Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, I sought this debate some months ago and the day eventually has arrived. Without showing any disrespect towards the Minister of State, who is new to the Department, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should show his face and contribute to this debate. One reason for such a debate is to try to raise the profile of one of the most serious problems that faces mankind today and in the future. The world cannot continue to emit greenhouse gases on the present scale without realising the consequences for future generations. At present, some parts of the world are suffering droughts, starvation, disease and other chronic health problems and envisage no solutions to them unless developed regions, such as the European Union, lead the way by taking steps, first to stall the ongoing rise in greenhouse gases and thereafter to proceed with steps to reduce drastically their levels over the next 50 years.

We cannot continue to ignore what is happening around us in the world today. Recently, the head of the World Bank has predicted that 3.5 million children will die this year of malnutrition. Huge energy prices make it more expensive to transport food from the places where it is grown to the places where those who are starving live. If any sense of humanity is left in us, we cannot ignore the prediction of the head of the World Bank that 3.5 million children will die this year. While Ireland may have its own problems regarding current budget deficits and other economic problems facing it, they pale into insignificance in the face of the possibility of such a large number of children dying before one's eyes. One should consider the amount of concern that is expressed, and rightly so, regarding illnesses that affect children in Ireland and no money is spared in trying to save the life of a single child. While this is how it should be, we close our eyes and ears to the estimate that 3.5 million children will die of malnutrition this year.

Members are aware that lack of food weakens people's resistance to infectious diseases and poor countries lack adequate health systems to deliver the medicines that could prevent some deaths and reduce suffering. The increased demand in countries such as Ireland for sophisticated health care systems draws doctors and nurses from poorer countries to those which have higher incomes available to them. For example, in recent times Zambia has trained 2,500 doctors. Today however, only 600 of them work in the country in which they were trained. Similarly, while only 1,000 doctors work in Ghana, in New York City alone, 600 Ghanian doctors are in practice. Not alone does a problem exist in respect of climate change, the ongoing effects of starvation and so on, but trained professional personnel to deal with the illnesses arising from these changes are lacking. This problem also applies to nurses. In Ireland, one only needs to look around one to see the number of professional nurses from abroad working throughout the health services. However, every time we take a nurse from the Philippines or wherever, it means the system in the Philippines has been left without a nurse who trained and qualified there. While all these people are welcome in Ireland, it is enormously difficult to deal with problems facing Third World and developing countries because of such ongoing facts and statistics.

In the short time available to me, I will refer briefly to the present position in respect of climate change and Ireland's targets in this regard. Members are aware that after the Kyoto conference in 1997, it was agreed the EU would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 1990 levels. Ireland was given a target of plus 13% because of the developing nature of its economy. As the volume of emissions produced by Ireland in 1990 was 54 million tonnes, the target set for Ireland to achieve amounts to 61 million tonnes. I have seen recent figures from the Environmental Protection Agency for 2005 in which our emissions had increased to 70 million tonnes. Consequently, we have greatly exceeded the target set for us. I fear that given the present rate of progress as seen by members of the aforementioned joint committee, if matters continue as they are, there is little chance of Ireland achieving its target of plus 13%.

Lest anyone believes that failure to reach the target means no more than that, failure to so do will cost Ireland a great deal of money. At a time when Ireland's health service and other important services are being reduced because of a shortage of money, it would be an absolute scandal to spend a considerable amount of money as a consequence of failing to reach our targets because of our inability to deal with a problem such as greenhouse gas emissions.

The main problems facing Ireland in respect of greenhouse gas emissions are centred around three main areas. Agriculture, energy production and transport account for approximately28%, 23% and 20% of our emissions, respectively. The problematic growth area for Ireland is transport and emissions from that sector have grown by 260% since 1990. Urgent measures must be taken in the transport area to deal with the continuation of such growth in its emissions. I suggest to the Minister of State that the Government should instruct the CIE group to bring forward, by year end, an investment plan for public transport that would have the effect of reducing overall transport emissions by 50% by 2020. The CIE group should be as brave in its level of ambition as has been the ESB group in respect of energy production.

As for the issue of transport, what we have done or failed to do is an absolute scandal. I do not object to investment in new road structures because it makes roads safer, reduces costs, traffic jams and so on. In addition, however, we should have been and should be investing considerable sums of money in a proper rail service that will transport both people and goods. It would make basic common sense to divert many heavy vehicles carrying various materials from the roads on to rail.

As for public transport, it has been demonstrated that people have responded where the service is available. People in the Dublin region are fortunate to an extent because they have Luas, a DART system and a decent bus service. Unfortunately, however, the number of buses that are available for people is insufficient and for as long as this position is maintained, people will use private cars to travel. I believe there is need for radical thinking in this regard and the Dublin transport authority, when it is up and running, should be to the forefront in making such necessary changes.

As I said earlier, people will use public transport if it is available to them but if someone is living three or four miles from a DART or Luas line or a quality bus corridor it can be difficult to gain access to that service. Some imagination is needed in that regard and one suggestion is to have a link up service between, say, a quality bus corridor and a Luas and DART system.

For years we have been speaking about an integrated ticketing service yet after six years of examination and investing approximately €13 million we have yet to see that service. It does not make sense that people cannot hop onto a DART or a bus and get to their destination using one ticket. In the age of modern technology surely it is not beyond the expertise of men to come up with a system that would allow that to happen.

Cycling is becoming more popular but to cycle on our roads we need proper and safe cycle lanes. Some of the existing cycle lanes are an excuse for cycle lanes and are quite dangerous. In some areas it is impossible for a bus or a car to stay out of a cycle lane because the road is so narrow. It is a foolish exercise to install cycle lanes that are not safe yet local authorities are widening footpaths without allowing for proper cycle lanes. That does not make sense to me.

We talk about promoting cycling holidays and so on, both from a health point of view and to improve our economy, yet if someone wants to travel with their bicycle on a train it becomes an impossibility. Thirty or 40 years ago one could put one's bike in the guard's van of the train and get from A to B. Allowing someone to put their bike on a train to go on a cycling holiday around Kerry should be a basic facility in this day and age.

In countries like Copenhagen taxis are fitted with a device on the rear capable of taking two, three or four bicycles. If someone wants to cycle to work in the morning but the weather turns bad, as it is today, and they do not want to cycle home, they simply call a taxi, put their bicycle on the back and away they go. These measures will not cost huge amounts of public investment but they make basic common sense.

Action in this area must be led by the Government, the Minister for Transport and other Ministers. If they do not lead in this area, show example and call in the taxi regulator and other bodies, including the CIE group chairman and so on, and insist this will happen, we will continue talking about this problem of climate change and energy security and boring people to death because nothing is happening.

It is a simple measure to sign up to targets; it is another thing to achieve them. If the Minister intends to sign up to targets he better be sure he knows what he is doing in terms of what it will cost this country, the way we will do it and when we will do it. We must deal with the simple issues such as the few I have outlined, and there are many more, which I am sure speakers following me will give examples. Many actions can be taken that will not cost vast sums of money if there is proper political leadership. That is a matter for Government, and it is a matter for us to highlight these issues to ensure Government can take action.

As well as dealing with the targets to 2012, we must also examine the European Commission's proposals, following on the Heads of Government agreement of 2007, to reduce greenhouse gases by a further 20% for the period 2012-20. I should point out that this Government, along with other Heads of State, has said that if there is international agreement, that 20% will increase to 30%. It is very easy to refer to 20% and 30% but how will that be achieved, given that our main problem areas are agriculture, energy production and transport? Where will we find those savings? Time is not on our side, a Cheann Comhairle.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not on the Deputy's side either because, unfortunately, his time has expired.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry about that. I will not be too much longer.

I suggest that a consultation process should begin in the next three to six months and a new climate change strategy be agreed. It is important also that we communicate better with the public regarding the need for change in our habits in terms of dealing with our household waste, and also in businesses.

In dealing with the matter of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture, I suggested in the committee recently that before we delve into reducing our cattle herd it is important that a serious debate take place, not alone in Ireland but within the EU, on the role of Ireland as the producer of quality food for the future. We are living in an era where there is a shortage of food and food is highly priced. The European Union can decide how it will distribute the cuts I have spoken about, and Ireland must play its part. It would be simple to do that. Cutting the herd would reduce the methane gas emissions but that would reduce the amount of food available at a time when prices are increasing and there is a shortage of food. Before we rush into that, the Government should insist that proper debate takes place on the way those cuts are distributed among member states. If Ireland is to be a food producer in the future, there should be recognition of our particular circumstances. That is vitally important.

Before we sign up to a final agreement, part of our negotiations with the EU must focus on the way we intend to deal with the area of agriculture and the role Ireland has to play in agriculture in providing food in the future for the European Union and the rest of the world. We cannot ignore that food prices have escalated, that there is a grave shortage of food and that the population of the world has increased from 3.6 billion in the 1960s to approximately 6 billion today, and that it may rise to 9 billion. People must be fed and as I told the House earlier in the debate, the head of the World Bank estimates that 3.5 million children will die of starvation this year because of malnutrition. We cannot ignore reality.

Before we finalise our agreement we must examine and audit the effect of these cuts in terms of jobs and business. We must plan for the future before any final agreement is reached.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy McManus. I will take ten minutes.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Agreed.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the first opportunity to speak in the House about climate change under the portfolio of this Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and it is disappointing that he is not present for the debate. It is surprising also because the Green Party and the Minister, Deputy Gormley, have made climate change the main plank of their participation in Government.

Climate change is a vital issue. It is welcome that it is on the agenda in a way that was not the case before the Green Party got into Government. It is an issue we must address and there are steps we could take that would be of benefit to us as a society and an economy but the way the Minister is using this issue is detrimental to what he should be about, namely, protecting our environment. There have been no reductions in emissions, and the Minister is not planning on there being actual reductions in emissions up to 2012 when this Government's terms in office will end. Everything the Minister is doing is on the surface; there is not substance to it. It is all about appearances, public relations and spin. It started with the carbon budget, which was not a carbon budget at all. In that carbon budget the Minister admitted — what else could he do — that for the next five years the way we will achieve our carbon reductions is by purchasing carbon credits. There will be no reduction of carbon emissions while the Greens are in Government.

The latest report from the EPA about carbon emissions in Ireland showed that they are increasing. Carbon emissions increased from 2005 to 2006. There was a marginal decrease shown, but that was because of the closure of Moneypoint. In fact, there was no reduction in emissions. For example, there was a considerable increase in transport emissions. There has been a 165% increase on the 1990 transport emissions, with road transport accounting for 97% of the transport sector emissions. There is no way we will reduce our emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol. There is no way we will reach the EU targets to which the Minister wants us to sign up for 2020, if we carry on the way we are going.

There is no fast-tracking of public transport. In fact, buses are being forced off the road. Dublin Bus has been made take buses off routes in Lucan, Swords and Blanchardstown. Private bus companies have withdrawn their services because they cannot operate under the current licensing system. The Department will not allow Dublin Bus put extra buses on the road. It is turning down Dublin Bus applications, for example, to provide extra buses for my area of Lucan at peak hours. This is the type of initiative that would reduce our carbon emissions and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is just sitting back and doing nothing about it.

One cannot question the Minister on his policies on climate change because if one does, he makes one out to be in favour of climate change. If one raises the many complex issues involved such as whether it is good for the environment and whether it will affect people who are not wealthy, the Minister just laughs them off and makes one out to be somehow colluding in climate change.

Recently the Minister publicised a climate change survey which his Department carried out. He highlighted that 90% of people thought climate changed needed to be dealt with, but he did not disclose, until I tabled a number of parliamentary questions and emailed him, that when the public were asked, for example, were they in favour of an 8% increase on car fuel, a 10% increase on a bag of coal or 10% on a bale of briquettes, a 6% increase on a typical gas bill or an 8% increase on a delivery of home heating oil, the majority were opposed to such increases. They were opposed because they knew they would not be fair. Why would it be fair to jack up the price of petrol or home heating fuel when there are no alternatives provided and when one has no option but to use a car? The public are not stupid. Of course they want to do something about climate change and they care about the environment. However, they want fairness and measures that really are about reducing our carbon emissions, not just stealth taxes, revenue raising measures or measures which are purely to make the Minister look like he is doing something.

As I stated, this is complex. Climate change is an extremely important issue for the world and for us in Ireland, but it is not the only issue. We must deal with issues such as famine and poverty.

We must deal with the issues here at home as well. A considerable amount of people in Ireland live below the bread line and cannot afford fuel, for example. The issue of fuel poverty is one which my colleague, Deputy McManus, has raised but it is not being raised by the Greens in Government. If one applied the type of carbon taxes the Minister seems to plan, one would impact on inflation and the cost of living. The cost of food has risen considerably in this country over the past year and people are pressed by their food bills etc.

The Green Party is using climate change to mask what they are not doing in Government about the environment. The Greens used be the party of the environment and it looks like that has been left behind. It is not the priority it used to be for them. Nor is quality of life. They used be called the quality of life party. They are not a quality of life party, quite the opposite. They are leaving people stuck in traffic with a poor quality environment, poor quality water etc. All of the issues the Green Party used say in Opposition were a damning indictment on the Government, a black mark on Ireland etc., are now legacy issues, according to the Minister, who absolves himself of responsibility.

