I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to the House for these important Statements on COP27. The Minister has been working hard on this issue for decades. We thank him for his work and for coming to Seanad Éireann this morning.
Statements on COP27
Good morning, a Chathaoirligh. I am pleased to be back in the Seanad and to share some reflections the 27th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, COP, on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. The conference was established in the early 1990s in recognition of the existential challenge of our time, namely, how to avoid the world switching from a stable environment that has allowed the development of civilisation over the past 10,000 years to one that would be chaotic and destructive and that will leave our children and grandchildren having to cope with an impossible situation.
I was pleased to be at the COP as part of the EU team of 27 countries and to be asked within that to act as EU negotiator on loss and damage, which was one of the key issues before the COP. COP27 has been described as an African COP because it was held in Egypt but also because the matter of putting climate justice into the international procedures has been long argued and long delayed and is urgently needed. That was not the only item on the agenda but it was the key and critical one. There was significant progress on the matter, which is welcome. I will give some brief details on that.
There were other issues. One of the key ones related to mitigation, that is, how we reduce the damage being done. There was not really any substantial progress on that matter beyond what happened in Glasgow last year. The EU team was determined to try to avoid a retreat from the progress that had been made in Glasgow, but it was not possible to get further progress. That is a real concern. Before I went out, an Irish journalist contacted me with a very strong line on information that the 1.5°C increase in global temperature, which is the limit set in Glasgow, was now no longer possible and did I have any comment. I did not. I preferred to hear what was said at the COP. There was real commitment from those countries who really want to show ambition that we do not give up on that target and that it is important we see it as still alive. Otherwise, as I said, there could be a sense of fatalism along the lines that we are all doomed anyway and should abandon any hope or ambition for immediate action. While there was not progress on the mitigation side, there was significant progress on loss and damage on the climate justice side, which was the really important element at this COP.
There was much debate in the early stages of the conference on the position of the EU and our not being in favour of a fund. The proposal presented by the G77 group and China, effectively in a combined arrangement with some 134 countries, was very strong in stating that would have to be a fund set up within the parameters of Article 11 of the UNFCCC, and that was it.
There was real opposition from the European Union side to this. Correctly, the view was that such a simple, single decision would not actually serve the world's interests and that the application of the provisions under Article 11 of the original 1992 convention would set our response back almost three decades to a time when the division between developing and developed countries was much more defined. Effectively, what was proposed would have given a pass to several large and wealthy counties, which, in the context of the 1992 definition, would not have to make any payments. Let us consider the current position and China. I am not pointing the finger at any one country, but if we look at the data collected since the Industrial Revolution, we can see that China, which has significant wealth, has been the second largest emitter and, therefore, cannot be absolved of responsibility.
Hear, hear.
That was the European Union's position.
As we went into the second week and closing stages of the COP, there were a series of frantic negotiations where we listened to various countries. I credit the representatives of the Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union, who were leading the EU team, with making the right call. I was involved, along with Vice-President Frans Timmermans and others, in making the call that the countries most in need due to the loss and damage were correctly insisting that there had to be a fund. We accepted that we would change our position, in that the key principle of a fund would be agreed at this COP meeting. That helped break the deadlock in the negotiations and brought the prospect of a deal closer.
The subsequent days of the conference were quite frustrating. Having agreed to a fund and on talking about what type of fund it should be, we found ourselves in the very frustrating position that there was no movement from the other side. There was a fixed position that it had to be done under the 1992 rules, that nothing else would work and that they would not move an inch. On the Saturday - these conferences often run days over time - it was looking increasingly bleak because the text that had been agreed by the Egyptian presidency - a neutral presidency of the COP - did not in any way take on board our concerns. At a press conference on Saturday morning, European Union ministers and Vice-President Frans Timmermans said publicly that no deal was better than a bad deal, which is what we thought was on the table. I was glad that there was finally movement towards a very good outcome during the closing day.
I was particularly proud of the good work of the Irish civil servants involved. It was an Irish civil servant who was speaker for the European Union on the loss and damage issue. Our climate envoy is an expert on the issue and has an extensive background in development aid work. From the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, we had the top lawyer within the EU team advising us. The State put a lot of resources into having a capable team of civil servants who were able to represent the European Union in the latter stages of those negotiations and agree critical wording and changes.
One of the issues we were arguing for throughout the conference, as well as leading up to it and now, is that the funding should be targeted at the most vulnerable countries, although not exclusively or not by denying other countries. Pakistan would have a real case for loss and damage, particularly as it has been destroyed this year by flooding influenced by climate change. The current arrangements in international climate finance across the globe for mitigation and adaptation are that the poorest countries, the small and developing countries, the less developed countries get only a tiny fraction of the overall funding. That has to change. I was very proud that it was an Irish negotiating team representing and working with the European negotiating team that was able, at the very last minute, to stitch that key wording in. It was a proud moment in our country's diplomatic history. It is not a small agreement, with nearly 200 countries agreeing this significant change.
