Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 8 seeks to amend section 31(2) by removing the provision that the agency can invest moneys from the fund where "such indirect investment is unlikely to have in excess of 15 per cent of its assets, or such lower percentage as the Minister may prescribe by order" as part of a fossil fuel undertaking and replacing it with a provision whereby 1% is the maximum amount allowable.

Amendment No. 9 would delete sections 31(3) and (4), which allow the agency to indirectly invest moneys in undertakings where fossil fuel undertakings represent 15% or less of their assets.

This section effectively allows money to be invested directly in fossil fuel undertakings where it is consistent with "the policy of the Government, as may be communicated to the Agency [at any time] by the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, in relation to climate change and climate change objectives." I am worried. The Minister will be aware that, on Committee Stage, I was concerned by the phrasing around “the policy of the Government” because, sadly, it seemed to allow space for the risk of a future Government policy lowering our climate ambitions and not showing as much concern about climate change. It was allowing a flexibility as regards direct fossil fuel investment. That is the unequivocal issue. As was mentioned during our discussions today with Mrs. Robinson and as we have heard directly from the UN, the fundamental thing humanity has to do right now is to stop digging. We cannot afford to have investments in fossil fuel undertakings. The idea that we leave a little window that might allow for direct investment in fossil fuels is dangerously irresponsible. Let us consider the trillions of dollars in subsidies that have gone into fossil fuels. Look at the systematic measures, widely exposed now, taken by the fossil fuel industry to actively obstruct action on climate change and undermine governments’ efforts on same. Look at the cases that have been taken by fossil fuel undertakings and entities around their reasonable expectations through investor courts. Look at the kinds of heavy-handed tactics and strategies we have seen in respect of the fossil fuel industry. One of the great defences for a Government – one of the great things it is good for a Government to have – is to be able to say its hands are tied. That would strengthen a future Minister’s hands. Does the Minister believe that these companies are not saying that the policy of the Government can change and that it will not become a target for lobbying? Of course it will. If we have legislation that is crystal clear and says there is no space, though, then we will provide any future Minister with a much more robust position.

The Bill mirrors the provisions of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018. That Act was important and Ireland got a lot of kudos for it. We went and sold our green bonds abroad and so forth on the back of it. Matters have moved on, though. The climate change crisis has worsened. We are touching 1.5°C. That increase is happening around us. At an increase of 2°C, the world is unlivable. We do not have another decade for making a bit of money. For a livable planet, we cannot take that risk. Sometimes I wonder whether people believe in climate change. I believe it is happening. It is not like the people in question are climate change deniers, but they seem to believe that we can keep squeezing fuel out of stones in a way that is not going to bloody the future. It will.

The Act was good, but there were compromises in it. As regards amendment No. 8 on indirect investment, the language in the Bill is “15 per cent of its assets, or such lower percentage as the Minister may prescribe by order”. When that was put in the Bill, the idea was that, when the Houses had passed the 15% rate, that was what we could get, but we would put in a line about the lower order. How are we in a climate crisis now, with the world literally on fire, hundreds dying and millions displaced, but no Minister has yet decided to lower that level? That provision was meant to allow us to be responsive.It was supposed to be incremental. While there could be indirect invest of 15% of a fund's assets, it was thought that this would probably be reviewed and reduced to 10% and then 5%. I certainly do not believe it was envisaged that we would set up a brand-new fund and put brand-new money into fossil fuels, whether indirectly or directly. The legislation was about trying to exit from the bad situation we were in. It was an arrow towards the exit with the idea that we would progressively get better. It was not meant to set a floor and allow funds to do 15% forever and ever. No Minister has chosen to lower that 15% in indirect investment. It should be borne in mind that you can have very large entities, even if only 15% of their assets are invested in this. These mega-corporations are increasingly starting their own mines. That is what we are seeing with the big tech companies. They are opening up their own mines. Can we invest in tech companies if they happen to mine for fossil fuels? They mainly mine for precious minerals at the moment but the principle is there.

I have tabled this amendment because no Minister has chosen to lower that percentage limit from 15%, as Ministers are entitled to do. I believe the limit now needs to be decreased to 1%. It should have been moving down year on year but it has not been so let us make it 1%. That allows for inadvertent mistakes, small projects or assets that were missed. It gives a little bit of scope for exit or error. This is new money being invested in new ways. We do not need the same exit strategy from bad decisions. We can avoid making the bad decisions in the first place with this fund. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment lowering the limit for indirect investment from 15% to 1% and to support amendment No. 9, which makes it clear that there will be no direct investment and that there is no flexibility or loopholes in respect of direct investment if it happens to suit some future government or if some future government comes under pressure to allow for such investment.