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

I thank Senators for what has been a very interesting and, in many ways, an encouraging debate. I will try to deal with some of the points. Obviously, I cannot deal with all of them. Senator Leyden raised a few issues on which I am not sure he is 100% accurate. The climate Bill was a Fianna Fáil-Green Party one and it was not blocked. The situation is unfortunate in respect of the Bill - Senator Humphreys complained about it - with this transition statement. The Houses agreed the way it should be done last year and it was ludicrous, and I absolutely agree with the Senator in that regard. I hope we will agree to something better this year. That sort of came out of that Bill but that is not to criticise it. We just need to breathe life into these things.

There has been some criticism of us going to the Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens have been an icon of respecting our environment and the biodiversity we have, and I think was absolutely appropriate, especially as it is located in the shadow of Glasnevin Cemetery where some of our great national heroes are buried. It is appropriate that we should go somewhere like that to say that we have a new challenge. That was the symbolism of picking the Botanic Gardens. We have a new challenge and we need to live up to it as our forebears took on big challenges in the past.

Senators are right in saying the 2018 figure shows us well off the European targets. I acknowledged that when I came into this position a year ago and said we had to produce a climate plan that would get us back on track, and I recognise that getting back on track means targeting the 30% reduction by 2030. One does not click one's fingers and get changes in retrofitting, transport infrastructure or renewable energy infrastructure overnight. One has to plan and deliver them. That is what we now have in place. The 2018 figure is off-target, but we have been putting a new plan in place that I think will get us back on target.I assure the Seanad that we are on track to have the new Bill which includes carbon budgeting before the committee before Christmas. That is the target I am working towards. My officials tell me that we will have the heads of the Bill before the committee. We can then have a meaningful debate about setting the targets. We will also implement climate-proofing, an issue raised by Senator Leyden. It will be part of Government procedure.

Senator Lombard, among others, rightly noted that the ambition of many in the leadership in Departments was lacking. However, the climate action plan has succeeded in lifting ambitions across government. Everyone has had to jump together. Everyone was reluctant to jump and be the one who would commit, but we have succeeded in getting every Department to jump together. It will mean tough standards for the agriculture industry. By and large, Teagasc's agenda has to be delivered by the agriculture industry without having an impact on other elements of the agricultural scene. Every Department has had to step up, particularly the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

Senator Devine rightly referred to the criticism that featured in the 2018 auditor's report. I have rectified it. Climate monitoring is now in place. We are developing a dashboard to monitor not just greenhouse gas emissions in various sectors but also many indicators of impact. They will include the number of people switching to electric vehicles and the number of homes retrofitted, whether they are new or old homes. We are closely monitoring progress in achieving the targets we have set. For the first time, we will also have a carbon budget such that a failure by agriculture, transport or industry to meet its targets will become a drag on that sector's budget. There will be direct accountability within each sector. Not only will we be monitoring progress, there will be a knock-on effect on the sector concerned. We will see real accountability which the Senator is right to demand.

The issue that has generated the most heat is that of LNG. I must explain that LNG can be extracted through fracking or otherwise. This applies to the supplies imported from Scotland. Fracked gas can form part of any delivery. The Shannon LNG project has created such controversy because it is an American-sponsored project, which raises the issue of fracked gas. We need to look at the evidence cited. I am very conscious of this, which is why I announced that there would be a security and sustainability investigation. I will not support the provision of any funding for the project until I am satisfied on that front. The paper presented cites disputed evidence, with which not everyone agrees. The author advocates loading methane at a ratio of 86:1. The EPA requires a ratio of 25:1. As such, the paper argues that methane should be treated in a completely different way from the current consensus approach. It also argues that methane emissions from fracked and shale oil and gas are far higher than from natural gas, but that is debatable and the evidence must be examined. I raised this issue at a European level.

To be fair to Senator O'Sullivan, these projects have been on the list of projects of common interest because gas remains a transition fuel. Our ambition is to use five times as much renewable as non-renewable energy. Instead of 30% renewable energy we will use 70%. We need something to power the system when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. That source is gas. No other option is available to us. In time we may see the emergence of hydrogen, carbon capture and storage or other technologies that will allow this to change. There may be bigger batteries or more Turlough Hill-type projects, although the latter would be very expensive on the scale we would need. However, none of them is available to us. Gas is the transition fuel. Europe largely depends on imported gas, a lot of which comes from Russia; therefore, alternatives are desirable for reasons of security of supply. LNG terminals are one such alternative. That is why it has been on the list of projects of common interest in Europe for six years. The advantage of being included in that list is that the project could be eligible for state aid. We have made it very clear that we will not support the provision of such aid until we are satisfied about the robustness of the proposal.

We must also examine the role of gas in transition. Some Members, particularly in the Lower House, have been advocating stopping exploration for any fuel. When this question was tested scientifically by the climate advisory council, the advice ruled out oil exploration but advocated continued prospecting for gas because we need it in the transition. We have to make decisions based on the evidence, not just on the basis of an instinct that we do not want any more fossil fuel technology. We are in a challenging transition that will not happen overnight.

Many Senators have said we need bigger budgets. Of course, we need bigger budgets to support these changes. Carbon pricing represents a €6.5 billion commitment. It has been announced that we will raise €6.5 billion through carbon pricing and the money will exclusively be used for climate action measures. That is what climate pricing means. It was a significant budgetary commitment. I remind the House, as Senator Murnane O'Connor raised the issue, that there is more than one way to skin this cat. We cannot look to the Government and the taxpayer to fund all of it. Regulation will be important. We are already introducing a requirement by which anyone adding an extension to a house of more than 25% of the floor area will have to bring the building energy rating up to B2. That will not mean shelling out heaps of money. If someone has enough money to expand his or her home and do all of that work, he or she can also be expected to future-proof it.