No doubt environmental issues are out of control. Of course these issues did not just arise when Deputy Gormley became Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, but he is the Minister now. For example, habitats are important in terms of reacting to and addressing climate change, and if one makes habitats resilient and of good quality, they are better able to deal with the impacts of climate change. A recent report by the National Parks and Wildlife Service found that of 59 protected habitats, only four, or 7%, had good status overall with the remainder either poor or bad.

There is the landfill issue. A recent ESRI report found that 80% of household waste is going to landfills and that there is a discrepancy between the stated policy of the Government and the landfill policies in place. Ireland is in significant danger of missing its European Union targets for diverting recyclable waste from landfill, according to the EPA this year.

There have been U-turns such as the one on the M3. Recently it has been reported that vital archeological information was apparently not provided to the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government at the time about the archeology along the M3 before he gave the route the go-ahead. What has the Minister done about that? He has just let it go ahead. He is not even properly protecting the national monuments. It was protestors who really had to force the issue in the case of Rath Lugh, for example.

The Minister is not stopping incineration. He used to oppose incineration; now he is just opposed to where it is located. What is that about?

There is the issue of Haulbowline and the threat to public, marine and animal life. It was important to the Greens that people had proper participation in environmental decisions. Nothing has been done about that since the Greens entered Government.

There is nothing being done to stop urban sprawl. There have been no amendments to the planning Act. There has been phenol contamination of the Cavan and Monaghan water supply. I asked the Minister a question about that at one stage and he stated it had nothing to do with him. It was only when I pushed it that he stated he would consider the reports and recommendations from the HSE and the two county councils.

There is pollution from transport. Noise pollution, which is bad for people's health, is becoming a greater issue. There is poor water quality. One in three water supplies tested by the EPA were found to be of poor quality. There is today's judgment about Derrybrien on the fact that proper environmental impact statements are not required in Ireland.

As I stated, the Greens are not doing anything about quality of life. If they concentrated on the environment and quality of life, they would reduce carbon emissions. If one provided proper public transport, one would reduce carbon emissions. Instead, the Minister is all about the targets, for which he buys credits. He is not doing anything about people's quality of life and their right to good public transport, which reduces emissions and results in better quality air. Instead, it is about changing the type of car one buys and buying bio-fuels to ease one's conscience. Social justice in these matters just does not rate with the Greens.

There are some small gains. A good development is obviously the pilot scheme for the insulation of houses, although the Government slashed the greener homes scheme as soon as it came into office. Other than that, it is tinkering around the edges on issues such as light bulbs and carbon purchases, where their view is let us pay on the double for Ministers' travel — for their flights and then for their consciences.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are five minutes left in the slot.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need investment in energy efficiency in public buildings such as schools, we need more buses on the roads and we need to care for the environment.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Tuffy for sharing some of her time. I welcome the fact this debate is being held in the House.

Climate change is the single biggest defining political issue for us and for this generation. That is why I find it so dispiriting that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has not chosen to come into the House when this debate is being held. If the Greens have taken flight on this issue, we really are in a situation that we will not be able to get out of.

Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I mean no disrespect to the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, and I compliment him on his appointment, but the speech he has given contains five pages of the same old stuff and one page on policy. We do not need to be convinced anymore. The scientific evidence is overwhelming now about global warming. There is consensus in this House about the importance of the issue. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security is working very well across party lines on the basis of consensus. We do not need the material to be regurgitated anymore. We need to see implementation of policy, including practical measures to change the way we live, work, consume energy and manage our lives in an appropriate way to ensure that we save the planet. However, we are not getting that. Even this debate is derisory in reflecting how the Government deals with climate change and I get the impression it does very little apart from pay lip service. We have benign neglect from Fianna Fáil and good intentions from the Green Party, which is not enough to meet the challenge.

At EU level we will likely be subject to the requirement of a 30% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. This is a good target and one to which we ought aspire. We are a developed country and we live in a part of the world that could be described as rich, despite the current economic recession. We have a duty of care to the planet. We need more than the presence of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the House to discuss what needs to be done; we need the Taoiseach. If policy is not led from the very top, change will not happen and we will not have a chance in hell of meeting either our international obligations or our duty of care to the planet. I welcome the invitation that will go from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security to the Taoiseach to address it.

Addressing climate change requires the type of leadership of which this country is capable. We have seen such leadership in the past, whether it was in achieving our independence, developing our economy in the 1950s and 1960s, or creating peace in Northern Ireland. We have done magnificent work in this country and we need the sense of urgency, understanding and leadership applied to those challenges now to address what is not just an issue for us, but a global issue. We must address these challenges in a way which meets targets set, changes behaviour and deals with the significant issues, but is also fair. This is the essence of sustainability. Unless the changes are brought about in a fair way, there will be alienation, especially from those who suffer most from the changes required. We need a fuel poverty strategy.

We need to address the issue of a bio-fuels policy. Why has the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, postponed the publication of the bio-fuels policy until the autumn and not dealt with the matter now? We are discussing global starvation, yet the Minister does not have a policy. The matter is put on the never never, which is rather typical of the man. There is an urgency, importance and a centrality to this issue that cannot be ignored. Today's statements on climate change in no way meet the need for a proper parliamentary debate or a proper approach from Government and I intend to pursue the matter until we get these.

M J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, and I wish him well in his new office. I believe he is more than capable of doing a fine job. It is timely that one of the first debates he leads in the Chamber is on the issue of climate change, which affects all of us. It is a matter which has not come to public attention lately, but has been present for several years. One wonders, given the weather on the way into the House this morning, if we are too late in trying to tackle this problem. There does not seem to be any sign of summer.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Blame the Green Party.

M J Nolan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State outlined where we are coming from and the challenges we face. I will talk in general terms about how it will affect us as a country and a people, and the wider context of how we address the challenges in Europe.

We cannot deal with this problem in isolation. As a relatively small country in Europe and an even smaller country in the global context, we must look for a global solution. I commend the efforts of the European Union in trying to bring some order to what is a serious international problem. However, the European Union cannot solve the problem on its own as it is not a European problem or an Irish problem, but a global one and it must be sorted out in the context of a global solution.

It is important to refer back to the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol was an admission and a bold effort to try to bring some order to what is a difficult problem. It is important to make some comparisons to show how the protocol has affected Ireland and Irish industry. When the agreement was negotiated in 1990, Ireland's gross national product was €58 billion, but today it is €145 billion, an increase of approximately 140%. Our gross domestic product then was €63 billion and in 2007 it was €157 billion. We had 83,000 cars in the country in 1990 and now we have over 170,000. These increases and the wealth that has been created have impacted on our carbon emissions. When we negotiated the Kyoto Protocol in 1990, we were producing 54 million tonnes of carbon emissions. Today, we produce in excess of 70 million tonnes. It is easy to look back in hindsight, but one could say we got a very poor deal at the negotiations.

We must be realistic and understand the current EU emissions trading scheme proposals will impact severely on the health of Irish industries if we do not take a firm hand in the negotiations. A timescale has been set down by the European Union and the European Parliament and decisions will be taken early next year on finalising those proposals. The Commission proposes a system of auctions as the basis of carbon allowances after 2012. This will have a serious impact on certain Irish industries. This proposal is not acceptable to energy intensive industries. There is not one town or county that would not be seriously affected if the energy intensive industries were to be pushed out of business, or where the produce of those companies would be imported as a result of these proposals, and we must examine this issue seriously.

Many companies are beginning to question whether they will invest here. Many of these intensive industries require an investment timescale of five or six years and must plan in advance. These companies need certainty and clarity now on the impact of EU plans on their investment proposals. The also need reassurance from the Government and from the European Union that, having invested, they will get a timeframe to claw back their investments and that they will not be faced with unfair competition from overseas.

Many of these companies have invested in best available technology, but are subject to competition from countries where there is no carbon constraints. We must be careful of this and if it is not changed, the inevitable consequence of the Commission's proposals will be to drive energy intensive industries out of the European Union, which is not acceptable to many Members. It makes no environmental or economic sense. We have already seen the leakage of jobs due to the high cost of doing business not only in Ireland, but in the European Union. Some 10 million tonnes of cement were imported into the European Union in 2007 from China alone. We will see more and more of this unless we get our act together and come up with sound economic proposals to address these problems.

Many Irish companies have invested in world class energy-efficient technologies. In recent years the reduction of between 10% and 20% has been achieved in carbon emissions per tonne of product, which is a good sign. I do not think the same efficiencies are being made in some of the countries we are competing with currently.

Fuel and power accounts for approximately 40% to 50% of production costs in some of these companies. In Deputy Hogan's constituency and my own we have a lime production plant and I spoke to the company management recently. I was told there was between 50% and 60% energy input in production there. The company is seriously concerned about its future if it must face competition from countries with no carbon restraints. These people have invested significantly in updating the plant in Carlow and are building a new plant in Clare. They would like to see a chance for fair competition.

It is important to remember that if we lose business to overseas companies, apart from the loss of jobs and the loss to the economy, carbon emissions will increase. The carbon emissions in making the product will remain but there will be additional emissions from the transport costs over the sea and sometimes halfway around the world. These issues must be addressed and I hope the Government will take action in that regard.

The deadline for the plenary amendments for the European Parliament is December and a vote is expected on 16 December. It then goes to the European Council for decision and this will probably happen during the course of the French Presidency, which finishes at the end of the year.

The question of climate change is topical and not only in Ireland. Of late I have noticed the business sector has become increasingly interested in the topic because of the impact it will have. It affects generation of electricity, cement and lime production, and these are industries which will be seriously affected unless we, as a Government, protect them.

It is timely that the partnership process is under way and we are getting a new social partnership agreement. The Minister and Taoiseach are very interested in securing agreement in that respect. We face challenges in the economy with a rise in the rate of redundancies, other challenges in the labour market and a much more difficult trading environment, which threatens export growth. How we deal with climate change must take this into account.

I ask the Minister and his Government to look sympathetically on the industries that will be most seriously affected by these proposals.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as well as the Minister of State present, that Fine Gael as a party is committed to playing a constructive and meaningful role in combating climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My party and I are convinced of the need for action and we certainly do not need to be lectured in any way by people about this matter or the importance of taking initiatives to deal with a subject that is becoming more topical and important to the future development of our country and the European Union.

As an example, the Fine Gael spokesman on energy matters, Deputy Simon Coveney, recently announced a proposal which submitted to the Government an idea that windfall profits can be generated from our electricity supply stations and rebalanced in the context of other measures that could be taken, such as reducing VAT. These are the types of proposal that will come more to the fore in the next couple of years to deal with some of the measures reflective of Government and national policy in stemming the tide of increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

Some dramatic evidence, if we need such evidence related to the global climate, is the rapid decrease of the Arctic Sea ice cover over the past few years. Consideration of what is happening in the Arctic and Antarctic appears to be a litmus test of how policymakers are positioned with regard to climate change. The sea ice reaches its minimum in September each year at the end of the Arctic summer. I read that the ice cover reached an all-time low last year when it was 23% below the previous record.

We have seen in the media and our television screens that for the first time in living memory, the North-West Passage, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans across the north of Canada, was open. I recently read in some UK publications and newspapers articles detailing a prediction from polar scientists that the Arctic Sea ice will disappear completely this September. If that is right, it will be the first time in human history that this section of the North Pole will have been ice-free.

Often people wonder what changes taking place in climatic conditions worldwide and the melting of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has to do with us and they believe it will not affect us. It will affect us and the information and education process required to convince people of the need for action is urgent. There is a necessity to convince people that a do-nothing strategy is not viable and it will have significant implications on our quality of life and how priorities will be implemented by Government in order to deal with potentially savage outturns if nothing is done to change policy.

I was disappointed with the speech of Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran, in that there was no mention of the 3% average reduction per annum target for greenhouse gases over the next five years set in the programme for Government. We have had no indication from the Government about what policies have been implemented and the success of those which are implemented. What is the result of the recent EPA studies with regard to reducing, or otherwise, greenhouse gas emissions as a result of Government policy?

I am not surprised as the targets are completely turned around at this stage, like the programme for Government itself. The biggest mistake the Green Party made before getting into bed with Fianna Fáil was not asking the question of whether that party would respect the Green Party in the morning. It did not ask if the Green Party would respect itself in the morning, or if Green Party supporters would respect it because the party is not achieving anything in Government related to this significant issue. We heard so much about it from the Green Party before the general election.

Now the Green Party is in Government, the devil will be in the detail, action and results of what we are achieving.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are doing our best.

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy needs the No. 2 votes. After one year, a fair period to see what can be done in Government, we have merely seen tinkering around the edges with no substantive change on the targets set out in print by the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Gormley, last summer.

Once the Greens sacrificed their political virtue, we were told we would feel better and have a better quality of life. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has made a substantial amount of running on the changes in VRT and motor tax rates. These had already been announced by the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, when he was Minister for Finance in 2006, so the Minister, Deputy Gormley, had nothing to do with them.

The manner in which these are being implemented has ensured, for the past six months, and three months in particular, that there has been no activity in car showrooms around the city or country in general. People were confused, ill-informed and did not understand what was coming down the tracks on 1 July. There will be a little spike in sales for the next couple of weeks for people who have held off but there will be a massive reduction in the amount of money coming into the Exchequer and local government fund. We will then see how the Estimates are faring because of those bad decisions.