What we also pushed and pressed for and got in the final text is that the funds, of which there will be a mosaic, will not just be done within the parameters of Article 11 of the 1992 convention, but that it would be set up within the parameters of the Paris Agreement, which is much more up to date in terms of how it reflects the real world. That was real progress. In addition, Europe stated all week that we have to look at other sources of funding such as from aviation, shipping and the fossil fuel industry. While the wording on that is quite opaque, in that it refers to innovative funding sources, that is what it means. We have an opportunity to garner such funding to protect the poorest in our world, which would be a significant advance for climate justice.
Lastly and probably most importantly, but least noted in the headlines, I refer to one of the key things on which we agreed and that will now be put in place. It is the reform of the multinational development banks, the World Bank, the IMF, the use of special drawing rights and other mechanisms to create, what the Minister from the Maldives referred to as a mosaic of solutions. She was absolutely right. At the start of COP, the Prime Minister of Barbados made the simple point that the underlying injustice in the global financial system has to be addressed and not just by tinkering around the edges. The fact that developing, small island states pay 14% interest on the money they borrow, while we in the West pay 4%, and the fact that they are the ones who experience the most difficulty in getting access to debt relief or finance after a catastrophic climate event, requires us to look at that aspect of the system. That is what will happen now.
We agreed to establish a transitional committee. This will be done in the coming weeks. The committee will look to provide specifics on what is a political commitment to the loss and damage funding-approach, which is significant. I am proud that the Irish team played such a significant part in this important and historic development.
I thank the Minister for that very in-depth analysis of what happened during the negotiations. He will be aware that countries often make commitments they do not live up to. Hopefully, that will change . It needs to change. We do not have the time for statements without action.
It is always refreshing when the Minister joins us in the House because he speaks with such passion. He has done so again without notes. It comes naturally to him. He has been an advocate for most of his life - certainly from the time I got to know him - on this issue. As has been said, he became an overnight success at COP27. That expression is in recognition of the number of years these conferences have been ongoing. It is only in the past couple of years that the public have started to become engaged. We have achieved so much in Ireland in that now climate change is part of the narrative on a daily basis. It took a long time to get it there, but the Minister and those close to him are responsible for putting it on the national agenda.
The Minister, more than any of us, gets lots of slagging on social media sites. However, the truth is that he is committed to ensuring that our lives are lived in a more sustainable way. For a long time, climate change was the preserve of people who may have been referred to as tree huggers, academics and those who just talked about it. The truth is that every aspect of Irish society is now discussing how we can live our lives in a more sustainable way.
I was at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications recently where Michael O'Leary, whose business is aviation, rightly identified the impact air travel is having on carbon emissions. He went through what his company is doing in order to be more sustainable. That is welcome because every facet of Irish society is moving in that direction. From a Government perspective, we have to move more quickly, which, I know, is the Minister's ambition, but one of the biggest things the State could do is decarbonise our electricity network.
The Minister visited County Clare recently where he met key personnel from the ESB to discuss transitioning the facility at Moneypoint away from the burning of coal. Moneypoint will become the onshore base for electricity generated off shore which will help to power our country. This, along with the decision of the Government with regard to the European interconnector, where we saw the Minister and the Taoiseach visit France recently to sign a contract with a French company for the development for an interconnector to the European grid, will make a profound difference to this country.
I want to go back to the issue of the capturing of offshore wind in the west of Ireland, bringing that power ashore at Moneypoint and the ecosystem that will develop around that. It will see the creation and generation of hydrogen, a fuel which will play a part in storing energy. It will also provide a baseline for sustainable fuels for the aviation and shipping sectors. What more can we do to enhance our ambition in that regard? We talk about 2029 and 2030, about planning permission and the passage of the Bill relating to foreshore licensing and so forth, but should we be driving further ahead and showing greater ambition? The Minister is putting in place the international policy framework and foundation around which all of this needs to happen, but as a State, can we do more? Can we show greater ambition and bring this to fruition quicker? A lot of our focus now is on offshore energy, but there was a time when the State had to support wind energy because it was considered expensive in comparison with oil, gas and coal. The invasion of Ukraine by Putin has changed that dynamic to such an extent that it is now the right thing to do financially, not to mention from a climate change perspective. It is right to generate electricity from wind because it is ultimately cheaper. We cannot allow it to wither over time because it is of such importance to local economies and is essential in terms of reducing carbon in the atmosphere.
