Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Over the past year or two, I have had engagement with environmental NGOs, activists, Green Party members and others on the importance of banning liquefied natural gas, LNG. Throughout this Oireachtas term, there has been discussion about how we can ensure LNG, which is inclusive of fracked gas, is banned. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has always been vague and equivocal in his language on this topic. We need to be very clear about what is happening. Even as people are discussing how we ban LNG, the Government has made the decision in this legislation not simply not to put any limits on LNG but to prioritise it. It has chosen to prioritise one of the filthiest forms of fuel that exists at a time we are in what is beyond a climate emergency.

The past decade was a time for potential action to keep our planet at a liveable temperature. However, the decision has been made to prioritise liquefied natural gas at this time. That is reflected throughout the Bill. To be clear, LNG includes fracked gas. A former Fine Gael backbencher, Tony McLoughlin, took a stand against this in the past. In fact, in the previous Oireachtas term, when the Green Party was not in government, we managed to ban fracking. In this Oireachtas term, however, the legacy will the decision to import fracked gas from right across the rest of the world, including the United States. The legacy will be Ireland becoming the gateway for fracked gas into Europe.

I have been hearing from people that they are not clear on what is being proposed in this regard. Even though it is written in the Bill in black and white, people cannot believe the Government is prioritising liquefied natural gas. Let us be clear that this is what it is doing. The Government has included LNG in the strategic infrastructure that will be prioritised. It is mentioned explicitly at the very end of the Bill. The plan seems to be that we would only get to the amendments relating to the first third of the Bill before the debate is guillotined. Perhaps the hope was that we would never get to discuss the relevant section. It is set out in Schedule 2, which details the kinds of developments that get to skip the local authorities and go straight to the commission. They get fast-track planning permission, whereby local authorities and local public representatives will have zero say on, or input to, the decision-making process. The Schedule refers to "a terminal, building or installation ancillary to a terminal that is used for the liquefaction of natural gas or the importation, offloading and re-gasification of liquefied natural gas, and ancillary services". It is dead clear. This is not just about the importation and storage of LNG; it relates to the processes around its liquefaction and regasification.

That raises huge issues, as others have long highlighted. I commend the work of Not Here, Not Anywhere and Friends of the Earth on this issue. Not Here, Not Anywhere has summed up the problem with LNG. Such projects, as the organisation has pointed out, may delay the energy transition, diverting resources from cleaner sustainable alternatives. LNG's social and environmental impacts on communities, including safety risks, pollution and economic drawbacks, far outweigh any potential or proposed benefits. Ireland should practise and prioritise environmental justice rather than LNG.

We really are in a climate emergency. These are the last few years for action.The climate committee heard about this in the previous Oireachtas; the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, was there. To be clear, methane, the primary component in liquid natural gas, LNG, has 86 times more global warming potential over a 20-year period than CO2. LNG has particularly high emissions in comparison with conventional gas and it has no climate benefit over coal or oil. This is the core issue. If we are not willing to challenge fossil fuels, but are in fact agreeing to prioritise one of the worst fossil fuels and if a party in government in a wealthy country is unwilling to say "boo" to the inclusion of a filthy fossil fuel - one of the filthiest - as a priority, what chance do we have globally? We have people in power who understand how dangerous this is. If somehow the people in power here are too afraid to take action, how can we expect to see the shift and change we need internationally? Will we leave it all to the children?

Moving to a few of the specific issues, any more gas infrastructure will make transition harder. We need a reduction in gas demand of 40% by 2030, which means complete decommissioning. The LNG terminal construction time is at least five or six years so effectively, we would see these terminals come on stream at the exact time we need to be exiting completely from gas. To be clear, there are no caveats in this. I have heard it suggested that a public terminal could be there on a temporary basis. No. The language in the Bill is explicit. It allows for any party to apply for fast-tracked planning permission for any terminal employed for LNG. Of course, once those permissions are applied for, we will not be able to interfere in the planning permission process and An Bord Pleanála or the commission will be expected - because these are also listed as strategic infrastructure - to say "Yes" to them. There will be no after the fact coming in. We will not have people writing letters saying they do not like it personally. That is meaningless, when the Government has agreed to it being strategic infrastructure that gets a fast-track process.

I have excessively lengthy materials which, because of the constrained time due to the shameful guillotine on this legislation, we do not have time to go into. The damage from LNG not only relates to our climate targets. It has appalling environmental impacts on a local level and catastrophic public safety risks, to the extent that vapour clouds from terminals may catch fire resulting in expanding pools of fire which can burn off the fuel and start secondary fires, flash freezing human flesh, causing asphyxiation and secondary burns up to two miles away. There is a reason that other jurisdictions, including New York, have refused permission for LNG terminals on safety grounds and that risk assessments on the impacts are being demanded elsewhere. There is no reference to risk assessments here.

Some of the other amendments the Minister of State has tabled on this worsen the issue. On Committee Stage, there was an amendment to allow for these terminals offshore or onshore - both. Let us have LNG terminals everywhere, right across the country, on land and on water. The Committee Stage amendment also allows for strategic gas infrastructure to include installations used for the injection of natural gas by methane, hydrogen or other renewable gases directly into the transmission systems. I have tabled amendments to try to address this.

The Minister of State's amendment No. 165 on Report Stage expands the criteria even further, saying that among the strategic infrastructure should be included offshore gas storage, LNG terminals and storage facilities for oil and coal - oil and coal storage will be included in the definition of strategic gas infrastructure. This Bill is effectively a gift to the fossil fuel industry and its lobbyists. The legacy of this Government on climate - the thing people will talk about - will be LNG and the failure on the Shell to Sea campaign, the failure to stand up to one of the greatest polluters in the world, the Shell corporation, in previous times. Similarly, we have seen a decision to turn a blind eye to fracked gas and LNG and it is not just a blind eye, the Government is giving it the gift of Government prioritisation. That will be the legacy. I am simply saying that a weak line or two half-referencing the environment somewhere in the planning framework, which will get railroaded over by the planning statement by the Minister, will do nothing. In the next section, we will come to the fact that the reference to actual legislation, the climate Bill, has been taken out of the list of things the commission and local authorities are asked to refer to. In planning applications for the priority strategic infrastructure that get fast-tracked and go straight to the commission, the commission is no longer being obliged to think about the climate Act when it makes decisions. Let us put those pieces together.

Amendment No. 166 seeks to provide that only biomethane or green hydrogen could be injected into the system.

Amendment No. 169, which is the Minister of State's amendment, lists ineligibility exceptions for making an application for permission for maritime development. Our amendment would delete the phrase "whether or not any preconditions to the exercise of that power have been satisfied". That phrase means that there are preconditions that should apply, but it does not matter whether they are met. People can go ahead and make an application for maritime development. That is just another of the small cuts to undermine accountability.

I would appreciate hearing the Minister of State’s answers on LNG. I am very concerned that this is sliding through. It should be stopped in the Seanad. My amendments should be accepted, but if not, the Bill deserves to fall completely on this and on its non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention. It is an environmental disaster.