A Government cannot be run by photo opportunity, which is what the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is trying to do. I would not blame him for getting €15 million for a campaign to inform people of the impact of climate change policy. At the same time he slashed the greener homes fund, which provided important assistance to householders seeking to insulate their houses.

Approximately 500,000 houses were built in the past seven or eight years, including 90,000 last year. Throughout this period proper energy efficiency standards did not apply and we must now play catch-up. Standards were an equally important issue when the Minister's two predecessors in the Department, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dick Roche, were in office. We now find that a fund available to assist people, particularly the less well-off, is being slashed at the expense of an advertising campaign to promote the Minister.

The Minister will beat members of the public senseless with high cost advertising to conceal the reality that no meaningful change is taking place. The Government, of which the Green Party is a part, committed itself to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3% in each year of its term and by 8 million tonnes over the full five year term or 2 million tonnes nominally per annum over 2006 levels. We have not yet heard what progress was made in the Government's first year of office because it did not come within an ass's roar of meeting its target. On the contrary, we are heading in the opposite direction and the Government has no chance of delivering on its environmental promises. It is big on rhetoric and advertising campaigns telling the rest of us to make changes but low on delivery. It has failed to deliver in areas within its control and should have put the €15 million spent on the recent advertising campaign to better use. We cannot have a Government of photo opportunities and little action.

Citizens are well ahead of the Government and probably Parliament in dealing with this pivotal issue. They understand we are breaking European law and endangering our collective future and are increasingly tuned into the action required. According to a survey commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, almost everyone in Ireland believes the world's climate is changing. The same survey shows the overwhelming majority accept that humans are responsible for climate change. A similar majority are concerned about the issue, with three out of every ten respondents indicating they are very concerned about it. The encouraging finding is that an overwhelming majority want Ireland to play a leading role in tackling the problem of climate change and that only one third of the population believe the Government is doing enough to address it. More than eight in ten citizens believe it should do more.

We need to remind ourselves that the Green Party is in government. The small initiatives being taken are meaningless in achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Green Party should examine its performance and accept it is no more than an appendix to the Fianna Fáil Party in government. It has done nothing about the massive carbon footprint of government, the Civil Service and public service, the bus fleet and other areas within the control of the State.

The famous slogan used by various people during the years, "A lot done, more to do", applies in this case. Unlike other countries, Ireland is becoming the exception in the European Union in meeting our Kyoto Protocol targets. The United Kingdom, Sweden and France are ahead of their targets, while it appears Germany, Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands will comfortably meet theirs. Why can Ireland not meet its targets, particularly given the Green Party element of the Government?

Climate change is the single biggest moral choice facing this generation. The Fine Gael Party and the Oireachtas must ensure we take decisive action, rather than running photo opportunities and advertising campaigns to pretend we are doing something.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate on climate change.

I disagree with my colleague, Deputy Hogan, on the role of the Green Party. I commend the two Green Party Ministers, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, on the magnificent work they are doing in government. They have put climate change and the care of the environment and country at the heart of government and we should all support them.

On a practical issue, I thank the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for the additional sum allocated to cleaning up Dublin Bay and improving its water quality. This is a major investment and we have a duty to support common-sense projects which clean up the bay. We must also constantly monitor and challenge the Dublin Port Company and its efforts to destroy Dublin Bay. This issue, specifically flooding in Clontarf, Fairview and along the River Tolka, is linked to the climate change debate.

On the broader issue, it is important to understand precisely what is meant by the term "climate change". It is a significant change in average weather or climate conditions. While it can be caused by natural factors such as variations in sunlight intensity, the term is now generally used to refer to changes in our climate due to a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This build up is caused by excess emissions caused by activities such as burning fossil fuels for energy, transport and heating.

Climate change is a shift in the average weather conditions that a given region experiences. This is measured by changes in all the features we associate with the weather such as temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global climate change means change in the climate of the Earth as a whole and also occurs naturally, the Ice Age being an example. The Earth's natural climate has always been changing. The climate change evident today differs from previous climate change in both its rate and magnitude. This is a key issue.

The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system known as the "greenhouse effect". Greenhouse gases, primarily water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, trap the heat of the sun, preventing radiation from dissipating into space. Without the effect of these naturally occurring gases, the average temperature on Earth would be -18° Celsius, instead of the current average of 15° Celsius and life as we know it would be impossible.

During the past 200 years emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activities have accumulated in the atmosphere where, owing to their long life, they remain for periods lasting from decades to centuries. As a result, since the Industrial Revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased by 30%, methane by 145% and nitrous oxide by 15%. The cause of these increases has been human activities related to our increasingly sophisticated and mechanised lifestyle, in particular, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas to generate electricity and in factories and cars. In addition, we have cleared more land for human use in the past 100 years than in all of prior human history. This has resulted in the loss of forests and wetlands which absorb and store greenhouse gases and naturally regulate the atmosphere. In effect, by increasing the amount of these heat trapping gases, we have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect to the point where it has the potential to warm the planet at a rate never experienced in human history. Already, the average global temperature has increased by about 0.5° Celsius in the past 100 years and temperature increases in the next 100 years are expected to significantly surpass any such change in the past 10,000 years.

This is a wake-up call for everyone involved in the climate change debate. The issue extends beyond the Government and every individual must play his or her small part. Around the world, climate change is projected to threaten the world's boreal forests, with an increased fire risk because of the drying climate; cause water needs to outstrip supply; cause severe water loss due to changes in evaporation and precipitation patterns; cause flood damage to low lying countries and island states, including loss of coastal land to rising sea levels; encourage the movement of tropical diseases such as malaria northward where populations have little or no immunity; and affect international trade patterns.

These core issues must be addressed. People from the Sammy Wilson school of environmentalism should wake up and smell the coffee. Mr. Wilson, MLA, Minister for the Environment in the North, professes to know a great deal about the environment and is threatening to use the North as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. We cannot stand idly by and allow the North to have a Sellafield mark 2. I challenge Mr. Wilson and others who share his beliefs to examine the broader debate on climate change and the dumping of nuclear waste.

I wish to focus on the impact of climate change on fisheries. Climate change can be expected to have a significant impact on fisheries countries such as Canada and will affect both the productivity of fish populations and how they are distributed throughout lakes, streams and oceans. Changes to water temperature, currents, water quality and food supply could all have effects on fish populations. Consideration should be given to this matter, particularly in the context of this week's Private Members' debate on the fishing industry.

We must ensure that every interest group, citizen and Member of the Oireachtas plays their small part in the debate on climate change. I referred earlier to flooding and the major impact it could have on Clontarf, Fairview and the River Tolka in my constituency. It is important that we link the potential damage that could be done to the 52 acres of Dublin Bay - in which I am particularly interested - to the broader debate.

I welcome the recent report compiled by CDM and partners. This company completed an economic, amenity and environmental study of Dublin Bay, including the port area, in July 2007. This study was intended to be the first stage in the preparation of a strategic framework plan for the Dublin Bay area that would guide stakeholders in the long-term development of this resource. CDM and partners put forward a number of options and 75% of the submissions received in respect of them favoured the option which proposes the transfer of Dublin Port to an alternative location and the redevelopment of the port lands. This was assisted by the active engagement of householders in the Clontarf area and by great organisations, such as Dublin Bay Watch, which have a strong interest in the outcome of this debate and a history of opposition to plans by the Dublin Port Company to reclaim further land in order to extend the port estate. It is clear that a positive approach by Dublin City Council in favour of the option to which I refer would be broadly welcomed by those in my constituency. It is essential that this matter be dealt with in the context of the debate on climate change.

We must consider how human activity leads to the production of additional greenhouse gases. This is an important matter. Greenhouse gases are emitted through numerous activities. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, CO2, which arises from the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. Other greenhouse gases include methane from agriculture and waste food and nitrous oxide, which mainly arises from agriculture. Industrial gases also act as very powerful greenhouse gases but are emitted in much smaller quantities.

In general, the sources of emissions can be broadly divided into two categories: energy related and non-energy related. Energy-related emissions arise from power generation, transport, industry, and buildings — via heating and other fuel use. Non-energy related emissions arise from agriculture, forestry, land use change and waste disposal activities.

I welcome this debate. I commend Deputy Barrett, Chairman of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, who has done magnificent work during the past five or six months. I also commend my other colleagues on that committee on the great work they are doing. This issue relates to more than one party and people should take it on board and play their part.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Creed.

I have spoken on a number of occasions in the House in respect of this issue and, therefore, I do not wish to comment on the generalities of climate change. I will instead focus on the current EU climate-energy package. I understand the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is in Brussels today to deal with this matter. I further understand that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, will also be travelling to Brussels in the coming days to discuss the same issue.

The European Commission produced a climate-energy package at the beginning of this year. The aim of this package is to reduce the EU's dependence on fossil fuels — mainly gas, coal and oil — enhance the competitiveness of the European economy in general and, primarily, to reduce the Union's greenhouse gas emissions. A revised emissions trading system, ETS, within the EU and the new effort-sharing proposal specifically set out how the Union will achieve its independent target of reducing emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. Regardless of what the rest of the world is doing, this is a commitment we are making.

In order to achieve the reduction to which I refer, the EU, as a whole, must reduce 2005 emission levels by 14%. The latter will be achieved in two ways. First, within the ETS, energy and industrial emitters will be subject to an EU-wide cap, through a system of, depending on the circumstances, either allocating or auctioning carbon allowances. This will reduce emissions to 21% below 2005 levels by 2020. The second way in which the reduction will be achieved is through the effort-sharing proposals, Under these, member states will reduce the remaining non-traded sector emissions to 10% below 2005 levels by 2020. This will be further subdivided among member states in a range of either plus 20% or minus 20% compared to 2005 figures. The Commission has used GDP per capita as the basis for the effort-sharing targets allocated to each country.

The Commission's proposals sound complex but that is not the case. Put simply, large industrial concerns in Ireland — this applies to approximately 106 companies, many of which are energy generators and other major businesses — will be obliged to compete and survive within a trading environment under the ETS, where carbon will have a measurable value and where emissions allowances will have to be purchased on the open market through an auctioning system. The remainder of Ireland's emissions are the responsibility of the Government. These will have to be reduced to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. That will be a significant task. The Government will be obliged to target transport, agriculture, small industry and households to achieve the reduction to which I refer.

The enormity of the task is becoming clearer to people as time passes. It will not be easy to achieve a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020, particularly when one considers that emissions from the traded sector are not included in our target. If the ESB was to reduce all of its energy emissions with immediate effect, this would have no impact with regard to the Government's responsibility to honour the commitment it made in respect of emissions reductions prior to 2020.

The EU climate change package is not a done deal. I wish to raise a number of concerns. The Government must outline to the House its priorities regarding any changes it wishes to make to the package. It must also ensure that there is far greater clarity in respect of the transition from the free allocation of allowances to an auctioning or purchasing system for such allowances. The latter will be applied differently to the energy and non-energy sectors. Those in the non-energy sector require clarity as to how, between 2012 and 2020, we are going to gradually introduce an auctioning system for them. Large emitters planning to invest millions or, potentially, billions in their operations require certainty in respect of this matter. The Government must give priority to providing such certainty.

The Minister of State, Deputy Hoctor, and the official from the Department will be familiar with issues such as carbon leakage, which is extremely important in the context of Irish and EU economic competitiveness, permeability between the traded and non-traded sectors, the vulnerability of agriculture and the importance of ensuring that forestry — in terms of its use as a carbon sink — is factored into the equation in respect of our emissions commitments.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Coveney for sharing time. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this matter.

The target of a 20% reduction by 2020 is ambitious, and rightly so. It will be extremely difficult to meet this target. To place the matter in context, a 20% reduction would be equivalent to the total emissions produced by cars in Ireland. It will not be easy to reach the target. We must increase public awareness in respect of it because everyone must buy into achieving the reduction. Never has the slogan "The Power of One" been more relevant than it is in the context of each citizen's carbon footprint.

My specific concerns in respect of this matter relate to agriculture. At a time when the lights are going out or are being dimmed in other sectors of the economy, the future for agriculture and food production is reasonably bright. Although we should not celebrate the current global food shortage, it does present opportunities for the industry in Ireland. We have to perform a delicate balancing act if we are not to hamstring commercial agriculture and its capacity to meet food demands, which is a moral obligation. If global thinking is not joined up and we reduce Ireland's food production, there may not be a net environmental gain because reductions here will be taken up elsewhere. We need assurances that there will be joined-up thinking within the European Union, as well as globally, if these targets are to be met. It is regrettable that the Lisbon treaty which sought EU competence in the area of climate change was rejected.

I attended this morning's meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at which concerns were expressed about the WTO. I am struck by the almost symbiotic relationship between what is on the table for the WTO negotiations and our objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The WTO proposals would lead to the slaughter of approximately 1 million cattle in Ireland. To meet our aim of a 20% reduction, to which agriculture contributes 28%, a similar reduction in the national herd is envisaged. I was alarmed to hear the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, speak about the cow and the car, while Government backbenchers remained silent. This is a clear threat to commercial agriculture. I am not making a special plea because if we reduce the national herd, food production will increase elsewhere on the globe.

