Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is true that things are moving rapidly in areas such as climate and biodiversity but the fact that they may be moving rapidly goes against the idea that we would roll back to a position before things were moving rapidly and before the problem was even understood at all; that we would roll back to the 1980s. That is what is happening here. There is a tension being created needlessly in this legislation. As the Minister of State said, there is language and there is an obligation to consider the provisions of the climate Act, and within that, the ultimate goal of the Act which is 1.5 degrees and compliance with the Paris Agreement. Article 2 of that agreement includes common but differentiated responsibilities and the idea that the countries which have done the most to cause climate change should, right now, be leading in terms of trying to mitigate it. There is a tension here. It is not simply the case, as the Minister of State says, that we refer to the climate Act and the climate legislation that already exists and cross-reference with this legislation. Instead, we are introducing a brand new element which means something different.

Our climate legislation talks about our responsibilities now in terms of climate action and our responsibilities up until 2030 whereas what the Government is putting into this Bill talks about meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It basically says we can take what we like as long as we leave enough for the next generation but that is not what the Paris Agreement says, what the climate Act says or what EU climate legislation says. We have outdated, extractive, 1980s language in an education Bill that is at odds with all of that wider context. It would have been better if there was no definition of environmental development and sustainability included and we would go with the common interpretations of sustainability or sustainable development. I am sure most courts would say we should look to the sustainable development goals or other aspects to sustainable development that might be relevant. Instead, the Government has not simply said that we will lean on this wider sphere or this whole-of-government legislation but has put something in that contradicts it. There is something in here that contradicts it and is at odds with it. It is only in the HEA Bill and this Bill that I have seen this phraseology. It is a really poor phraseology to be going into something that is meant to be progressive. It looks poor for the State. Most of the young people coming through who will be our researchers and innovators - although it is not just young people who are researchers and innovators - will look at this and say it is not really about future generations but about now and will ask why this is so focused on future generations. Why is that the only caveat rather than climate justice, which says that our responsibility is now, both to Ireland and to the rest of the world? It is not really okay that we leave enough for people in Ireland if we are literally taking food from the mouths of the people experiencing desertification now in north Africa. It is not really adequate or acceptable that we do not acknowledge that very important core principle of common but differentiated responsibilities now that is in the Paris Agreement.

The Minister of State is missing my point. Perhaps he will come in again but I do not know why the choice was made to use this phraseology. Why was that choice made? Why was this phraseology used? Maybe it is used somewhere else. I ask the Minister of State to clarify that. As I have said, these are the only places I have seen it and regardless of where it has been used in the past, it is certainly not equipped to take us towards the future.