In the time remaining, I want to speak about biodiversity, which is linked to this debate. The Minister and I, in another House, were responsible for the declaration of a climate change and biodiversity crisis, but I am somewhat concerned about the approach of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I have spoken to the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, who is completely on board, but there are efforts by some in his Department to water down what has happened in the Burren. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, is very familiar with the approach taken by farmers and interest groups connected with Burren Beo to protect and preserve the biodiversity of the area through the use of certain farm practices. The aim of the new agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, is to broaden agri-environmental supports, but this is diluting and weakening the work that is being done in the Burren by 300 or 400 farmers. We have a responsibility to protect and preserve that which has worked and I appeal to the Minister to bring whatever influence he has to bear on senior officials in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We must protect and preserve the biodiversity of the Burren, and the mechanisms to do so that have been developed there, for the interests of all.
I attended the last two COPs at Glasgow and Sharm el-Sheikh, one of the unintended benefits of being elected to the Oireachtas. I would never have attended the conferences had I not been a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Climate Action. Both conferences were really eye opening, and this was particularly true of events organised by the International Parliamentary Union, IPU. In Egypt, for example, I was in a room with 181 parliamentarians from around the world. One of the key messages that came from countries like Pakistan, one third of which was under water at the time, and from island nations in the Pacific Ocean, where villages were being relocated because of rising sea levels, was that this would come for everyone else too. Climate change is not just an issue for countries on the far side of the world. If we do not do something to reduce global temperatures and if we do not engage in sustainable climate action that has a real impact, these disasters will happen in the western world as well. That point was made very clearly at COP27.
One of the issues I spoke about in Egypt was the need to reframe the narrative and debate around climate action, climate change and what we can do. What do I mean by reframing the debate? Often in Ireland it is framed as being about giving up things to be sustainable or conscientious in the context of climate change. We are told we have to sacrifice or give up something, but we need to reframe that debate. This is not about giving up something but about the huge opportunities in green technology that can lead to economic development and job creation. We are on the cusp of a renewable revolution in this country. If we keep going as we are, by the end of this decade we could be an absolute powerhouse of renewable energy for the European Union and the entire Continent. In terms of wind energy, we are on the periphery of the European Union, but if we do it properly, as per our targets, we will end up being a net exporter of renewable energy. We will be able to export some of our excess wind energy to other European countries, especially within the EU, and that is really exciting. A significant number of jobs will be created and it will have a huge impact on our economy, not to mention the number of homes it will be possible to power. There is a lot to be excited about when it comes to renewable energy.
Another issue that was widely discussed at COP27 was that the average person wants to be able to do something and wants to contribute to climate action. In that context, it is important to provide financial incentives and to make sure any action people can take is as simple as possible. A great example of this is the recently introduced deposit return scheme, under which consumers will be given cash for their trash. It is not unlike the system whereby you pay a euro to use a trolley in the supermarket, and when you return the trolley, you get the euro back. Approximately 1.9 billion plastic bottles are used in Ireland every year, and even with the greatest will in the world, we are not going to be able to recycle all of them. Our target is to recycle 77% of those bottles by 2027 and 90% by 2029. With the deposit return scheme, machines will be installed throughout the country which will greatly enhance accessibility, and this means that we will hit, if not surpass,our targets. That scheme is a really good example of what can be done at the individual level. Recycling is one of the most powerful things an individual can do in the fight against climate change.
I attended an event yesterday about the circular economy. A number of speakers pointed out that, five years ago, sustainability was not an issue for businesses but now every business and every CEO is focused on the sustainability and the green credentials of the products they are producing. They are doing this because it is the right thing to do and because consumers are more climate conscious than ever before. Consumers are making dedicated choices based on the green credentials of the products they want to buy. I certainly see that with my 22-year-old sister's generation. People in their teens and early 20s are far more climate conscious in their buying choices, and brands, producers and business are having to follow their lead, which is great.
Ireland is facing into a very exciting decade when it comes to renewable energy, and that is something of which we should be very proud. The debate on climate change should always be framed in terms of the opportunities it will create for society, the economy and the world in general.
I welcome the Minister, and while I was not in the Chamber when he made his speech, I was listening in. I thank him for the comprehensive update and outline of the loss and damage negotiations and commend him and the civil servants involved on the successful outcome of those negotiations and on getting a deal over the line. However, as with the Paris Agreement and all other agreements, the challenge now is to make sure there is no slippage. We need to build on the progress we saw at COP27.
I want to use my time to raise another issue of climate justice, one I have raised with the Minister many times as well as at meetings of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, namely, the Energy Charter Treaty. Why is Ireland remaining in the Energy Charter Treaty? The Minister is a member of the Green Party and he knows this dinosaur treaty puts governments and citizens on the hook for compensation for climate action that impacts the profits of fossil-based energy companies. The sort of action we need to be taking is not about protecting fossil fuel companies. I am also concerned this is an investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism, which means cases are heard behind closed doors and citizens have no access.