Individual farmers are more than capable of responding by offsetting carbon. On the Continent more money is made from producing energy through anaerobic digestion of pig slurry than from pork production. Germany and the Netherlands, in particular, are light years ahead of us in producing agricultural energy for the national grid. We need to catch up by entering strategic partnerships with those on the Continent who have been carrying out carbon modelling. Teagasc should build research alliances because we cannot catch up on our own and we will need international assistance in the area of research and development. Forestry also offers opportunities for offsetting carbon but it is missing from this debate.

The increased milk quota has the potential to meet global demands for dairy products. Are we going to hamstring our processing industries by preventing them from taking up the opportunities offered by increased quotas? This is a complex issue which calls for joined-up thinking but the national herd is not up for negotiation because the result would be the replacement of our grass-based, environmentally appropriate method of food production by intensive agricultural imports from outside the European Union and standards over which we would have little control.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a lot of sympathy for the last point made by Deputy Creed.

Climate change is a global issue but we have national and international responsibilities. As well as being a matter to be addressed in its own right, it intertwines with key issues such as the price and security of food, water and energy supplies. Actions that address one problem, while having a deleterious impact on another, are best pursued with moderation, the obvious example being crops grown for fuel which, if pursued too aggressively, could have negative consequences for feeding the world's population.

It is fair to say the direct impact of climate change on Ireland has been relatively small to date. The most obvious change in the past 60 years has been our milder winters. Mean temperatures may have risen slightly but we have not experienced extremes of either heat or cold for a long time. Even a fortnight without rain — an Irish drought — is a rare phenomenon. The incidence of flooding has thus far not increased. However, climate change is more perceptible elsewhere. The atrium of the Office of Public Works is hosting a European Environment Agency exhibition on Greenland, where a considerable impact has been registered. The exhibition makes the point that global warming may have benefits for the native Inuit community and the region in that it allows easier access to the Arctic's resources, potentially increases tourism and could help to keep hunting traditions alive. Against this, however, it may threaten species such as polar bears and change ocean circulation and weather patterns. Given the rain outside which is only just stopping, many might welcome a little climate change.

Some years ago I acquired an umbrella at Stratford-upon-Avon with Shakespearian quotations such as "the rain it raineth everyday", continuity seems greater than change. There is a great deal we do not know, however, and the safest approach to adopt is the precautionary principle. Applied sensibly, it will also help us to conserve resources and cut costs. Ireland must play its part, with its European and international partners, in mitigating the effects and spread of climate change by working through the Kyoto agreement and the national climate change strategy and other commitments.

I will now speak about areas within the responsibility of the Office of Public Works, namely, flood risk management and energy management in public buildings in OPW ownership. The role of the OPW, as the Government's lead agency in the management of flood risk, is to take on board advice and the current range of estimates coming from climate scientists in developing and implementing policies and procedures for managing the potential change and, most importantly, the uncertainty associated with these predictions. Our biggest challenge is the uncertainty associated with the climate change scenarios being developed by climate scientists. If we knew with confidence what was going to happen, it would be easier to make the economic and other decisions related to investment in flood protection and risk management works, development planning, etc. Uncertainty requires the implementation of policies based on emerging scientific data and general assumptions about the impacts.

Adaptability is another key challenge which is intimately linked to uncertainty. We have to carry out the design of flood defences based on current estimates of flows. It is necessary to make provision for anticipated climate change impacts on the design parameters, provided this approach is acceptable when measured against the costs of environmental assessment criteria, in other words, the precautionary approach. We must also ensure the construction works we carry out are, as far as possible, adaptable at a future date to cater for anticipated changes. The degree, cost and acceptability of this adaptability are now criteria against which the OPW assesses flood relief scheme options. The challenge is how to apply and assess the economic viability of defence schemes in face of the uncertainty.

The issue of design standards is related to the issue of uncertainty. For example, the recently completed Kilkenny flood relief scheme was designed to provide protection against the 1% flood. We do not know, however, what level of protection the scheme will provide in 50 years time, which works need to be planned and financed in order to maintain the design standard, or how economically viable it will be to maintain this standard. This topic is tied into the concept of risk management, as opposed to protection measures, and adaptability. As we move to a risk management approach in which the risk is most economically reduced and a strong emphasis is placed on adaptability of the constructed scheme to meet future changes as they emerge, the concepts of fixed design standards are outmoded in many cases. The adoption by the Government of the report of the flood policy review group provides the framework for the OPW to fundamentally change how we approach the issue of flood protection works.

With regard to building design and management, the Government has set a target of 33% energy savings across the public sector for the period 2007-12. As part of this commitment, the OPW is engaged in a three-pronged strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the State's dependence on fossil fuels. It is embarking on a programme to convert the heating systems in approximately 20 large State buildings from their existing fossil fuel burners to biomass burners. The biomass fuel will be in the form of wood pellets. The estimated result is an equivalent reduction of 500,000 litres of oil per annum. Apart from the obvious benefits of biomass, the conversion programme is intended to stimulate the native production of these fuels. The tender process is already under way and the programme is due for completion in September. The use of biomass in new buildings is also considered in the design process and where appropriate is being used as the energy source.

Highly motivated and energy conscientious staff offer the single largest opportunity for zero cost energy savings across the whole building stock. The ethos of switching off equipment when not in use, when applied across a large number of people, will lead to substantial energy savings. Published research shows that up to 20% energy savings can be achieved from good energy housekeeping.

At the central core of any energy conservation campaign is the ability to benchmark performance. It is necessary to establish exactly where we are now and how this compares to other similar buildings. It is then necessary to set a target for energy saving, for example, a 15% reduction in overall energy consumption or CO2 emissions and, finally, to monitor performance against the target.

During the last three years, the OPW has installed a web-based energy monitoring system linked to all large State buildings, of which there are approximately 200 in the OPW portfolio, which monitor and record electrical and heating fuel consumption every 15 minutes. The data can be accessed via a dedicated website. The target is to reduce carbon emissions in each building by 15% through local energy conservation campaigns, energy workshops and close monitoring of the performance of heating and air-conditioning equipment. Staff will be able to monitor the energy reductions in their building via the Internet site. Two firms have been appointed for the provision of services for this campaign that started in early in 2008. It is planned to complete the programme within two years by which time it is expected that good practice will prevail in the buildings leading to ongoing savings into the future.

The scope for improving energy efficiency in new buildings is very significant. At design stage there are key factors which can considerably improve the energy efficiency of the building over its entire lifetime with little or no additional construction costs. With the advances in computer simulation of buildings during the past ten years, it is now possible to model accurately the energy and environmental performance of a building at the design stage. This is achieved by modelling the effects of using different construction materials, orientations, the amount of glazing used, the insulation levels and the type of fuel used for heating and so on.

The OPW has a policy of designing naturally ventilated buildings whenever possible. Properly designed naturally ventilated buildings can use up to 66% less energy than equivalent fully air-conditioned types. The use of computer modelling also facilitates the proper design of naturally ventilated buildings by accurately predicting airflows, internal temperatures and internal comfort conditions. This technology is being used by the OPW to optimise energy performance in all new large building projects, including in the decentralisation programme.

I would like to say a brief word about coastal erosion and flooding which may shortly revert to the responsibility of my office. Coastal erosion and flooding can be seen to be disruptive of coastal communities and typically occur when the gravitational pull of sun and moon coincide with spring tides and storms. We must also take account of the slow rise in sea level. Actions include planning controls in vulnerable areas, coastal defence works, better warning systems allowing temporary emergency measures to be put in place and data collection, research and design guidance.

Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity speak on this important topic. I returned only last night from a meeting of Socialist International in Athens which was attended by 700 delegates from 170 countries. Socialist International has decided to make climate change its principal topic of discussion. The forum will discuss the challenge of the new structure of the global economy, issues of conflict and peace and migration, all of which are inter-related.

It is important we do not make a descriptive gesture in regard to the challenge we face. Socialist International decided, for example, to provide a slot for a presentation by Professor Rifkin. It is clear and obvious that we have at most ten or 15 years in which to deal with the crisis we face. It is also the case that all of the scientific estimations of the crisis have been off target in so far as that which was predicted to happen has happened at a faster rate and is happening already.

As I listened to Professor Rifkin, I was struck by the fact we are talking about a planetary impact that goes back beyond human life, which is approximately 175,000 years; that we are talking about millions of years in which the planet was unable to sustain any life and almost about a species crisis. For this reason, I reject entirely the suggestion that one could in any sense see in the melting of the northern ice cap anything other than the disaster that it is for all forms of life. Also, one can trace in the history of science precisely what the species impact would be. This is not to make a deep ecological argument in the North American sense but to acknowledge, in terms of the scale of the crisis, that we have ten or 15 years to address this given scientific projections have proven insufficient.

I will move on to what I believe is the human side of this issue. We are talking about an inter-linked set of crises. Closely related to the climate change crisis is the food production crisis which in turn relates to the energy crisis which in turn relates to issues of political instability. For example, Dan Smith in his book Climate Change and Conflict makes the point, in regard to countries producing fossil fuels, that there exists countries within which there are what might be called "weaknesses" in the political and social infrastructures: that there is a serious risk of armed conflict in approximately 46 of these countries and a risk for serious political instability in another 56 countries. One is, therefore, talking about the climate change crisis, the food production crisis, the energy crisis and the instability that flows from fossil fuel producing regions. Another crisis not sufficiently recognised is the disastrous crisis in intellectual and economic thinking. The reduction in the influence of the State and respect for international institutions introduced in the Thatcher-Reagan era and the release of what might have been regarded as a single neo-liberal model of development that came from the Chicago school under the tutorage of Professor Milton Friedman, has been a disaster in every sense in terms of its idea of what one might call non-inflationary consistent economic growth and a single model to be spread all over the world.

I have only a few minutes to raise what we might do. I accept issues arise in regard to mitigation. It is irresponsible to suggest we can deal with this crisis by not changing our way of life. That requires public education. A question also arises in respect of adaptation in respect of new forms of life, the economy and society and so on. The Government is challenged to state why it is not valorising public transport rather than its roads programme. One cannot be taken seriously if one makes the slightest cut in public transport when one should be driving it on.

On technology transfer, I listened to the spokesperson from India ask if he was to tell the expanding population of India to do without electricity. He asked if the technology used for changing to a new carbon free type society, one which would result in a better connection between economy and society, could be transferred to those countries with population pressure. This requires institutional change of the character of the Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF and World Bank following the Second World War. We need a new council for sustainable development and capital transfers that would report to the Secretary General.

Many issues have been thrown up for discussion, many of which relate to inter-generational justice. This is a difficult area for parliamentarians elected for a five-year period or for members of parties founded a generation or two ago to address. The idea that one should not take actions that in their own sense or cumulatively have an irreversible effect or an inter-generational effect challenges us to invite ourselves to a new type of inter-generational jurisprudence. I very much contribute to that.

I will turn to the issue of the new relationship. People piously say this will require a contract between the developed and the developing world. How would that happen? I have mentioned already that technology must be transferred to places such as India and Pakistan, but it is not. In addition, if we were, for example, to put a tax on carbon emission activity, the results of that should be transferred to the developing world to enable its people to develop new, responsible forms of production.

There is also good news, which is that every euro invested in cleaner industry and so on has a multiplier effect on the economy that is four to five times that of fossil fuels. This has been scientifically shown. There are better jobs, cleaner industries, better social forms and more responsible forms of economy, but they require a mental shift. I am glad this environmental consideration is lodged in the minds of all parties. However, I have a point to make about our seeking to create a new contract between the developed and the developing world. We cannot go on as we are in some parts of the developed world. We must also realise, in structuring our response, whether we are looking at mitigation, adaptation or technology transfer, and the new institutional forms of which I speak, that certain groups are making the greatest contributions to the problem, such as the United States. In addition, there must be a proportionate response because some of the countries of which we are making demands do not have the capacity to make the response we ask of them. They need technology transfer, as I mentioned, and they need funding. They also have the right to development. For example, in the case of India, are we to say that hundreds of millions of people must bend their backs without electricity?

Professor Rifkin has made some positive proposals which are very interesting. He talks about the third industrial revolution and proposes that we look at the question and consider that our strategy can in fact be based on renewables. We can go so far with that. It could also take into account hydrogen-based development, carbon storage and so on. What is most important, however — this will be the hardest part for people to accept — is that the new liberal model, which has driven irresponsible growth and suggested that the process of change and transition on the planet had to be from one model, has been a disaster. We are not requiring people to drive everything back, but we must recognise that we no longer have two decades to reverse the intergenerational changes that are taking place. We have a decade and a half. These changes are so strong that they threaten the species. We are talking not just about the human species, which emerged over 175,000 years slowly and with many progressions, but about forms of life that themselves emerged in a cosmic sense. It is nonsense to suggest that we can somehow decide to live with the melting of the polar ice caps, develop tourism and explore for fossil fuels. Let us stop the madness before it is too late.

Tom McEllistrim (Kerry North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Climate change is among the greatest challenges of our time. The debate is no longer about whether climate change is happening; we all know for sure that it is. It is obvious from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising mean sea levels. It is accepted that most of the warming that has occurred over the past 50 years is very likely to have been caused by human activities. This warming is projected to continue and increase over the course of the 21st century and beyond.

Climate change does not distinguish by nationality, colour or religion, and is a real threat to our way of life. It is no longer something that we hear about on the news from somewhere else. It is affecting our lives directly. We have all become accustomed to seeing the problems associated with various environmental catastrophes on our TV screens and in the media. In many ways people can become desensitised to issues that affect people in countries that seem far away. One reason the tsunami that occurred around Christmas 2004 had a deep effect on people across the world was that the victims included western holiday makers and businesses.

