Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators for being here and for having me in their Chamber.

The point was made that many people are seen wearing the badge of sustainable development goals - they are talking the talk but are they walking the walk? Senator Higgins proposes two amendments in this regard. The sustainable development goals are not directly referenced, that is true, within the climate Bill. However, they are addressed through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, and the Paris Agreement, which place legally binding obligations on the State and are separately identified within the Bill. They are referenced in that way, indirectly.

The sustainable development goals are not legally binding. However, Ireland is a signatory fully committed to their implementation. The sustainable development goals are much broader than what is contained in the Bill which focuses on a cut of 51% in our emissions over a decade. They go far beyond that and they need to be covered in other legislation. There are other legal acts that address these matters in an appropriate and stronger way. For example, our national equality legislation, and related policies for these matters, are primary vehicles and should deliver on these objectives. That addresses the sustainable development goals section. I believe they are indirectly referenced through the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC.

I move on to the other amendments of which there are many in this section. I refer to amendments Nos. 41 and 42 which enumerate items where there is a desire to move them up the hierarchy of how necessary they are to be considered, included or taken into account, or must have or may have regard to, and so on. Amendment No. 41 proposes that "in performing their respective functions under this section, the Minister and the Government shall ensure that the national long-term climate action strategy is consistent with" and lists items it should be consistent with rather than having regard to.The first thing I would say is that there have been changes in this and the centre acknowledged that there have been changes since the 2015 Act. Some of these were looked at during pre-legislative scrutiny and progress was made in that regard. If one looks in sections 3(3) and in other sections of the Act, there are a list of items that are "consistent with" rather than "have regard to". From a broad point of view, when one is looking at a to-do list of any kind it is important to prioritise. There is the saying that when everything is a priority then nothing is a priority. If we are not singling out which items are more important than others or which items we want to do first before others, then there is always a risk that something will be undone or not reached and a goal that is not reached is more important than other goals. That is why prioritisation is important. It is important that this Bill lists the things that must happen, should happen and may happen. For that reason, the Bill as is should continue as is.

Amendment No. 46 proposes that we delete "climate neutral economy" and substitute "completely decarbonised economy". In other words, this is a move towards absolute zero rather than net zero. This would provide that we would reach a point of absolute zero CO2 emissions by 2050. The ambition of this Bill as it stands is to reach climate neutrality no later than 2050. This is in line with the EU approach and also consistent with the Paris Agreement. It is not physically possible to reach absolute zero by 2050. If we put that into legislation we would be attempting to reach an impossible goal which would be simply unconvincing. When one gives people a goal which they all believe is not possible to achieve, it puts them off making an effort. The 2030 goal of a 51% reduction is huge. Although it is likely to be consistent with the EU goal of 55% by 2030, the EU has made huge progress in the last decade compared with Ireland. We are starting at the back of the pack and for us to reach that 51% reduction will be so hard. It will require real effort and it will be incredibly difficult. We have a challenging and ambitious target to reach 51% as it is. Reaching net zero is simply impossible so I will not accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 45 proposes: "after “maximise” to insert “quality”." If one looks at section 4(8)(g) it provides: "in so far as practicable, the need to maximise employment, the attractiveness of the State for investment and the long term competitiveness of the economy;". If we include "quality" here, we would need to define what we mean by that. Quality employment is subjective and not a matter to be determined at an individual level. That is a vague or uncertain amendment to put in.

Amendment No. 44 suggests: "after "advice" to insert "including advice from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change". The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, IPCC, informs science at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, which the Bill refers to and provides for under section 4(8)(c). That section refers to: "relevant scientific...advice". We have not specifically named the IPCC. If we are naming a particular body and saying we have to be consistent with its advice, that raises the question of whether we have to follow all of its advice and if that means we have to be consistent with anything it publishes. There are different levels of scientific paper that are published and sometimes they can be in conflict. I would have preferred something that was along the lines of "best international advice" or "international best practice" but that is not before me. The fact that the UNFCCC is referred to in the Bill should be enough because the IPCC informs the UNFCCC.

Amendment No. 49 also wants to substitute "completely decarbonised economy" into the Bill. The same points are to be made as before about moving towards net zero.

I will deal with amendments Nos. 53 and 55 together. They are about engaging: "with workers, trade unions, communities, non-governmental organisations". These amendments are about being more explicit in our definition of "consultation". The wording in the Bill refers to engaging with "persons". A person can be a legal person and an organisation and in any public consultation, organisations are allowed to make their submissions. It is normal that when making a submission in a public consultation one says whether the submission is individual or on behalf of an organisation. The Minister will have to and would want to take all submissions from all organisations and from social partners because to do so strengthens the buy-in of society into any proposals that are being made and makes it more likely that the proposals will be acceptable and viable to the public as a whole. On that basis, this engagement is already provided for in the Bill and the amendment is not needed.

Amendment No. 56 seeks: "In page 11, line 28, after "economic" to insert ", environmental,"." This is in reference to agriculture. Agriculture is central to the environment and the environment is central to agriculture. This language is provided for as part of the programme for Government commitment which refers to the financial and long-standing cultural framing that agriculture provides in Ireland. The overall objective of this Bill is to deliver on our climate targets and improve and restore our environment. The role of the agricultural sector in this process and of our farmers as custodians of the land is clear and of critical importance. This aspect will be operationalised in actions taken forward in future iterations of the climate action plan. The amendment is not necessary and I will not accept it.