Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have to join with the points made by Senator Ó Donnghaile about regretting that we have not been having these transition statements in the way we should have done over the last few years. I was in the last Oireachtas and we had them at that point. There are two aspects of regret. It has been an opportunity missed by the Government in forwarding the climate debate to have these transition statements every year. I would also note the powers that were there under the 2015 Act for the relevant Minister to request other Ministers to come and present to the Houses of the Oireachtas. In the years when these transition statements were most effective and meaningful, Ministers from multiple different Departments were coming in to talk about what they were doing on climate change, which meant there was a more detailed discussion. With respect to the Minister of State and his comprehensive statement that tried to cover every single area and Department, the fact is it should be the case that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is having an annual debate in each House where he talks about what he is doing on climate action. It should be the case that the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage are in and that each of them are answering questions on transition. I know they will have sectoral targets and the Minister of State might indicate in his response if it is intended that the statements will be dealt with in this way each year because he has said this will be the last year of this format. Will we be having those annual reports? There was capacity under the 2015 Act for the Minister with responsibility for the environment to request that other Ministers would present to the Houses. That would have been good and helpful with the challenge of making every Department take on this issue with the same level of vigour. Each Department could have been subject to the kind of detailed scrutiny on the kind of detailed decisions that we are facing into.

I also want to refer back to the other Senator who suggested that maybe we should just focus on adaptation or who seemed to prioritise adaptation because it would be too difficult. Adapting to 1.5°C, 2°C or 2.5°C of temperature increase are different and that is why mitigation and everything we can possibly do to reduce the impact and increase in carbon emissions to mitigate the devastating impacts, as well as adapt to them, is crucial. When I hear people saying the ship has sailed and let us adapt, it brings to mind one of the most chilling moments I have seen, which was at the climate talks in Madrid, when I accidentally wandered into the room where insurance companies were pitching to different cities. As different countries failed to set ambitious enough targets for their emission reductions the mayors of various cities were hearing from insurance companies about the moneys they could pay to try to deal with the impacts of climate change. The presenters were talking about how it would depend on whether one had 100,000 or 200,000 deductibles. This meant how many people in one's city would have to die before the insurance company might pay out for impacts from climate change.

When I hear people saying it is too difficult to do this and that we should focus on adaptation, what I hear is that we want a little survival ship for the wealthiest and that we are happy to let millions of people die. That is what the choice is. There is no status quobut if we have business as usual it is a small pool who will be able to maintain that because the impact on the global economy of a 2°C temperature change will be devastating, not simply for a few, the most marginal or those in coastal areas, but for the majority of the world. In that context, the top 1% of wealthy people have emissions that are equivalent to the bottom 50% of the world's population. Therefore, I am not happy enough that the bottom 50% of the world's population should take the hit for the top 1% of people to stay wealthy or even to get wealthier.

In that context I will join with the points that were well made by Senator Pauline O'Reilly on international justice because that is the crucial priority. I have opinions on all of the Departments but this is crucial. Ireland's fair share of the €100 billion that we have promised under the sustainable development goals is not €85 million or €95 million where we are now.It is also not the €275 million we say we are moving to. It is €475 million. That is what would constitute a fair share of the €100 billion, which is, in itself, inadequate. I am concerned that we are not delivering what we need to. It is crucial that we do not muddy the line between overseas development aid, which will still be desperately needed, and climate funding and financing. Why is spending on the UN climate fund still such a small proportion of the moneys we intend to spend, at €4 million? We saw the EU seeking to block proper debate of the issues of loss and damage at the climate talks in Bonn and at the Conference of the Parties, COP. What will Ireland be doing to ensure that there is not only financing, but acknowledgement of loss and damage and payment for the very real and devastating damage that has been done to developing countries? I am not talking about adaptation funding, a few dollars to help countries adapt to the things we will continue doing, but about actual compensation for the damage being done.

I have a lot of opinions about the area of transport, although many of my points have already been well made. The ideas are there, as are the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. There are two areas in which we need to scale up. One is the area of retrofitting. I am not just talking about the warmer homes scheme, but about local authority schemes. The figure of €85 million is not enough. We know that we can do more on that. That needs to be front-loaded. I would love to see a trebling of what we are doing with local authorities with regard to retrofitting given the energy crisis. Peatland rehabilitation was mentioned as a project to come out of that climate fund but that is not enough. While the funding for peatlands is increasing, this is an area where action needs to be front-loaded. A key principle of the transition is that it must be fast and fair so we must consider what are the early front-loaded actions that can deliver the greatest impact as quickly as possible. Some of those involve upfront public expenditure rather than a shift towards a new market model. That is something to be looked at with regard to retrofitting.

I regret that we have sought another derogation from the nitrates directive. We are again pushing out action on this issue. We need to be honest with regard to fodder and food security. We talk about feeding the world and, while our beef and dairy have a role in that regard, they are not the main mechanism in feeding the world and we need to be very honest about that. The current model does not work for 60% of farmers. It is about inventing new ways of rewarding and paying farmers to do something very different rather than propping up a model that does not work for the majority.

With regard to energy, we hear about a plan to begin to stop the development of data centres but we also see the energy they are consuming. Moving away from Russian fuel was also mentioned. I have to flag two important issues. If we are making that shift and getting rid of oil and gas from Russia, we need to ensure that we are not continuing to make ethical mistakes in other areas. I was extremely disappointed to hear this week that the EU has signed a deal for the importation of natural gas from Israel without including the language used in every previous trade agreement between the EU and Israel which specifically says that products shall not come from occupied territories. This is crucial given the massive natural gas reserves in the Levant basin which the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD, highlighted in the last year as a new discovery estimated to be worth €524 billion and holding the equivalent of 1.7 billion barrels. If we are contributing to an occupying country trading in or exploiting gas and fossil fuel reserves in an occupied territory, we are contributing to the exact same problem we say we want to challenge with regard to Russia and Ukraine. We must be morally consistent on that. It is a priority. Will the Minister of State tell us what position Ireland will take in challenging that decision of the EU?