The surge in oil and food prices, particularly in the past year, has caused a wave — if not a tsunami — of concern. This is no longer just about the issue of climate change but also about the economic consequences of our response to it. The developed world, it may be argued, had become complacent about cheap food. That is no longer the case as we grapple with the consequences of the replacement of food crops with energy crops. In the least developed parts of the world, climate change is an issue of deep injustice, as it is the people who have contributed least to creating the problem who are being disproportionately affected by it. The interaction between climate change and poverty is potentially catastrophic as climate change pushes fragile livelihoods over the edge. The effects of unpredictable rainfall, droughts, floods and hurricanes are already being felt across the developing world and the poorest people in these countries are being hit the hardest. In addition, it is they who are most affected by rising food prices.

Tackling poverty means addressing both the causes and the consequences of climate change in an equitable way. It is widely recognised that global temperature increases must be kept within a limit of 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels in order to prevent the more dangerous effects of climate change. However, for many of the world's poorest people, climate change has already reached danger point. For this reason, the global response to climate change must emphasise support for developing countries in adapting to these changes.

Sustainable Energy Ireland tells us that climate change is already starting to affect Ireland. It refers to the increase in extreme weather events, including floods, storms and droughts, in recent years, and predicts that Ireland's winters will be warmer and wetter. By 2050, the temperature in January will have increased by 1.5° Celsius. Winter conditions in Northern Ireland and the north midlands will be similar to those on the south-west coast today. While milder winters might seem like a good thing, this is not necessarily the case. Rainfall will increase by 11%. SEI also predicts that Ireland's summers will be warmer and drier. By 2050 the average July temperature could increase by 2.5° Celsius. Although this does not sound very threatening, there could be serious implications, such as summer droughts which will cause competition for water supplies. The impact of these changes could include an increase in flooding — particularly in the west — and droughts in summer. Irish farmers will no longer be able to grow potatoes. New agricultural pests and diseases will appear and the possibility of water pollution problems will increase.

Everyone has an important role to play in preventing human-influenced climate change, as everyone contributes to its effects through electricity use, heating and cooling, and transportation. A recent survey showed that most people recognise that climate change is occurring and that steps need to be taken across the board and at every level in society. However, unsurprisingly, people begin to step back from this general standpoint when they are confronted with the likely cost implications of these changes. The considerable growth in the Irish economy over the last decade has undoubtedly put upward pressure on our emissions.

With challenges come opportunities. However, the scale of the challenge facing us means that we must also look beyond the energy sector to achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Responsibility must be shared by a wide range of actors, including the public sector, which must lead by example. Achieving the targets will also necessitate voluntary changes in behaviour by individual citizens in small ways; for example, by increasing their use of low-energy light bulbs and driving in a more fuel-efficient manner. This is an area in which everyone can and must play a part if we are to be successful in protecting the environment for the next generation.

The Government's National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 was launched by the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Dick Roche, in April 2007. The strategy sets out, in a detailed and specific way, the comprehensive measures the Government has put in place to enable Ireland to meet its target under the Kyoto Protocol. It addresses measures in all sectors of the economy, including energy, transport, agriculture, the residential sector and businesses, and includes existing measures put in place on foot of the National Climate Change Strategy 2000 and, subsequently, through the National Development Plan 2007-2013, Transport 21, the White Paper on energy and the bioenergy action plan. It also includes a series of additional measures to deliver the overall objective of putting Ireland on a pathway towards a low carbon economy.

The national climate change strategy looks beyond the Kyoto Protocol period and shows that the total contribution of measures adopted by the Government will account for 80% of the effort Ireland will need to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments. The remaining 20% will be made up by Ireland's use of the flexible mechanisms. These flexible mechanisms allow Kyoto Protocol parties to support the development of clean technology in the developing world in return for emissions credits. Some €270 million has been allocated under the National Development Plan 2007-2013 for investment in such projects over the lifetime of the strategy.

The Carbon Fund Bill will provide the necessary legislative underpinning for the National Treasury Management Agency to undertake its role as purchasing agent on behalf of the State. The public sector will be required to measure, report and reduce its emissions. Public sector bodies will have specific targets for emissions reduction and be required to report progress in their annual reports. The Government will publish another climate change strategy for the period to 2020 when Ireland's post-2012 commitments are known.

The strategy sets out, on a sectoral basis, that a combination of existing and additional measures will reduce Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions by over 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in the period 2008-2012. Additional funding for the purposes of this strategy encompasses policies and measures adopted since the last projections were completed for the Government in March 2006.

The strategy brings together the range of actions being taken by the Government to reduce Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. It provides the necessary co-ordination by the entire Government to meet Ireland's Kyoto Protocol commitments and builds on progress already made since the original national climate change strategy was published in 2000.

Carbon credits arise under the flexible mechanisms, which are an integral part of the Kyoto Protocol since the environmental benefit of a given emission reduction is the same irrespective of where on the planet it is achieved. The protocol, therefore, allows countries to determine the most cost-effective balance between domestic reductions and investing in reductions elsewhere. There will be further reductions, not included in these calculations, as a result of measures such as the rebalancing of motor tax and VRT in favour of low-emission vehicles. There are also a number of key additional measures over and above those already in place when the review of the first national climate change strategy was published in 2006. With regard to energy, for example, 15% of electricity is to be generated from renewable sources by 2010 and 33% by 2020. Biomass is set to contribute up to 30% of energy input at peat stations by 2015, there will be support for combined heat and power projects and a national ocean energy strategy.

Our education system has played an important part in preparing our younger generation for the task ahead. As a former secondary teacher, I believe educators are in a unique position to play a leadership role in reducing emissions by encouraging young people to take what they have learned about climate change home with them. By nurturing activities that can help reduce climate change, we can all make a difference.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of climate change is one that we ignore at our peril. There may still be disputes about exactly how much we are contributing to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. Unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global chaos.

These words are not my own. However, I endorse them and support their strong message on climate change. They are in fact the words of US presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, but who said them is not important. What is important is that we take heed of and act sooner rather than later to ensure a future for generations to come.

What hope is there for this country under the current Government in the light of the admission by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, that the Government's climate change strategy since 2002 has largely been a failure? The fact that the Motor Vehicles (Duties and Licences) Bill has proven to be a damp squib is difficult to face. Speaking on 25 February, at the launch of a public consultation document on the Government's proposed 12 year sustainable travel plan, the Minister said about the strategy: "We did not take the hard decisions in 2002, or certainly if we took them, we did not get to implement them or achieve them. We are now at the endgame in relation to the Kyoto targets." If the Minister felt he was at the endgame in February, where are we today? This is not a game of chess in which, on completion of the endgame, the pieces can be put away and taken out another day. Climate change is deadly serious and the clock is ticking fast.

Unfortunately, the efforts of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, do not seem to be any more effective at the helm of the Department of Transport than they were in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is heartening, though, that he should criticise his own party, Fianna Fáil. The party deserves much criticism in this regard, as it does in many other areas, particularly after yesterday's announcement.

A recently commissioned Government opinion poll shows that 86% of respondents, an outstanding majority of the 1,000 adults surveyed, believe that the Government is not doing enough on climate change and is, by default, ignoring climatic change, our health, the economy and financial security.

Currently, Ireland is the sixth highest polluter per capita among developed countries and, according to Stop Climate Chaos, if everyone polluted on the same level as us, we would need three planet Earths to survive. This is not an achievement to be proud of and I hope the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, takes note. It is a pity he is not in the Chamber today to hear the debate on this important issue.

There is a tendency for western public opinion to blame global warming on countries such as China and the United States while overlooking the considerable contribution to climate change made by other western countries. In this respect Irish people are guilty of a head in the sand approach. They are prepared to throw stones at every glasshouse but their own.

The greatest sell-out by any party in coalition has been by the Green Party. A wilting Green Party Minister who appears to be colour blind is certainly not the bonus for the environment we might have hoped for. Shortly after entering into government after the general election, the Minster promised that "this Government will deliver on Ireland's Kyoto Protocol commitments and will prepare Ireland for the further reductions that lie ahead". A year later, his officials, and certainly the rest of us, are pessimistic about his aspirations. According to a paper prepared for the Minster for Finance, the bottom line is that we are obliged to meet certain climate change targets under the Kyoto Protocol but there are doubts about the possibility of success. Success will mean changes to policies that will have social and economic implications.

In a move that brought outrage from the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, suggested earlier this month that the size of the national herd might have to be cut in order to meet targets. This is nonsense on the Minister's part. We are proud to say that this is an agricultural county. How dare the Minister threaten the future of agriculture with such comments? When one considers that the Government is targeting the sick, the vulnerable, small children and the elderly, it is not surprising that the animals in this country are being earmarked for cutbacks.

I wish to speak about our climate. Met Éireann announced yesterday that long-standing records have been broken by the recent heavy rain, storms and frost. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle comes from the supposedly sunny south east, which recently experienced its wettest June day for 50 years. The strongest winds since 1980 have been recorded in Dublin in recent times. The amount of rain that fell in the south and south east in June was twice the average for that month in that part of the country. The reality of climate change for the daily lives of citizens throughout the world, including Europe, is that food prices will continue to increase dramatically and water shortages will lead to a reduction in agricultural production. Food rioting will continue in the urban areas of developing nations. The world's most vulnerable nations will have to endure famine. Facts and details of this nature were expressed by Deputy Michael D. Higgins during his fine contribution to this debate in the Chamber this morning. It is likely that the rich-poor divide will become more marked. The poorest nations in the developing world will suffer dreadful hunger as the demand for bio-fuels grows in industrialised nations. There will be mass migration from Africa, Asia and the Middle East as hunger and rising sea levels drive people towards Europe. That will have negative implications for the EU.

I am particularly concerned about the increasing carbon figures in our transport sector. Such increases are cancelling out the gains being made in other areas. The transport sector needs to stabilise this adverse impact by reducing its contribution of more than 20% to this country's carbon emissions. Strong Government input and direction is needed if our dependency on fossil fuels is to be reduced. Such leadership has definitely not been shown by the wilting Green Party Ministers in the past 12 months. The potential for the deployment of renewable energy in Ireland is immense. I refer to energy from wind, solar, biomass and ocean sources. If we invest in the potential of technologies associated with renewable sources of energy, we will improve the economies and employment opportunities of rural areas. Action, rather than talk, is needed. Spin doctors should not be employed to come up with soft and palatable words behind the scenes. The Minister needs to get a grip on the situation if we are to ensure that our young people have a future in 2030 and beyond.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe the Green Party Ministers are wilting. They are crisp, clean and growing in their resolve to tackle the issue of climate change.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They have no shown no evidence of such resolve in the past 12 months.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Since it came into government, the Green Party has taken decisive action to address climate change. As we speak, my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is in Paris at meeting of the EU Environment Council. That Deputies in this Chamber have castigated the Minister for not being here is a demonstration of their lack of engagement with these issues. The Minister is at the heart of EU environmental decision-making. He is abroad at a Council of Ministers meeting.

James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why did he not arrange the meeting for this day two weeks?

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not underestimate the challenge of climate change. The former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said last week that there is a glaring gulf between the statements of politicians and the actions required to tackle climate change in a meaningful way. The role of the Green Party, which is in government in Ireland for the first time, is an immense one. It will not be easy to meet the challenge of turning the super-tanker around. It is important that we do not gloss over the fact that there will be legacy issues. On many occasions during the past 25 years, the Green Party delivered a robust critique of the Ireland's system of economic development and the policies which were followed by successive Governments.

I do not think one can expect the Green Party to turn the ship of State around over the course of 12 months. Policies cannot change dramatically overnight. Climate change has been brought centre stage in the past 12 months. There are signs at international level and at home that decision-makers realise the immense task that lies ahead of them. In my 25 years as a member of the Green Party, I have never before seen such a sea change in the space of 12 months. There is a recognition of the problem and the need to tackle it. I see the first signs of the change that is needed. The new vehicle registration and taxation system, which kicked in two days ago, will bring about radical changes in the way we consider our motoring habits. The profound changes which have been made to the building regulations are dramatically different from the kind of regulations we had last year, five years ago or ten years ago. Opposition Deputies who suggest that the Green Party is doing nothing in government are ignoring the facts. We have made significant changes in two key areas which affect people's lives. While we have not turned the ship of State around, we have taken the first steps towards tackling climate change in Ireland.

I wish to mention some other measures. Those involved in energy research in our universities have been given sizeable grants. We have introduced pilot schemes to encourage domestic energy saving and new electricity micro-generation programmes. There has been an increase in the support given to renewable energy. While such measures may not be that visible to those on the Opposition benches, they will change significantly the way we live our lives. I remind the Opposition speaker who suggested that nothing has changed in the planning sector that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, rejected the development plans of various local authorities. He said they were not good enough because they did not provide for sustainable planning. He has brought an end to the passing around of rezoning motions like snuff at a wake. Enough is enough. It is time to focus development in our towns and villages, rather than three or four miles up the road where people will need to jump into a car to get anywhere. The steps that have been taken to promote sustainable development represent progress in tacking climate change. Deputies on the Opposition benches have stayed silent on the need to tackle rezoning anomalies in our counties and cities. The Green Party is making a difference in such areas. We are overseeing the provision of finance for research into wave power, environmental projects and bioenergy. The first budget to be influenced by the Green Party provided for tax incentives to be given to green businesses.