Judges who decide on cases have represented the same companies at previous tribunals. We have seen an exodus from the treaty. Belgium joined, as did France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Poland. They are all heading for the exit. For some unknown reason the Government is refusing to leave. It is even more astounding given the Supreme Court decision on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which has shown how unconstitutional the investor courts are. We know the Energy Charter Treaty was signed up to with no debate under a caretaker government and it has an even more insidious form of investor courts. The writing is on the wall and has been for some time.
Consider the words of the boss of the Energy Charter Treaty, Guy Lentz. He made the extraordinary admission that it would definitely be better for the climate if the treaty did not exist. What are the benefits of being part of the treaty? I have concerns about the fact we are not joining those countries that have left. Is it that the Minister wants to see renewable energy companies protected by investor-state dispute settlement? This would be contrary to Green Party policy on investor courts. We have seen the effect of regulatory chill from the Energy Charter Treaty. The climate Act is much heralded but there are significant gaps in it, such as the failure to ban new licences for oil and gas exploration. The Government granted a licence extension to Europa Oil and Gas for exploration off the Mayo coast. The newspaper reports are very interesting when we dig deeper into them. They state the reason the licence extensions were granted was that because of the threat of action being opened up. The cost of compensating those companies would be too high and we would risk potential litigation. This is because of the Energy Charter Treaty.
From a climate justice perspective the Energy Charter Treaty can see the writing on the wall for itself. It is like the fossil fuel industry. It is scrambling for its own self-preservation. It is trying to make predatory moves into the global south to try to get a number of African countries. Burundi, Eswatini and Mauritania are at the ratification process. Niger, Chad, Gambia, Nigeria and Senegal are all at accession stage. The Energy Charter Treaty is actively targeting Kenya as a member country. It is trying to get these global south countries that are oil and gas rich on the hook and trapped into a treaty that has 20-year zombie clauses if they try to leave. This is the main question I have for the Minister. Why, as a Minister of the Green Party, is he not joining the other large European countries and leaving the treaty? If there was consensus at EU level to leave the Energy Charter Treaty, we could negotiate an inter se agreement that would mean we could null and void the 20-year zombie clause. This cannot be done unless the EU works as a bloc. Why is Ireland not joining those countries and calling for an exit from the Energy Charter Treaty?
The Minister is very welcome to the House. It is great to have a debate on this issue. It is great to hear the Minister recount what happened, the details of which we will never see printed in the media. It is great to hear the work that was done by not just the Minister but also the background team, the civil servants, the lawyers and everyone working together to achieve what ultimately was not the full desired outcome but was a good outcome nonetheless.
As the Taoiseach has said, climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. It is fair to say that, in this country, young people are driving the agenda. They have brought all of us to the table to take this seriously. It is now a conversation happening in every household in the country. My parents are speaking about it. That was not happening five years ago. That is a marked change. My grandmother is speaking about it. She is in her 90s. That was not happening a few years ago. It is in every household now. It is fair to say it is on everyone's mind. We are all not only looking to what is happening at present, because we can see the loss of biodiversity in our own backyards, but also thinking about our children and our grandchildren. Certainly, I think about my son and the environment I want him to be able to live in. I want him to have access to clean air, clean water, good food and a sustainable way of living. We are all on the same page on this. It is worth acknowledging the work of the Green Party over many years. It was the only show in town for a very long time. The effects and impacts of the Green Party in government can be seen. It is good to see all of us collaborating and coalescing to achieve these goals.
There are several areas on which I want to focus. One is the retrofit programme. I met Minister recently on this issue. It is key to getting our homes more energy efficient. There are particular challenges with people accessing it because of the cost of retrofitting. Will the Minister do everything he can to make it as accessible as possible and reduce the financial burden on households that want to invest in retrofitting their homes, particularly older people who do not have the same access to finance or the ability to pay back over a longer term?
Another issue is farming. For a very long time farmers have been vilified in the climate agenda. They have really stepped up to the plate. They speak about it all of the time and they are doing everything they can to address the targets set for the sector. Other sectors also have targets that are equally challenging and I acknowledge this. I listened with interest to "CountryWide" on RTÉ radio on Saturday morning. There were interviews with farmers throughout the country. They were being asked how they felt about reducing their stock or their herds. The overwhelming response was that many of them, especially older farmers, were certainly interested in reducing their stock but did not want to leave the land altogether. They want to maintain some farming and some connection to the land. Interestingly, and it was quite stark, one farmer said he would be ashamed to see his land lie idle. We must take this on board. Many farmers want to play their part. Some are looking to reduce what they are doing. Most want to stay involved in farming in some way, and this is the approach to take.
Recently we met several of the companies working on offshore wind. The response I have received with regard to counties Mayo and Donegal is that the technology is not yet there and it is too rough and too windy in this part of the country. Yet for the first time we have seen a floating turbine off the coast of Aberdeen in Scotland. I imagine it is as windy and turbulent up there. Perhaps it is a little bit less windy. I do not know. In any event the message we get back from the industry is that the technology is there or thereabouts and certainly will be there in the coming years.
