at a figure of 1%, or slightly more. By any book, it is an extraordinary level of failure. Let us be clear that while the protests on the streets may be accelerating, we have known about this issue. The science has been available for a very long time. Our performance has simply been inadequate and we face fines of hundreds of millions of euro.While the language is shifting and small actions are being taken, the required scale of action is not there. Surely, we should be vastly increasing the resources we allocate to mitigate the damage being done and deal with its impacts, rather than spending hundreds of millions of euro on fines for failing to meet our targets. A reserve fund of €650 million was earmarked in the budget for a potential no-deal Brexit, in addition to the hundreds of million already appropriately earmarked for a transition under Brexit, because it was recognised that a no-deal Brexit would be an emergency and a catastrophe requiring urgent action. I note €500 million of the fund had been due to go into the rainy day fund but did not. If we do not face a no-deal Brexit, can we ensure that there is a similar scale of action on climate change and on the climate emergency which the Government has, at least, theoretically acknowledged?

The Minister spoke about the cost of carbon and carbon pricing. I supported an increase in carbon pricing because the price of carbon should reflect the cost of carbon. I do not believe that these measures are about incentivising good behaviour or discouraging bad behaviour. We are way past the point of gold stars or negative ticks. As the Minister will be very aware, the simple economic rationale for an increase in carbon pricing is that of economic externalities. Society has been bearing the costs associated with fossil fuels in terms of environmental, social and other damage. Those costs should instead be reflected in the price. That is the economic rationale used when carbon tax was originally being pushed forward. If that is the rationale, surely, every penny of carbon tax - not just the increase - should go to mitigation or adaptation to address the cost and damage of climate change. The Minister mentioned that every cent is ploughed back, but that is not the case. Only the €6 increase has been pushed back, a total of €90 million, which is a paltry sum given the scale of the crisis we face. I ask the Minister to commit to ensuring that all of those funds would be routed not to the general Exchequer, but to climate action and, perhaps, an intensification of the schemes set out in the budget.

We must also look to the budget. We must stop making small exceptions. A tax relief for diesel purchase for hauliers was introduced. On one side, a carbon tax was brought in, while on the other, a special tax relief for hauliers was introduced, in addition to possible tax reliefs on agricultural diesel. We need to be consistent. We need to join up what we do. Some weeks ago, Professor John FitzGerald acknowledged to the Joint Committee on Climate Action that the logic behind a carbon tax is that of economic externalities and that, as such, all of that funding should probably be designated to action.

I wish to focus on liquified natural gas, LNG, and the proposed LNG terminal. It is fundamentally at odds with our climate action plan and the decisions to ban fracking in Ireland and to divest from fossil fuels. We must be clear that fracked gas is a fossil fuel. The climate action committee considered the proposed terminal and heard very strong testimony from Professor Robert Howarth, who has been cited thousands of times, on the impact of methane, which emerges during the process of fracking and its transportation. A tonne of methane has 34 times the impact of a tonne of carbon. What is crucial is that the methane acts faster. We have been told that gas is a transition fuel that will somehow give us the space to do what is required but the fact is that fracked gas and the methane associated with its production are accelerants. As a result of the impacts of methane production, the terminal will not give us space to act but, rather, shorten the time we have to so do. One third of all of methane being emitted into the atmosphere comes from fracking in the United States, a business which we would be supporting if we went ahead with the LNG terminal. It leads to higher temperatures, higher rates of climatic absorption and a shortening of the time to introduce the kinds of massive cultural shifts that are required.

There was reference to the idea that extraterritorial emissions do not count. We are on one planet and facing the same crisis. It is simply unacceptable that upstream costs would somehow be disappeared from a clean ledger that we manufacture. That is also important on a global level. For example, Japan and Europe have signed a trade agreement which contains climate targets, but in the meantime, Japan is funding coal-fired plants in Bangladesh. We cannot simply move the problem offshore and hope that it will not blow back and hit us. In a week when the United States is making clear and definitive moves indicating it plans to pull out of the climate accord, we must not do anything to reward climate vandalism or irresponsible action in terms of fracking. The Minister and his colleagues, including the Taoiseach, were very eloquent about Mercosur and their concerns that actions not be taken in that regard which would encourage violation of our climate targets. We need to be consistent. I urge the Minister to reconsider this issue. There is a certain sense that we are waiting to see what happens and that this is a decision by a private industry. It is not. Let us be clear that its inclusion on the projects of common interest list means that it shall become an integral part of the relevant regional investment plans under article 12 and the relevant national ten-year network development plans under article 22. We are saying that we want to make this a priority if we go ahead with it. We are placing it at the centre of our national plan. It is certainly not a private enterprise that is happening separately. I urge the Minister to take any action he can on this issue.

On funding, I wish to highlight an example of the joined-up approach. Cycling is recognised as having multiple benefits in terms of air quality, health and congestion in cities, as well as in terms of climate. However, the funding for cycling in the budget was almost entirely allocated to greenways, which are a tourist product. There was no indication of how much of the €384 million additional funding for transport will go towards climate action. The emphasis on electric vehicles is a concern. It is positive to an extent but public transport will be key if we are to take action. I urge the Minister to take action on low-hanging fruit and put resources in place such that we see not an incremental plan of retrofitting over ten years, but full retrofitting over the next two or three years, along with a massive increase in public transport. These are issues which people support and to which there is no opposition. These are the easily-converted actions.

I will speak at length on peatlands and the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill tomorrow. Please, let us not take backwards steps. We cannot afford for bogs which may have been degraded in terms of habitat to become further degraded and a liability by drying out and contributing to our carbon emissions. In addition to the small-scale €5 million that is currently allocated, we need a massive acceleration in peatland rewetting and restoration.