I do not deny that the Government and the country as a whole face substantial challenges. Ireland has one of the highest per capita emissions levels in the world. We need to take radical action, for example by reviewing our land use and transportation policies. We need to change the way we live our lives. The tackling of climate change involves individual action. I do not doubt that people can make profound changes in their own lives. Such changes can have benefits for everyone. We have to go further. There are huge opportunities in the sunrise industries of green energy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been created in many European countries in the area of renewable energy. I have no doubt the future of Irish job creation lies in the green solutions we have spoken about at great length. The announcement by the head of the ESB of a €22 billion plan to turn that organisation into a renewable-energy company shows the kind of figures involved and the challenges we must tackle.

Farming and transport offer immense challenges. It is not business as usual, however. Those on the other side of the House who think we can continue to accept substantial emissions from these sectors must take a reality check and examine what changes can be made. The Green Party has long advocated significant capital investment in public transport. The success of the Luas light rail system in Dublin and the improvements made in long-distance rail routes show we can tackle climate change and reduce emissions through better public transport systems. It is not easy to make such changes. It is important we continue to prioritise public transport measures in the capital programme for transport.

Looking ahead to the kind of changes that might be suggested at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, it is likely we will be required to make dramatic changes in almost every sector within the Irish economy. This can be a good news story. From my experience I know that providing greater levels of insulation and putting in better systems of heating and controls can result in real savings for the householder. We must provide safety nets. If we are to introduce a climate change levy there must be a system of supports for those on lower incomes. We already have systems in place to provide fuel allowance for the bulk of the year and we must look at those supports and, if necessary, change them to ensure people do not suffer unduly from fuel poverty.

In the face of global crisis in climate change we cannot do nothing. We cannot resist change and pretend things can go on as they have until now. We have only uncovered the tip of the problem that lies ahead. We have made only limited changes in the scale of Government policies that must be addressed in the future.

We have made a good start for the first year in government. A lively discussion will continue to bring about changes in future budgets and policies. There is an enormous challenge ahead. If members of the Opposition suggest we should not change the lightbulbs or that we should not make changes in agricultural policy they are simply burying their heads in the sand. That is no longer a solution to the challenge.

Frank Feighan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the chance to take part in this serious debate on climate change which is not a local but a global issue. I take on board what the previous Deputy said, speaking from the perspective of the Green Party. However, global warming and environmental issues must be addressed across parties. I welcome the involvement and participation of the Green Party but the green agenda on climate change is a global issue and is not the reserve of one party. I am sure the Deputy agrees that within the ranks of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and other parties this subject is high on the agenda. That is the way it should be.

We talk about waste management and wonder what we can do in this country. Sometimes we despair because it seems we are not doing enough. I take great consolation from the following. When I was elected to the local authority in Roscommon in 1999 the issue of the regional waste management Acts was to the fore. The Irish have never been good at complying with authority. People gave up drink-driving not because they feared they would kill themselves or an innocent individual but because they feared they might lose their licence or that their insurance might be increased. It is the same with many issues. We embraced waste management and while great credit must go to local authorities and politicians who implemented it most credit is due to people who set up recycling centres and bring centres. We must take the issue further but we have come a long way.

Deputy Cuffe mentioned rezoning. This matter can be a two-edged sword. I have had my runs in with people in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They are not elected but think they know better than the elected representatives. In my area, in Lough Key Forest Park, there was a major tourism development but people in the Department decided they knew better. We have come full circle. There was a time when big developers and builders had a major influence on planning but now faceless bureaucrats in certain Departments are implementing their own policy. All that we want in life is fairness, openness and transparency from politicians but we want the same from departmental officials. That is not a reflection on the vast number of officials who do their job. It is only a few who pursue their own agenda and they do not do so in a democratic fashion. That is a matter I wish to state for the record.

It is better to live in a house with good insulation so the heating system will be better and it will not be cold in the morning. However, a majority of people live in local authority housing that was built in the 1960s and 1970s, where the insulation is not up to scratch. These people are effectively the new poor. No matter what they do to try to heat their house, bringing in briquettes and coal and whatever, the house is never warm. We could do more concerning insulation.

We can address the matter of light bulbs. Leinster House has new bulbs which is welcome although it probably does not make much difference. When I bought my house it was fitted with candelabras which contained six or seven bulbs. I took out five of them and have only one. I know it does not look great but it serves the same purpose. We should all make the same effort. I will not say "sacrifice" because I am saving money and I believe I am saving the environment.

Concerning cars, I was at a conference some weeks ago where the talking point was hybrid cars. However, if one is making long journeys, a diesel car is probably just as good if not better for the environment. I was very enthused by the fact that a member of the Green Party had a bio-fuel car. I say this as a compliment. I believed the car was very worthwhile but we now hear that bio-fuel cars may not be as appropriate as once believed because of the role of bio-fuel crops in food shortages around the world. The Green Party member was acting in the right spirit and I was nearly thinking of obtaining a bio-fuel car myself but we need to know more about the subject and debate it further before we jump in with our two feet.

Solar and wind power projects are very necessary but the ESB has not been up-front regarding the addition of new suppliers to the grid. There is now a movement in this regard but we had to wait ten or 12 years for it. Operators with serious sums to invest obtained planning permission for alternative energy projects but these were held up by the ESB. They are now coming on stream but this should have occurred five or six years ago. There was an impasse but it should not have been allowed. Generating electricity using wind and ocean energy is very necessary and it is exciting that we can harness such energy.

There are two sides to the debate on farming. One comprises Deputies from rural constituencies who represent the farming community. Farming is a vital part of life in rural areas. On the other side there are Deputies from Dublin and other cities, whose constituencies do not include the farming community. We must be careful to strike a good balance. We must be mindful of the fact that practices deemed bad years ago are now deemed good, or vice versa. We need to debate this issue. In our mad dash we should not undermine the farming community. We can make savings in other areas, by way of carbon credits, for example. Therefore, we should not jump in with two feet.

I live on the Sligo line and it is great to see there are eight trains each day in both directions. We have engaged in a mad dash to develop road transport but more could be done to encourage rail freight such as utilising small ports. It could be beneficial to have a port in Sligo or along the west coast for the importation of goods.

Those of us who have Sky television see environmental programmes and note that species are under threat. This debate is worthwhile and welcome. We can make a difference together. I like the Power of One advertisement that claims everyone can make a difference.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Having been mentioned on a few occasions by Opposition Members during the Order of Business, which is unusual, I was planning on keeping a low profile for the rest of the day. However, I am anxious to contribute to this debate, albeit briefly, because it is important to do so.

Deputy Feighan made a point I was to make in that he stated it was a question of what each individual could do to combat climate change. It is well and good to discuss the responsibility of governments but it is ultimately up to individuals to take responsibility and make a contribution, however small.

This morning I read that climate change was already proving to be a defining issue of the 21st century. There is no doubt about this. It is important to have this debate, as Deputy Feighan stated. Years ago we believed climate change and saving the world were issues that fringe groups worried about and tried to address. However, it is important that we understand we all have an impact. When I rose this morning and went for a walk, I noted it was almost like a winter's day. One wonders whether the world is changing.

I remember my maternal grandmother who is dead 42 years but whom I remember very well telling me when I was quite young that she always had worried about the world after the Russians had launched the Sputnik spacecraft. She never believed the weather would be right again. It could well be that her generation held this view. It could have been correct because during my lifetime it has been interesting to see how the world environment has changed and how climate change has become very much part of the agenda. It could well be that it has become a political issue 40 or 50 years later than it should have. There have been many contributing factors, including energy demands. We should regard climate change as an issue which poses a challenge for us all. It is important to debate it to get the message across to the public. I am not saying it does not care but that the public, in all countries, understands the political issues of the day and the challenges it faces.

I am not so sure we all take the state of the world sufficiently seriously. Suddenly the worldwide phenomenon of climate change is clear to us all. It is certainly true that in Ireland, in all constituencies, the environment and climate change are being ascribed greater importance. We always make a point about education and awareness campaigns and I am glad the national climate change strategy is taking account of this. There is a very important message to be circulated to all of us, especially young people. Without putting pressure on schools or teachers, I hope the message is receiving considerable attention. Damaging one's own environment, rambling along the streets and dropping litter and defacing walls with graffiti are all sins against the environment and the climate. It is very important that we understand the challenges that arise in this regard.

Climate change will prove to be the greatest challenge to face humanity this century. Clearly, it is profound in its implications for the planet and all of us who live on it. It cuts to the core of modern living and commerce in the 21st century. There are those who believe the solution is obvious. Clearly, reducing greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently quickly to avoid the worst aspects of climate change will be emphasised by many. We all have, or should have, a personal interest in meeting this objective. We have a responsibility to play our small part in whatever way we decide we can. Clearly, the onus is very much on governments, businesses and individuals.

Colleagues have referred to how we might address the problem of climate change. There are many ways of doing so in our communities, including the protection of the environment locally. Reference was made to insulating one's own home and ensuring green bins are more full than black bins.

Deputy Ring referred to all the reports Members received. Not a day goes by without my receiving tonnes of material, glossy magazines and brochures with pictures of various people at my home and offices in Tallaght and the Dáil. One wonders where we are going in this regard. While I was a slow developer in working with computers and websites, undoubtedly, if it is possible to create a paper free environment in respect of Members' work, it is important to do so.

I also have long believed one can make a contribution by keeping out of one's car as much as possible. It is not always completely possible and although I live only eight miles from Leinster House, sometimes it is necessary to use my car for various reasons such as bringing back good news leaflets or visiting different parts of my constituency. However, I try, in so far as possible, to use public transport and use both buses and the Luas. As I have mentioned in the House previously, I experienced a health challenge approximately nine years ago when I had a serious heart attack, although thankfully, I am now fit and well. I have done much walking since, having taken advice from the cardiac rehabilitation unit in Tallaght Hospital about leaving one's car as far away from one's destination as possible. While it is not easy on a morning like this, simple initiatives such as getting across a positive health message also help the climate change agenda and all Members should make an effort to do so.

I have made reference to the initiative regarding the climate change awareness programme. I am glad that strategy provides for a multi-million euro public awareness campaign on climate change. I note the emphasis placed on the issue of climate change in An Agreed Programme for Government reinforced the necessity to put in place the resources necessary to effectively communicate this complex and far-reaching issue. The campaign has a number of aims. In addition to raising general public awareness of climate change and promoting behavioural changes to reduce emissions, it will include a strong partnership aspect to focus on stakeholders in specific sectors and work with them to develop specific programmes and initiatives tailored to achieve emission reductions in their sectors. Another important goal of the campaign will be to empower individuals and groups to play their part in tackling climate change. The campaign has been designed specifically to ensure it dovetails with related public sector awareness campaigns and initiatives such as the Power of One, One Small Step and the Race against Waste. Duplication of message and unnecessary overlaps will be avoided and every effort made to enhance the messages of existing campaigns and programmes.

I have listened to many of the contributions to this debate and, to an extent, all Members are reading from the same handbook. However, one must face the challenge raised by Members which also has been referred to in the Seanad of how to deal with waste and what methods are to be used. Deputy Tuffy referred to a proposal for an incinerator at Rathcoole which is close to my constituency and a town I represented on the county council from 1991 to 1999. This issue is important and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be aware that people have concerns in this regard. At the same time, this must be balanced against the challenges under discussion in this debate. It will be interesting to see how such issues develop; how future Governments will deal with the question of waste management and what is to be done about waste and its reduction. Moreover, in respect of the residual waste that must be dealt with, how will this be done without damaging the environment?

The presence of Deputy Lynch as Acting Chairman reminds me of the debate this week on the Haulbowline site and I have much sympathy for those affected. I thank the Acting Chairman for her courtesy and appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While listening to Deputy Flanagan talking about the weather, it is true that on a day in the first week of July——

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the Deputy forgotten my name?

Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

—— and considering the weather, one must restate one's commitment to tackle climate change, given that it is pouring from the heavens outside.

The term "climate change" has become part of daily discourse. However, what are people saying when they use the term? In particular, how does it connect to them on a day-to-day level? One aspect to be feared is that people may consider tackling climate change to be the responsibility of the Government or international bodies such as the United Nations or the European Union, without perceiving a personal connection to the issue. Arising from this debate, I hope for a number of outcomes. The public should consider that dealing with climate change can be done simply, is not full of complications and is attainable. Part of the discourse suggests it is the greatest concern facing humanity. While that may be the case, it makes it sound like an inevitable disaster. However, the problem can be turned around. Members must show leadership to demonstrate that dealing with climate change is an attainable objective. This should be done by putting in place measurable goals for people regarding steps that can be taken at both local, national and international level. I refer to measurable steps that can be taken on a week-to-week basis in order that people can discern change in their own domestic and professional lives, as well as to the benefit of their communities and so on. This can be achieved by adopting consistent and repetitive approaches to one's daily life that individuals can control. Moreover, one should avoid disconnection or divorce on the part of people's engagement with the process. Ultimately, there should be a commitment modelled at both Government and individual level.