There is a lot of work to be done to plan and prepare so we can take the opportunities when they come. Recently I referred to companies that have left the west coast around Galway and Clare and went elsewhere because of the planning difficulties. Work must be done in the Department to prepare the ground for offshore wind throughout the country and not only in select parts. Let us do the preparation work for counties Mayo and Donegal now in anticipation that the technology is pretty much there. Even if it is not there right now, it certainly will be in the next five to ten years. It will take us the next decade to put the plans in place in any event and work with our local authorities.
The Minister understands why I want to raise the issue of the western rail corridor. We have particular challenges to meet in terms of emissions reductions. Huge reductions are required in the transport sector. A whole swathe of our country, an entire region in the west and north west, is never on any map. It never seems to be considered for public transport. We have a very limited rail service in some parts of the region. Some parts of the region have no rail service. Donegal does not have a train. In this day and age that is disgraceful. The limited service out of Mayo means it is not a viable option to use it for getting to work or medical appointments. It just does not have the frequency during the day to get people there and back as they need.
As the Minister knows, I have been working on the western rail corridor since 2014. Others have been there long before me. I was disappointed to see the Minister, who also has responsibility for transport, and the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton, did not see fit to put forward the western rail corridor for inclusion in this EU TEN-T map. It was removed by the Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar, when he was Minister with responsibility for transport. We have been campaigning ever since to put it back on the map. It would be an acknowledgement by the Government that it is part of our core transport network. We believe it should be. Not only would it be a signal from the Government that it is serious about reinstating the rail line, it would also give us access to a pot of funding at EU level to which we do not have access because we are not on the map.
I reiterate my call once again to take seriously the request from an entire region to give us a small rail link between Galway and Mayo. It would open up opportunities for work, travel, education and health services. We need to reimagine how we think of rail services in the region. Galway is the city in our region. It is the city that drives our region in the same way Dublin does for Kildare. I know our population is different but it will grow if we invest in the region. We need a proper commuter service between Mayo and Galway. This is the aspiration. Ultimately, we want to link Galway to Derry and link this side of our country. All roads do not have to lead to Dublin. All rail lines do not have to lead to Dublin.
Prior to discussing COP27, I echo the points made by Senator Chambers on the western rail corridor. The climate committee in our transport report was very clear that the form of cost-benefit analysis used to justify removing it did not reflect climate, the environment or all of the benefits that accrue.
Especially given the world's limited supplies of lithium, we cannot think that we will have electric vehicles everywhere. Public transport has a significant role to play. I would echo that call in relation to inclusion. It should never have been removed and it should be put back as an EU transport priority from the Irish side.
I thank the Minister for coming in today to discuss COP27. The Minister will be aware I have been at some of the Conferences of the Parties, COPs. I am conscious that loss and damage is an issue that developing countries have been raising for 30 years. We got the back and forth of frustrations but the frustration that had been felt by developing countries across the world over decades cannot be underestimated. If we had not come out of COP27 with a loss and damage fund, the damage to trust would have been irreparable. It is vital that a fund has been agreed.
I commend Ireland on its role in it. First, as I said, I commend the developing countries that have championed and pushed this and which have talked about climate justice and made sure climate - because this is a climate justice issue in terms of loss and damage - has been on the focus. I also pay special tribute to Denmark, which showed real leadership by being the first country to, crucially - this is what ultimately loss and damage has to be - acknowledge historic and moral responsibility in respect of climate change and then followed that through with the first loss and damage fund from an EU country. That showed proper acknowledgement and leadership. I commend parliamentarians I myself know, such as Rasmus Nordqvist, and the Danish Minister, Mr. Møller Mortensen, and others who led on that. That moral leadership, combined with the absolutely righteous demand from developing countries, is what forced loss and damage to be such a strong item on the agenda at this COP coming after the disappointments of Glasgow.
In regards to the EU position, to be honest the EU has avoided this for a long time. I understand that there are other countries in the past ten, 15 or 20 years which have also looked at great wealth in emissions. I understand those points in respect of that, especially those oil-producing countries. When we look at per capita emissions as well, Europe has a long history of responsibility in this area. It is appropriate that Ireland was an EU lead negotiator, not only because of the Minister's commitment and the commitment of the staff and diplomatic corps, which I acknowledge in that regard, but also because Ireland is a country that has a different colonial history to much of the rest of the EU. The relationship that many other EU countries have had with other countries around the world has been both one of taking the emissions space and one of taking the natural resources and, indeed, direct colonial extraction. It was highly appropriate. It is an example of how a country such as Ireland, with a different history but still a committed EU country, can be an important bridge between the EU and the world when we take that unique role. It is something we have also done in the area of peace-building and, indeed, through our neutrality.
