Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 8, line 22, after “1992,” to insert “including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in respect of that objective,”.

This amendment seeks to make it explicitly clear that in considering the UNFCCC, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in respect of the UNFCCC objectives shall apply. As I understand it, the section to be amended sets out what the Government's actions must be consistent with. At the moment, the Bill sets out that the Government's actions should be consistent with the "ultimate objective" of the UNFCCC. I am trying to specify that it is not about the ultimate objective, but about the ultimate objective and specifically the "principle of common but differentiated responsibilities". The ultimate objective is the emissions reduction goal we must get to. The inclusion of "the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities" is really important because it is about how we get there. That is why I am proposing that this phrase be included and specified. Again, it may be implied but I want it to be included and specified.

Amendment No. 28 is a strange one because we talk a lot about the Paris Agreement but the Bill only talks about "the steps" set out in the agreement. I am proposing that there should be a reference to the "commitments made" in the agreement as well as the steps set out in it. One is a process piece again and the other is about the what and the how. I am looking to ensure we reference both the commitments and the steps. I also suggest we should be dealing with the full Paris Agreement - we should be consistent with that agreement as a whole and not just, as the Government suggests, Articles 2 and 4(1) of the agreement. There are many articles in the Paris Agreement and I get a little concerned when I see a narrowing of those articles which we are going to consider.It is not even just Articles 2 and 4, which, incidentally, was recommended by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Action, but Articles 2 and 4(1). The reason that matters is because - again I may have my reference slightly wrong - it is Article 4(3) which talks about the highest possible ambition. We talk about progression and the idea that countries should be aiming as high as they can, doing as much as they can, and having the greatest levels of possible ambition, and that countries should be progressing. That is the idea, that year on year, decade on decade, countries should be doing more to address climate change. Those are some of the important things that are in the other parts of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement. It seems to me very reasonable that if the Minister cannot accept the wider amendment No. 28, he might accept amendment No. 29, which simply deletes the caveat on Article 4(1) and would mean the Bill, the Government, and the Minister in all of their functions would recognise and would act consistently with Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement.

Amendment No. 30, which again relates to the functioning of the agency, uses small language where I try to pull out that specific sentence similar to how I pull out the particular language on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. I also pull out that language in terms of the State’s highest possible ambition and progression. It is a very important principle to remember and to apply in the various suites of climate instruments that will be created under this Bill.