Before turning to the main body of my speech, I wish to preface my remarks by stating that in our anxiety to deal with climate change, a number of precautions must be taken. In this House last week, as a means to facilitate and encourage renewable energy systems, the Planning and Development Act was changed by the Minister to provide for a series of exemptions, whereby renewable energy sources will no longer be obliged to go through the standard planning regulations. While all Members may have a high regard for such energy systems, it should not be separated from what constitutes good planning practice. It constitutes bad planning practice, regardless of what the infrastructural development might be, to allow the construction of a development within a local community without putting in place a site notice or without advertisements in the local media. It is bad practice for a number of reasons. First, it denies local participation and public information. Second, if it goes wrong, it will undermine the entire concept of planning in respect of enforcement because a local community or housing estate that was unaware of a development that has been exempted under conditions will not know what such conditions are and what the extent of the development should be.

As Members move towards adopting more legislative approaches to dealing with climate change, I wish to put down a marker that they should not deregulate matters to such an extent that the baby is thrown out with the bath water. That is what happened in the House last week when a good idea was implemented extremely badly through secondary legislation. Consequently, the obvious anomalies and flaws in the measure were put through the House by the Minister and could not be dealt with or amended. While the Minister likes to invite ideas and suggestions from the other side of the House, unfortunately, neither ideas nor common sense are being accommodated when processes are put through the House by this method.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. As I noted, it requires urgent and decisive action within the next decade, a measurable period of time. This is a global problem that affects every individual and every local community. Ireland must make a significant contribution to finding the solution. I will summarise some of the areas in which Ireland will be affected by this issue. In agriculture, for example, we may be obliged to change from grass to maize to feed our livestock and there may be an increased requirement for irrigation in the eastern part of the island, in particular. A traditional staple product such as the potato may become unviable in a different climate.

Regarding water resources, we fear the likelihood of increased flood events in winter and pressure on water supplies and infrastructure during the drier summer months. Regarding forestry, there is the likelihood of an increase in harmful exotic pests and diseases because of a warmer temperature.

Regarding marine ecosystems, there is the likelihood of negative impacts on aquaculture from increased algae blooms, and infection rates and pests as mentioned. Other issues such as sea level rises and biodiversity will have to be examined on this island.

The international consensus on the need for radical action has been growing since the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997. The effects of radical climate change are already evident including the melting polar caps, unseasonable weather in many parts of the world, rising sea levels and increasingly stormy weather.

Ireland must play its part in the global effort to combat climate change. We had ten years to prepare for our first run of commitments under the Kyoto Protocol which commenced on 1 January this year. Despite that, we are set to overshoot our target by 7.2 million tonnes of CO2 a year for five years. The Government has sanctioned the purchase of 270 million worth of carbon credits from abroad to compensate for its failure to meet our domestic target. Carbon credits operate in a market and if the market increases, the cost could rise to as high as €750 million.

The latest projections from the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that in 2006, the total emissions decreased by 0.8%. That was supported by a large reduction of 4.6% in emissions from the electricity generation sector. That was accounted for in large part by adaptations made in the Moneypoint station and not through general usage throughout the country. Emissions from transport continue to add to overall emissions as do waste services, which advanced by 5.2% and 3.3%, respectively.

Despite that good performance in 2006, the European Environmental Agency has stated that based on past trends, Ireland is not on track to meet its target, even with the use of carbon sinks such as planting forests and so on. The Kyoto Protocol mechanisms as accounted for will require further domestic actions not currently in place or outlined.

Instead of regarding CO2 reduction as a cost to the economy to combat climate change, we should see it as an opportunity. Ireland is favourably situated to exploit the potential of wind and tide and to go from being a net importer of polluting fossils today to an exporter of clean, renewable energy within a few decades. That is a realisable and measurable target.

We have the expertise and the ability to become world leaders in ocean and tidal technology. Instead of standing idly by as Irish companies succeed abroad, we must ensure they are given every opportunity to succeed here and become leaders in this field.

In this year's budget €13.2 million was provided for energy research in the national development plan. That is clear evidence that renewable energy is not viewed as a matter of urgency requiring immediate action. Buying carbon credits is not a long-term solution but unfortunately it appears to be a mid-term approach by the Government.

Climate change is a global problem that can only be solved by collective action on the part of the international community, and also at a local level. The ability to make strategic foreign policy decisions at EU level will be vital in future climate change negotiations, particularly if the EU is to exploit its diplomatic and economic power to the full.

The Labour Party is committed to supporting a climate change protocol setting out what the EU would do to tackle climate change through the mechanisms it creates. That could also help to break the European deadlock and demonstrate the relevance of the EU and a strong, cohesive Union that can act in the global interest at a greater level on this global issue.

Ireland must take serious action now to meet the Kyoto commitments and to position ourselves for a medium to long-term economic climate where energy and environmental issues will dominate.

Mary White (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to speak again in the House on the issue of climate change but when I heard Fine Gael's Deputy Hogan speaking on climate change it reminded me of the graveyard scene in Shakespeare's "Hamlet" when he says, "Alas, poor Yorick!". Alas, poor Deputy Hogan, a fellow of infinite jest. It is obvious Fine Gael does not understand or has deliberately misunderstood climate change. Perhaps Deputy Hogan was absent without leave, AWOL, during the Green Party's constructive input into tackling climate change in the past year.

Just over six months ago when this House had a similar debate on climate change Fine Gael's Deputy Coveney stated: "I contend also that my party, a big catch-all party, has not perhaps offered enough insistence and leadership in this area, but that must change". It is a bit rich for Deputy Hogan to start throwing stones from glass houses about greenhouse gas emissions.

Above and beyond party politics I can assure the House that my party in Government is delivering real and significant reforms in the way Ireland is behaving in terms of its contribution to tackling climate change. Contrary to assertions by Deputy Hogan, the reform of VRT and motor tax would not have been purely emissions based were the Green Party not in government. An emissions based system has already led to a radical rethink of the type of cars people drive. One has only to look at the advertisements and read the newspapers to see that people are taking heed of the way we drive our cars, and car manufacturers are producing cars to meet this global climate change threat. Deputy Hogan talked about the repercussions of the reforms taking effect in July but converting systems takes time. It is better to get the system right rather than rush through a radical reform without paving the way.

Other important reforms such as new energy efficiency standards, planning exemptions for certain renewable energy generators and the planned ban on the sale of incandescent light bulbs will save over 700,000 tonnes of carbon emissions per year. These are radical measures which have required transition phases but which are important components in the Government's programme of combating climate change. Recent proposals for offsetting Government business flights is an example of the Government practising what it preaches.

My colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, has been equally energetic in moving the economy towards more renewable sources of energy. The home energy saving scheme is accessible and innovative. His reform of the refit scheme for wind energy and the encouragement of new forms of green energy such as anaerobic digestion, which will be a fantastic source for local agriculture to get rid of raw products in a sustainable way by flaring off the methane to heat houses, schools and hospitals, is the way to go.

The introduction soon of net metering will allow consumers to sell electricity back to the grid and other green energy forms going back into this natural grid will reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. These are significant moves in the direction of a post-carbon society and economy.

There is no doubt that policies and attitudes in many areas of combating climate change must be constantly reviewed and re-evaluated. Those involved in the current debate on bio-fuels — nationally, globally and in my own party — are acutely aware and engaged in the issue. Many issues concerning net carbon savings, food prices, deforestation, the destruction of carbon sinks and the repercussions for the developing world are now associated with the first generation of bio-fuels. We must look at the second generation. Looking at the tops and tails of the beet, waste, straws and slurries we will be able to generate these fuels for our cars without compromising the need for food versus fuel. Bio-fuels using resources such as these wastes and not requiring land changes must be researched at length and prioritised.

All parties in the House should join the debate on bio-fuels to ensure it does not become another partisan petty squabble on the wider issue of climate change. Above all, as fuel prices soar and the debate on climate change deepens, we must protect those on low income from fuel poverty, particularly as we head into the autumn and winter. After a year in government, my party is delivering significant reforms in its campaign to tackle climate change.

Before I finish I want to return to Shakespeare, where I started:

All the world's a stage,

and all the men and women merely players.

Each one plays his part but we in the Green Party have a leading role in this. There has been no time for a dress rehearsal. Climate change is the greatest moral imperative of our time. We, in the Green Party, are driving change. We are delivering reform and are delighted to be in government in these extraordinary times in which we live to implement these policies.

Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on climate change. We all accept climate change is one of the greatest challenges to humanity in the medium to long term.

The Government's targets for reduction of emissions are way out of line with what they set. We have not heard today — in fairness, I have not heard all of the debate — that the Government has firm proposals to ensure our promised contribution will be achieved.

The Minister of State, Deputy Devins, will understand the value of €15 million and how hard it is to get that sum for projects, including his own in a previous life. The Government is spending €15 million on a public relations exercise to tell people to make changes while it has done substantially nothing about its massive carbon footprint in Civil Service buildings etc.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 were 69.77 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is 0.8% lower than the level of emissions in 2005. The slight decrease is mainly accredited to the temporary closure and generation reduction at Moneypoint power station due to maintenance and upgrading work. I impress on the Minister the need to continue the upgrading and improvement of Moneypoint. It directly affects my constituency of Limerick West because the prevailing winds pass over it. We have had problems. We can not say conclusively that these were due to emissions from Moneypoint but we believe they contributed in the Askeaton area. I urge the Government to ensure the ESB continues to upgrade Moneypoint to ensure it is environmentally friendly.

Under the Kyoto agreement, Ireland has committed to limiting the increase of greenhouse gases to 13% above its 1990 levels, a limit that must be reached during the period 2008-12. Current levels of Irish greenhouse gas emissions are more than 25% above the 1990 levels.

Ireland, unlike other EU countries, looks unlikely to reach the Kyoto targets. Other countries, such as the UK, Sweden and France, are already running ahead of their Kyoto targets. Germany, Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands all look like they will comfortably reach their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. We hope the Government will ensure over the next number of years to alter its approach to the Kyoto Agreement and reach our targets as agreed.

The European Commission has set Ireland a challenging target to cut Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 in its new climate strategy. The EU has given Ireland the toughest individual target because of its prosperity and poor track record on cutting emissions, particularly transport emissions. While we welcome the changes on emissions in the last budget, they do not go far enough to achieve the objectives that the Government has set itself. In the response to the debate we would welcome details of how the Government will approach ensuring we reach the targets. However, Ireland will benefit from the upper cap, which restricts the maximum emissions cut demanded from a single EU state to 20% when compared to its emissions in 2005.

According to Harry McGee, in The Irish Times, the latest report on greenhouse emissions in the European Union shows Ireland is in the bottom half of the table of the 27 states in terms of meeting its Kyoto Protocol targets. Overall emissions fell by 14 million tonnes or 0.3%, and now stand at 7.7% below 1990 levels. In all, 5,142 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent were emitted in the 27 member states in 2006. The fall was even greater among the EU 15 — the 15 member states of the EU before the accession of the new member states in 2004 — which cut emissions by 35 million tonnes or 0.8%. The Irish figures for 2006 show a marginal decrease from the previous year of 0.6 million tonnes or 0.8%.

Irish emissions rose by 25.6% between 1990, the base year for Kyoto Protocol targets, and 2006, which is 12.6% above our target. Energy and agriculture remain the biggest factors in Ireland, though agricultural emissions have been declining considerably in line with the decline in the agricultural industry. The biggest problem within Ireland is the transport sector, to which I referred earlier, where emissions increased by 180% between 1990 and 2006. Year-on-year, emissions in transport increased a further 5.2% between 2005 and 2006.

It is generally acknowledged that Ireland's Kyoto Protocol targets were comparatively generous compared to other EU countries. However, it is lagging behind considerably countries such as the UK, Sweden and France, which are already running ahead of their Kyoto Protocol targets.

The reduction in countries such as Germany, Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands have been attributed to the use of technology and better efficiencies in power plants and heavy industry. In the UK, a major switch from oil and coal to gas in electricity production has also been a major factor. This brings me back to the issue of ensuring carbon efficiency at Moneypoint which I raised earlier.

Of the accession countries, all but Slovenia have achieved significant reductions, thanks to what the EEA describes as "the decline of energy-inefficient heavy industry". However, in a slightly worrying trend, most of those recorded small increases — a reversal of what was happening — in 2006.

Ireland is by no means the worst performer. We are one of the lowest performers, but Spain's emissions were 35% above its target in 2006. We must get perspective on the position in Europe. The other states with big gaps between emissions and goals were Luxembourg at29%, Austria at 28% and Denmark at 23%.

I referred to the €15 million which has been spent by the Government on its public relations exercise. The Minister of State, Deputy Devins, will be aware that €15 million is hard to come by. This €15 million of taxpayers' money, which is currently being spent on the climate change media campaign, is an enormous expense which follows money which had already been spent in that area. Fine Gael suggests that a large share of this money would be better spent on tangible products to help the environment such as home insulation schemes. A new home energy saving scheme was launched some time ago by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and will spend €5 million on improving home energy efficiencies via insulation. There are 1 million homes in the country requiring investment to improve energy efficiency, yet the Government sees fit to spend three times more on a media campaign designed to make it look good. I suggest the investment should be in real projects rather than public relations exercises.