There is an important piece there around the climate justice. As the Minister said, the next stage is the detail. In the detail, I urge that Ireland continue to play a leading role in ensuring that the detail is informed by climate justice principles. I welcome the fact that the most vulnerable are recognised but we are speaking neither in terms of a charitable frame nor a frame of those simply protecting the most vulnerable. It is around a language of effectively restorative justice or reparations. This is the frame. It is a justice issue and I hope we keep that. For example, the Minister mentioned innovative financing. I was relieved that the Minister stated that part of his innovative financing is looking to the corporate sector and those companies and sectors which have profited over a number of years. That is fair but let us make sure that we have nothing that constitutes further debt for the developing world anywhere near this fund and that this fund is a fund coming from those who have profited from and contributed most to the crisis in climate to those who have contributed least and there is not any sense of innovative financing being a cover for further debt or for further measures in that regard.
Of course, it is also crucial that the loss and damage fund would be separate. We still have our debt promised and pledged many years ago. It is $100 billion per year that the developed world was meant to be paying. We are not reaching Ireland's share currently. The projection now is €225 million a year by 2025 but the fair share for Ireland would be €545 million per year. Ireland still is neither contributing its fair share on emissions reduction nor contributing its fair share in respect of the payment of the $100 billion already owed. Maybe we can step up on that and build on the leadership in loss and damage in respect of that.
I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the declaration on children, youth and climate action which was being discussed at the COP. I asked officials from the Department whether Ireland would be signing and, indeed, advocating for that declaration.
Building on the point made by the Prime Minister of Barbados, Ms Mia Mottley, as the Minister mentioned, in terms of financing, there are innovative pieces around now looking at the new tax laws that are being discussed at UN level and, indeed, leaving the Energy Charter Treaty in order that we do not create a noose around the neck of developing countries which want to change their energy policies by allowing them to be pushed into this cul de sac and pushed into investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS. Surely it is time for Ireland to step away from that. That is part of changing the finance piece.
I welcome the proposal on private jets that the Minister mentioned. That is interesting, but maybe let us also look at the €600 million in jet kerosene subsidies that we have at present. Surely we should reduce that.
I will be brief in my contribution.
First, I congratulate the Minister. Senator Dooley made the point about the Minister's refreshing contribution. It was brilliant. The Minister, in his speech this morning here without a note, spoke in a simple way. I hope the Houses of the Oireachtas will take what the Minister said and replay it widely to the students and, as Senator Chambers said, to older people. That speech today, I believe, will bring people on a further journey because it is about the conviction the Minister has. It is about the sincerity but also about how we can get there and challenging us in terms of the social justice element or in the context of justice in countries, such as Pakistan or the island nations, which are suffering.
Equally, if we look at our own city of Cork, where we have significant flooding issues, it is about convincing people of the need to change the model of living in the context of our plans for the city. I spoke yesterday, on the Finance Bill, about Cork city. Cities are a major source of carbon emissions. I hope before the Minister leaves office - I hope he does not leave office for a long time - that we get that BusConnects and Cork light rail project over the line because that would be a transformative piece around the future of Cork.
When we talk about global temperatures, today we are talking about a big freeze in our country. This morning is like an autumn morning and yet in parts of the country there is freezing fog, there is frost, and there are people in fear of what will happen tonight and tomorrow. What the Minister has done this morning here is important.
The other point that is equally important is what Senator McGahon said about the issue of renewables. We have a significant opportunity to make our country that place to be. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Enda Kenny, used to call Ireland, the best small country in the world in which to do business, but we can do the same here in the renewable energy industries space. The Finance Bill yesterday did things for digital filming and gaming and we can do the same here.
Today, a report has been published as part of Cork's inclusion in the World Economic Forum's Net Zero Carbon Cities initiative, which shows that public transport, in terms of carbon emissions, contributes 32% and households and the lived environment contributes 27%.
That goes back to my fundamental point about how we can collectively change the model of living. If we do not do it, we are in big trouble. It is not about Pakistan or the island nations or faraway places. It is right here in our own country. Part of what we have to do is take a collaborate approach with local authorities. We cannot put everything on the local authorities but the Government must lead. The Government's next line is the local authority. The Minister has been driving the issue of retrofitting. I made the point yesterday in the debate on the Finance Bill. In parts of Cork, where I live, the cost of retrofitting is prohibitive for the people living in the many old houses. We should change the living city initiative to include older properties in regard to first-time buyers. Significant changes have been made on the grant and the application process but it is still somewhat burdensome. It is taxing for people. Can that we looked at in the context of this debate? In his contribution the Minister has challenged us. The key message we take away from him today is that if we do nothing or do not play our part then we are all guilty.
