Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is good we are removing a damaging section of text that worked at odds with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, goals and represented a potentially dangerous dilution of those goals. I am glad to be losing what was, potentially, regressive language in the Bill. However, because it is important we include the output of the work of our many hundreds of hours in the climate committee, I will be proposing and pressing the definition the major environmental NGOs have proposed. It is supported by all the Opposition groups that have spoken. Therefore, I still think it would be better if we had a good definition that built on the UNFCCC and embracing common but differentiated responsibilities while also recognising the issues concerning human rights, equality and the rights of the most vulnerable persons, including indigenous persons. Indeed, they originated that concept of climate justice in Bolivia and concepts such as Pachamama, which is the idea that we have a debt not just to each other but to the world and to our planet.

My preference, therefore, in that context remains for that global approach. It is not a brainstorm which has come up with this idea. It is the output of decades of thinking about climate justice. I mentioned the work I was involved in back in 2008 and that has been fine-tuned since. The definition presented by Oxfam, Trócaire, Christian Aid Ireland, the Stop Climate Chaos coalition, Friends of the Earth and many others is the better definition. I still believe we should press that definition and that the Government should consider engaging with those environmental NGOs between now and Report Stage of this Bill to see if we can find and insert a good definition. Certainly, however, if it is not possible to do that, then the better thing to do is to ensure we do not have a bad definition in the Bill.

I did not have my notes with me when I was speaking earlier, but I think about this subject a great deal and I drew on that cogitation. However, one of the reasons I wanted my notes, and this is important, is that I want to read just a few lines from one of the most powerful testimonies in this regard from Professor Kevin Anderson. I recommend it to everyone to watch online, because it is transformative. He was appearing before the Joint Committee on Climate Action in November 2020, when he said:

I ... remind ourselves that even the Paris Agreement’s framing of climate change, holding to an increase of 1.5°C to 2°C, is not just. Many people are already dying from climate change and with the 1.5°C to 2°C target, many more people will die. They will be poor. Typically, they will be people of colour, initially the burden will fall disproportionately on women and children, they will live in climate-vulnerable parts of the world and they will be low emitters. Let me be clear. We have, knowingly, in the wealthy parts of the world imposed that upon them by our choice to fail, thus far, to address climate change. I say this regularly to all [developed] countries but today ... [I say it to] Ireland.

It was powerful testimony and a reminder of where we are. We will have a chance to discuss another phrase in that context later, as far as is practicable, and the instances of where it appears in the Bill.

However, I really worry. I am someone who is hopeful about humanity and the world in general. Honestly, though, over recent months I have been watching the failure to introduce a TRIPS waiver and the unwillingness of the wealthy countries in that regard. The cover of The Lancetrecently displayed a quote which stated that "Rich countries behaved worse" than anyone could ever have imagined. I have been watching the willingness to let millions die for convenience and for profit, and that builds on the thousands who have died in the Mediterranean. That is why I thank the Minister for removing this text. It is very good and we are taking a positive step in taking away negative language.

However, I urge the Minister to spend the next few days engaging with the environmental NGOs to find a strong definition that will allow Ireland not just to deliver on our responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and not to be at odds with and dilute those responsibilities but to allow us to show ambition and leadership. I refer to the kinds of things we spoke about when we sought to be elected to the UN Security Council. We should be more ambitious than our fellow countries in Europe on the specific aspect of climate justice in this global struggle. I again thank the Minister for accepting amendment No. 7 to remove the damaging language. I will press one of the other amendments and I hope we may be able to take another step forward on Report Stage.