Mary O'Rourke (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not know whether I would be able to come to the House today. As I listened to the speakers it struck me this was a debate in which I wished to have an input. We have had "do-good" debates for the past few weeks, including a seemingly endless debate on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. While I know it was very worthy, I declined to speak on it because as a person who likes a glass of wine I believe it would be hypocritical of me to lecture others on what they should and should not drink. For this reason I hesitated to show my face. It is not as if a glass of wine is in any way dangerous, but if one enjoys a glass it seems a little odd to lecture that others should not have one.

While listening to this debate I was struck by several matters which I wish to lay before the House. Climate change is truly an international global issue and it is no overstatement to say as much. However, by so doing we strike the fear of God in everyone. One wonders if is there anything one poor, single person can do to help effect change and of course there is. Climate change is a personal issue as well as an international and a national issue. We cannot say it is all the Government's fault. Nor can we say the Government must do something wonderful to address climate change overnight and if not there will be finger-wagging in the Dáil next week. All that is silly as responsibility is down to every individual.

This is why I found the "Power of One" campaign very interesting and heartening. It is down to each person how he or she will address climate change. It sounds very ordinary but I understand if one walks about the house before leaving on a Tuesday morning and plugs out every appliance it would mean quite a decrease in carbon emissions. Imagine the impact if everyone lucky enough to have kettles, radios, televisions, clothes dryers and so on did this. I did exactly this before I left the place where I stay in Dublin this morning — a small apartment. It struck me that I had not done so for months, which shows how careless one can get.

This brings me to my beef or crib. Why is the campaign always painted in such penitential and punishable ways? We hear the seas will cover Ireland again. I recall that we were told when we were growing up that Ireland and England was one land mass and there was no division.

Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a long time since the Deputy grew up.

Mary O'Rourke (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I used to teach history, so I know what is in some of the history books. The debate on climate change is painted in such biblical terms that one wonders how could one woman unplugging a kettle have any bearing on what will happen if we are all going to be submerged beneath the waters, never to rise again. Sometimes, rather than confront what needs to be addressed, we simply push it to the back of our heads and say, like Scarlett O'Hara in Gone with the Wind: "I'll think about that another day". We are inclined to put it on the back burner and say it is for someone else to address, but no one else will address these matters; it is up to every single person.

I applaud the Green Party which was convinced it could change the world overnight on the Opposition benches. However, the reality of being in Government has shown this is not possible. Even God Almighty cannot change the world overnight. When the Green Party came into Government it decided it would proceed by short steps and did so. Addressing such matters as efficient light bulbs among others seem small, but no more than the "Power of One" campaign when added up will render what the Green Party hoped to and will achieve in Government. The Green Party during its term of office in Government with Fianna Fáil will be able to bring about a reduction in emissions.

I do not know which of the previous speakers brought up the matter of how we buy carbon credits. I have spoken about this in the Dáil and I believe it is a con-job. The idea that a country can somehow buy carbon credits from a remote island in the Samoan ocean and that this renders the power plant in County Clare or some other guzzling installation relieved of some of its duties makes no sense. How could that be? We are all one global village and, therefore, it is one world. I do not know who thought up the idea of buying of carbon credits. It was probably some brainy civil servant and the relevant Minister nodded, agreed it sounded like a good idea, brought it further and so it became official policy. However, this cannot be right. The implication is some poor benighted small place in the world with no power or emissions of any kind should be allowed to sell off what it would have used to a country which has over polluted. This does not make for an equitable or arithmetic solution. We are only fooling ourselves. I wish we would drop the idea because it is an erroneous path to pursue.

I believe the future lies with children and young people. It is not that I wish to divest myself of my responsibilities in this regard. I have found that visiting schools, discussing the matter with young children and listening to my very young grandchildren, who are only beginning to talk, has revealed to me their good ideas. They want to make changes and they do not feel exhausted and worn out as we do. It is lashing rain outside and it looks like it will rain for the whole summer. There are very bad weather forecasts. There is a deepening economic gloom. However, instead of being bogged down by all of that young people see the rainbow all the time, which is lovely for them.

If we can — indoctrinate may be the wrong word and I would not like to over-use it — give our bible on how the world can be changed to young people, they could bring their common sense, youth and optimism to bear on what is truly a sizable problem. It would be easy for us to ask what good is all our effort, given the behaviour of China and the USA. The USA has been very tardy in coming to the table with any ideas. One is tempted to ask what poor Ireland can do in such a climate. However, this brings me back to what I said about the "power of one", which is a concept we do not emphasise enough. We must find some language for them and I appeal to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Green Party and all parties who wish to convey our sense of momentum and urgency about this matter to do so. We should seek to express it in a positive way. When one begins to read an article about climate change it is couched in such biblical, awesome terms that one is inclined to ask what the point is in installing solar panels on one's roof. I hope to do that this winter. I do not know if it will make a great change, but I am told it might.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Mary O'Rourke (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One minute to bring about change. What a difficult task.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The weather can change in seconds.

Mary O'Rourke (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know if solar panels will work or unplugging every plug in the land will work, but I believe the "power of one" should be emphasised more. The message should be given in positive and optimistic terms, not gloomy and doom-laden language, which makes us all just want to dive under the duvet and stay there for the day.

Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is good to be here discussing this important issue, which will only get more significant as the years go by. It is important to put in context the scale of the problem we have. Some of us on the Joint Committee on the Constitution met the Indian Ambassador a number of months ago and we were trying to wrap our heads around the scale of the Indian subcontinent. He informed us that the Indian population increases by the same number as the population of the island of Ireland every two months. That is the scale we are dealing with.

Deputy O'Rourke quoted Scarlett O'Hara and I will paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in that we do not amount to a hill of beans in the scheme of things. America and China, which has a population approximately 30% bigger than India, together with India contribute over 50% of significant pollution and, in truth, they are only making very small token gestures.

One must consider some positive aspect from the current price of oil. For the first time ever, it has started to dawn on the American population that it cannot have V6 gas-guzzling engines to drive from one end of the country to the other just for fun. It is also starting to dawn on the aircraft industry that it is not just a matter of jetting here and there on the back of cheap fuel. There must be a balance, which I am not sure we are striking, between energy and food provision.

In 1900, 70 years before I was born, the population of the world was approximately 1.5 billion. The projected numbers for the end of this century are in the region of 20 billion, which is a massive increase. The land producing food is reducing because of climate change. The land which is marginal is not able to produce a crop yet the numbers of people are ever increasing. The people of the world must certainly be fed.

The way we are currently promoting the biofuels industry, whether first or second generation, will in time be considered a crime against humanity. I am speaking as a commercial farmer. One cannot take an acre of good land, sow a crop and expect to get between 1.75 tonnes and 2.1 tonnes of product before using the same amount of energy to press that crop that would be saved through using the product. It would amount to three quarters of a tonne of biofuel. One cannot make any saving to the environment this way.

It has been said here that agriculture is a major polluter, which is true. There is innovation within the agricultural sector at the moment which is not being substantially supported by Government. Practically all funds for research and development are coming from the private sector. I am a commercial dairy farmer and the Keenan Group is doing significant research into the reduction of gas from bovine animals, which must be considered.

The position taken by the World Trade Organisation to Ireland, which will lead to a reduction in cattle numbers by 1 million, will make no difference as somebody elsewhere on the planet will take up the same production. A carbon sink is provided by other crops, including forestry and grass. Crops consume the negative emissions to the atmosphere and sugar beet, for example, was a superb carbon sink crop. We lost that industry far too easily.

I have been trying to promote the extraction of biomethane gas from dairy stock for some time. This would take some research and time to look into the prospects of pooling dairy herds, putting together herds of hundreds of stock and housing them all year round while extracting biomethane gas. Bovine stock are a negative but we should take some positive from them. If we could extract biomethane gas we would use less diesel and petrol, which would be a benefit.

A word people have studiously avoided using is "nuclear." We must accept that at some stage in the future of energy production, Ireland will not be able to ignore this type of energy. I am not saying we must go in that direction but we must consider it. We should open the debate on the nuclear option.

France and Finland have significantly reduced their emissions and have gone very much in the direction of using nuclear energy. We should get the debate on the table and consider the positives. Of course there are negative aspects but we should weigh the options.

The Government must be more proactive in the grants available. Deputy O'Rourke spoke of solar panels on rooftops but a negative aspect is the SEI not providing grants for wood log gasifiers, which are timber burners. There is a grant for wood pellets, although there is a production cost in turning wood shavings into pellets. We do not produce those pellets in Ireland so there is also a cost in terms of transport, as well as the cost to the environment. I cannot understand, when wood is available freely throughout the country now with plantations available for thinnings, why people cannot use them. The thinnings are available as a resource and a number of farmers provide them with minimal transport costs, if only burners could be grant-aided.

We should consider the matter. I pursued the issue a bit and an answer I received was silly in the extreme. I was told that if a grant was provided for a wood log gasifier, people could burn what they wanted in it. It is a self-defeating argument. If somebody goes to the bother of procuring a wood log gasifier, that person will not put other products into it.

I would like to see the extension of recycling centres. If the public is given the opportunity to recycle and not shove everything they have into a landfill site, they will take it. We are not fast enough in getting the recycling centres open to the public.

I spoke to a geologist yesterday who made a very stark point. He told me it took tens of thousands of years to produce coal, oil, gas and other products we are burning for energy, and in a matter of a few hundred years we have begun to extract and consume the products for energy and have nearly consumed it all. I spoke of a balance at the beginning, which we must strike. We need to achieve a balance between renewables, such as wind turbines on land and off-shore, nuclear energy and other types of renewables.

If we are proactive and positive in the issue, we will make a difference. However, if India, China and the US continue to ignore concerns, what we do in this country will have no impact whatever.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies on both sides of the House for their contributions to the debate. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, wished to take part in this important debate given his strong interest in the issue of climate change, which was the main reason the Green Party entered Government. However, the Minister is meeting other EU Ministers of the Environment to press Ireland's case in the European Union's climate and energy package and its strategy for the next UN climate conference in December.

Our modern and very busy lifestyles exert enormous pressure on our natural environment, as is evident from the scientific advice on climate change. If climate change is allowed to continue unchecked, the consequences for humanity and the environment are almost beyond comprehension. It is hard to believe we face the real possibility of triggering abrupt or irreversible impacts which have the potential to devastate whole countries and displace millions of people all over the world. The scientific and economic advice points to the need for and benefits of early and effective action.

Ireland is playing its part at national and European Union level and in international efforts to find an effective global response to this significant global challenge. The ultimate objective of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a safe level. Achieving this objective will entail significant changes in our lifestyle, socially and economically. The Kyoto Protocol was only a first step in the global response to climate change and a much greater effort by developed countries in reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be required if the ultimate objective of the 1992 convention is to be achieved.

The next decade will be crucial. We have a window of opportunity for an effective global response to climate change. Fundamental to this response is the need for global greenhouse emissions to peak within ten to 15 years and, thereafter, decline significantly by 2050. The longer it takes to mobilise an effective global response, the higher will be the cost in human and economic terms. The European Union is providing leadership in the international negotiations on climate change and pressing for an ambitious agenda for global action in the period to 2020 and beyond. Ireland fully supports this proactive approach.

The scientific advice underpins the need to have significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the economic advice points to the advantages of acknowledging and embracing the inevitable change to a low carbon future. Last January, the European Commission published a package of proposals to address EU greenhouse gas emission reductions and renewable energy targets for 2020. As expected, the proposed individual targets are tough and raise serious economic and social issues for Ireland and other member states. At this year's spring meeting of the European Council, Heads of State and Government of all 27 European Union member states endorsed the package as a good starting point and basis for agreement on the Union's ambitious 2020 targets.

The economic and environmental realities of climate change have hit home and the firm focus within the European Union is on achieving the necessary greenhouse gas emission reductions. The national climate change strategy sets out the measures by which Ireland will meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments and how these measures will position us to achieve further significant emission reductions in the post-2012 period.

Central to the strategy are measures such as reform of energy markets, ambitious targets for renewables, participation by Ireland in the EU emissions trading scheme, record investment in public transport and substantial reduction in energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions through strengthening of building regulations. All will play their part in Ireland reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. The strategy has been enhanced by further measures introduced by the Government. These include the revision of motor taxation and vehicle registration tax, strengthening the energy requirements in building regulations, the commencement of work on energy standards for lighting and a programme of expenditure on energy efficiency, including pilot funding announced in the recent budget. These and other measures were announced by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, in his first carbon budget last December.

In meeting our international and domestic targets, the Government will aim to introduce further measures to reduce national emissions. The more we can achieve in terms of transition to a low carbon society in the Kyoto Protocol period, the better prepared we will be to manage the more demanding agenda in the period to 2020 and beyond. We have a national climate change strategy to meet our Kyoto challenges up to 2012. A new climate change strategy will make sense when we learn what will be are 2020 targets following the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009.

The Government is strongly representing Ireland's concerns and interests in the EU negotiations. As Deputies noted, agriculture is an important economic sector and a major source of emissions. We continue to press this issue with our EU partners in negotiations. A whole-of-government approach is taken on climate change. It is led by a special Cabinet committee on climate change and energy security chaired by the Taoiseach.

On the issue of energy intensive industries, I concur that it is important to give industry greater certainty for the purposes of making investments and this point has been made in the negotiations. Carbon leakage is an issue we also want properly addressed in the Commission's proposals. I thank Deputies who contributed to this productive and, I hope, fruitful debate.