To return to the point I made at the outset, in Cork we have a huge opportunity. The Minister has been a great proponent of BusConnects. It disappoints me to see public representatives denigrating the work being done, almost saying it should be scrapped. We have issues in the first iteration of the plan around the loss of land and discommoding people. To be fair to the NTA, it has engaged and continues to do so.
On aviation, I am sorry to have missed the Minister in the transport committee yesterday, I know there is some back-and-forth with different airlines. The International Air Transport Association, IATA, had a meeting yesterday. We are an island nation. Connectivity is critical to us. As a consequence, we need a debate about aviation and how we cannot penalise ourselves further in respect of the taxation model that could become part of our aviation sector. We are dependent on aviation for industry, economics, culture, tourism and for getting on and off the island.
I welcome the Minister and commend him on his leadership in this area. He challenges us all at times in regard to the importance of our environment. In that regard, I join my colleagues and say again that the COP27 talks were a success. People question whether they were successful but when you get most of the world's nations coming together, meeting, discussing and acknowledging that we have a huge challenge on our hands in regard to the environment, that is success because at least people are recognising that there is a problem. It important also to put on the record that in the budget just gone by, we have moved forward a good deal in terms of anaerobic digestion use among the farming community, where €12 million has now been committed over the coming three years to deal with this issue. Farmers want to buy into this and play their part. In regard to solar panels, not a week passes when I do not get calls, mostly from farming people keen to progress with solar panels. That is now beginning to happen. The clear point is that once they are engaged with and the initiatives are in place, farmers will make a huge contribution in this country to climate action. That is evident. Reflecting on some of the old farming schemes about tidying up the farm with proper fencing, farmers adopted those schemes and were willing to work to make the changes.
I join with my colleague about the rail links in this country. I agree that it is a disgrace. Donegal for example has no rail link to it. Successive governments have to be blamed for their lack of interest in rail. In times gone by, we had railways up into Cavan, from Dromod into my part of the country on the Roscommon-Leitrim border. All those rail links and tracks were there. I back Senator Chambers’s comments in regard to the western corridor. We should actually looking throughout the country to see where we can develop spurs of rail tracks. I understand we may have to purchase land and there is the whole system of planning that has to be gone through. However where it is simple to do it we should put short rail spurs into place and link those spurs into other areas, particularly where we have a high level of tourism. My own town has Strokestown House to which 60,000 or 70,000 people come to see the National Famine Museum every year. We are fortunate at the moment because Bus Éireann provides a good bus service along the N5 national primary route. However, if we want to remove cars or certainly not let car use expand, then in rural areas particularly we have to be innovative and radical and look at how we can put short spurs in place linking up rail from one area to another. That is important.
The Minister is sometimes misrepresented but he often says that all he wants farmers to do is to have a proper income and a proper standard of living while looking after the environment. We need to bring people with us. I have just referred to the unfortunate situation in my part of the country on Lough Funshinagh where a challenge was taken by an environmental group about work that was being done there. The law is the law and the law has decided, so we cannot proceed as we were with that. However we need to talk to those people. Around that area in County Roscommon, that flooding has destroyed the flora, the fauna, the bird life and the wildlife. I invite the Minister to go there himself, I will bring him there, to see the damage done. The fact is that we now cannot proceed with that pipe, which was only going to take away the excess water; nobody wanted to drain all the water away from that turlough. The fact that we cannot do that now is doing enormous damage to the environment there, aside from the farmers, their land and houses that have been destroyed. That was an issue we should have been able to solve. I am only making the point that if we want to make real progress in such areas where we come up with issues like this, we must find a way of working with the people. I have been involved in local politics for a long time and national politics for less time and I can say one thing about Irish people, which is that 90% of the people will sit down, negotiate and listen to reason. Where we have problems in communities, we need to be very careful while protecting our environment. We must acknowledge that. It is so important now to protect the environment. We must also look at areas like the Lough Funshinagh issue where the damage that has now been done by that excess water is extraordinary, not only to the farmland and the houses but to the environment. I know a bit about this from my college days and the damage that can do. That is a pity. That aspect has been completely lost in the whole argument about Lough Funshinagh. Today, however, we are looking at the overall situation. I commend the Minister on what he is doing and will work with him. From a rural Ireland perspective, the vast majority of farmers with whom I deal want to co-operate and do the right thing. They acknowledge that the protection of the environment is most important.
I thank the Minister for coming in. It is correct that while I listen to contributions from my colleagues, they are talking about local action. The Minister is passionate about that also. Historic action was taken at COP27 on the negotiation about loss and damage. I could spend my six minutes talking about that. The Minister himself and the public know that Ireland, represented by the Minister, was a part of moving forward on loss and damage for the very poorest nations in the world. We need to remember that.
