Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 22, line 9, to delete “endeavour to”.

Amendment No. 29 seeks to amend section 31(1)(a) relating to the investment of fossil fuels by removing the term "endeavour" and thereby creating a stronger obligation. This relates to the nature fund, a fund that is meant to be for climate, infrastructure and nature. There should be no caveats when it comes to the question of investing in fossil fuels and fossil fuel undertakings.

I do not believe the Bill is adequate. Perhaps it is in line with the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act and so forth, but that is no longer ambitious enough. We see how woefully behind we are in our climate targets in Ireland. More crucially, hundreds have died in mudslides in Papua New Guinea. Fires are raging across parts of the world. We see desertification at an alarming rate. Climate change is looking terrifying in terms of the liveability of huge parts of this world. Separate from identifying opportunities for great new areas of investment or a different, greener and better future, we need to stop doing damage and digging when it comes to fossil fuels. That means we need to stop relying on fuels that are thousands of years in the making and burned to feed an insatiable economic model. We cannot be part of the problem.

We have used up a lot of the space we have. If we think of the global commons as being the space left in terms of emissions that can still be emitted before we reach a situation whereby our planet becomes unliveable, Ireland's share of the remaining available space is very small. It appears that we will exceed that in the next few years alone. We cannot have any loopholes or wishy-washiness around investments in fossil fuels, because investments make money from things that work against our collective survival on the planet.

Fossil fuels may need to be used in developing countries which are desperately trying to make the transition to putting the most basic infrastructure in place so that they have some kind of resilience. Countries like that can make some kind of case as they try to make a transition and build the kind of infrastructure that will allow them to survive and function as a society. Simply saying that we would like to continue investing in fossil fuels a bit, because it makes money for a fund that needs to deliver commercial returns and we will then use some of that money for projects down the line, cannot be justified. There must be no investment in fossil fuels.

It is not enough to say that we will endeavour to ensure that the assets of a fund are not directly invested in fossil fuels. Section 31(2) uses the term "endeavour", which is weak. It states that we shall endeavour to ensure that the assets of a relevant fund are not invested in an indirect investment, unless it is unlikely to have in excess of 15% of its assets invested or a lower percentage if the Minister so chooses. We are saying that we will try not to invest directly.

If we are to be confident in how these moneys are being managed on our behalf, we need to be confident that those who are managing them can do better than endeavouring to ensure something. Rather, they must ensure that our public money is not going directly into fossil fuels. Frankly, the provision suggesting that there can be an indirect investment if the company or undertaking we are investing in only has 15% of its assets invested in fossil fuels is not acceptable - 15% of what? A giant mega corporation may happen to have 15% of its assets in fossil fuels. That is not good enough. In that situation, we will know that we are investing indirectly in fossil fuels. That is not good enough. Can I check the grouping?