Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

There are four different definitions of climate justice in these amendments. We also looked at the Mary Robinson Foundation definition in our pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill and many of us were not happy with that. It took a lot of conversation to come up with the recommendations we came up with. What is in the Bill does not entirely align with the recommendations that were made. It shows the difficulty in coming up with a definition and putting it into a Bill.

I would have to take issue with some of the comments from Senator Gavan. He could have come to the committee himself, listened to witnesses and contributed. He did not do so. All Members are entitled to come here and have their voices heard and they all could have come to the committee in the longest pre-legislative scrutiny of a Bill in the history of the State.

Definitions are not put into the Bill with any mal-intent but it shows how difficult it is to get definitions right. Part of the reason the Mary Robinson Foundation definition is not now accepted as the best one is that time moves on and definitions move on. What is missing in this definition is the responsibility of the developed world to the poorest people in the world. We see that with the Covid pandemic as well. There is a failure by developed nations to fully stand up and accept that they have caused the problems.

This Bill is historic and monumental and it is one of the strongest in the world on climate action. That is because of the amount of time it has spent in pre-legislative scrutiny. It has gone on for a year now with one thing and another. It has also taken decades of work by the Green Party to get to this point of us stepping up to the mark and entering into government when it is not easy to do so as the smallest party. It has also taken decades of work by environmental NGOs to get to this point and they have provided excellent wording on climate justice that has to be taken into account.

It has also taken decades of work by the youngest and most vulnerable people. I would agree with Senator Ruane that there are vulnerable and poor people in this country who cannot be forgotten. That comes into the realm of just transition but we also have to consider it when it comes to climate justice as well. There are 2.2 billion children on this planet and it is the people living in the poorest parts of the planet who will be impacted and who are impacted right now by climate change. That is not just in the deaths recorded, as outlined by Senator Higgins, but also from displacement and a quality of life they can no longer have with their families. It is women and children who are impacted most by this displacement.

On balance, removal is probably the better option because of the differences in views and we would all recognise that there are differences in views. There is no mal-intent in the wording that is in the Bill but given everything, including the changing understanding and definitions around climate justice, that is probably the best approach. None of this changes our obligations and none of it changes section 3, which is about our international obligations on climate change. Those obligations include climate justice.