It was not just because of our history and the fact we were not colonial but rather it was because of the Minister's negotiation skills being recognised at European level. That needs to be recognised at home. We need to compensate the poorest nations and take action at home. I sometimes worry that people do not realise that action will make their lives better. There will also be a transition, which will be a little bit of a challenge for us here in Ireland.
This week, as happened last week and will happen next week, people from the media will come before the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. This is almost the most important part of the work we are doing on the committee. It has done important work around getting the climate Act agreed on a cross-party basis. Communication with people is critical because people know climate change is a reality. I do not think we are where we were five or ten years ago, when we would turn on the radio and nobody would mention climate or there would be some kind of equivalence between climate change experts and deniers. We are not in that position any more, but across the country people are not admitting what action needs to be taken in their local communities.
Senator Murphy spoke about the action that needs to be taken in his community, and I will talk about the action that needs to be taken in the west of Ireland. People need to see and feel it on the ground. The western rail corridor is very much part of that. It is not just about whether it makes economic sense, which it does. It is also about people in the west of Ireland needing to feel that action is being taken so that they can be part of that.
Small pieces of infrastructure can be provided, such as the Athenry to Oranmore greenway. People need to get onto that cycleway and feel what it is like to cycle around their local community, and not what it is like to cycle around Copenhagen which I did last weekend. People need to feel what it is like to cycle around Galway, Mayo, Clare and wherever else, experience it and get on board with that change.
I spoke to some of my colleagues over the past week about how much we enjoy cycling and walking. We also spoke about the fact that when we were kids we never got into a car to get school. We always got onto a bike or walked 2 km or 3 km - in my case, I travelled 2 km to school. We now feel like we are a modern society and no child should have to go out in the rain any more, and can instead get into a comfortable vehicle to get to school. We need a complete shift. We need to decide that when it is raining outside children can put on their jackets and walk or cycle to school. They will feel better after doing so.
People want to do things like this but I am not sure they are hearing around them what change actually means. They are not hearing this on radio or television stations or hearing their friends talking about it. We have policies, legislation and all of the funding is in place and we now need transition on the grounds so people can feel it.
I am not necessarily appealing to the Minister, but rather to everybody else who is listening in local authorities and local communities to be a part of that transition. Corporations need to pay, but we need to take action. We need to tell people if there is a bus, they should take it and if there is a cycle lane or a bike outside the house to jump on it and perhaps be ten minutes later than they would have been had they travelled by car. Is that so bad? They will feel better when they arrive.
I am going to doors quite a lot to see what people are thinking and feeling. People are predominantly positive. However, I met somebody who told me if they travel by bus from Oranmore into the city, it takes ten minutes longer than travelling by car. Oranmore is quite a distance from the city and the person is quite correct that it takes a little bit longer to get there. We could cut ten minutes from the journey if the bus route did not go through the hospital each time. A bit of creative thinking could ensure every second bus does not have to go through the hospital and instead travels straight into the city. A few more people would use such a service.
We need councillors to bite the bullet and take back our parking spaces. We also need everybody to feel they are going to hop on a bike and not get into a car. It does not mean that people do not have cars but rather, it means that one day people choose to hop on a bike rather than get in a car.
Before I call on the Minister, I thank everybody for participating in this important debate. Mary Robinson, at the launch of Seanad 100, set a challenge for the Seanad to take a leading role in regard to climate action justice. I thank members of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action, including Senator O'Reilly and other Senators, who have used the Seanad Chamber. We have opened our doors to the issue. We have brought members of Foróige, young people from Comhairle na nÓg and other organisation to discuss the issue. As Senator Chambers pointed out, we have made it an everyday topic. It is being discussed more and more. It needs to be an everyday topic because every day we are running out of time.
I thank Senators for their contributions. Many points were made. I thought about Senator Chambers's granny and every granny. Senator Murphy spoke about farmers in Roscommon. This is now a matter for everyone. The vast majority of Irish people want to play their part.
We are all worried about getting to the end of the week rather than what might happen at the end of the world, but people are increasingly aware that this is an existential threat, as was said at the start. As Senator O'Reilly said, they want to play their part. We will have plenty of opportunities over the next few years because change is coming. Sinn Féin is always talking about change being the big narrative in Irish politics at the moment. The scale of change we need in order to deal with climate change is beyond compare.
We need change for the better, and for a better and more ecological and socially just system We also want more public transport, more active travel and to pay farmers and save them money because they will not be using as much fertiliser. We can do simple things like that. As Senator Chambers said, there will be lower herds numbers but farming will not stop. We need farmers to be at the centre of this. They are the custodians of our land.
It was good to go to COP and look at the big picture internationally, but we now need to bring it back home. We will do that with the next iteration of the climate action plan, which will go to Government in the near future. Implementing that will bring change aplenty for the better.
I thank everybody for their contributions.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 10.08 a.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 10.30 a.m.
Sitting suspended at 10.08 a.m. and resumed at 10.30 a.m.