Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 15 Nov 1991

Vol. 412 No. 8

Supplementary Estimates, 1991. - Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer: Motion

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications (Mr. Lyons)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, agreed at London on 29th June, 1990, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 30th September, 1991."

It is now some three years since the Dáil last debated the major issue of the ozone layer depletion. The perception of this global environmental problem has become much more urgent in the meantime, and I am proposing this motion to seek the Dáil's approval for Ireland's participation in the intensified efforts now to be joined to control offending substances. I welcome today's debate also for the opportunity which it gives me to review the measures being adopted both at home and internationally to tackle this pressing problem.

Concern about depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer is of quite recent origin. A paper in 1974 by two American scientists, Rowland and Molina, postulated on a theoretical basis the likely connection between certain chlorine and bromine emissions and damage to the upper ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons (the so-called CFCs) and halons are potent sources of these chlorine and bromine emissions respectively. While these chemicals are stable at ground level, they release chlorine or bromine atoms when exposed to ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere. These atoms break down the ozone (O3) molecule in the upper ozone layer and change it into ordinary oxygen (O2)

Use of CFCs, of course, had greatly increased since the early 1970s. They were adopted for use as cooling agents in fridges and air conditioning systems, as propellants in aerosol cans, as solvents in the electronics industry and in other activities, and to blow foam for furniture, packaging and insulation. Halons are used mainly in fire extinguishers.

The theory of Rowland and Molina soon found empirical verification with the researches of scientists into the Antarctic stratosphere. The so-called hole which was identified in the Antarctic ozone layer confirmed the fear that breakdown of this layer might be occurring. The implications of this discovery were profound. The ozone layer acts as a vital shield for the earth's eco-system, filtering and controlling the penetration of ultra-violet radiation. Excesses of this radiation threaten human and animal health, particularly in relation to skin cancers and eye diseases and, in addition, will lead to various forms of crop damage.

Scientists spoke until recently of a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer as big as the United States. Unfortunately that image has now been replaced by an even more alarming one: on the basis of recent NASA satellite measurements, the ozone hole over the Antarctic has increased to four times the size of the US. This strongly confirms the need for intensified action by the international community to tackle the problem.

The problem of the ozone layer depletion has impressed itself on public opinion throughout the world and consumer demand has been mobilised for ozone friendly products. Allied to legislative action by governments and voluntary agreements by industry, this has led to substantial cuts in the use of CFCs including the virtual elimination of their use in aerosols.

Today's debate concerns another important step in international efforts to protect the ozone layer. The Dáil is invited to approve the terms of an agreement which substantially strengthens the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the UN instrument for control of the production, consumption, import and export of ozone-depleting substances.

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was concluded in 1985 under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme; this was a framework convention and was intended to be complemented by more specific protocols. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was agreed in September 1987. That protocol introduced controls on the production, consumption, import and export of five CFCs and three halons implicated in ozone depletion. Each party to the protocol was required to ensure that its level of consumption of CFCs was halved by 1998 compared to the 1986 levels; consumption of halons was to be stabilised at 1986 levels by 1992.

The Montreal Protocol was a major step forward in international co-operation to limit air pollution. As well as dealing directly with ozone layer depletion, the protocol also makes a significant contribution to the global warming problem in which CFCs are implicated as one of the greenhouse gases. I will return briefly to this matter later.

The Montreal Protocol contained a requirement for its ongoing review. At the first meeting of the parties for this purpose in Helsinki in May 1989, scientists reported that, while there was no ozone hole over the Arctic comparable to the one which had emerged in Antarctica, the Arctic stratosphere had nonetheless been observed to be perturbed with significant amounts of active chlorine present. Therefore, there was potential for ozone loss in the region. Scientists also reported that even with a complete phase-out of CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals, it would be decades, or even centuries, before chlorine levels dropped to the level of the early 1970s because of the long atmosphere residence times of these substances.

Faced with this evidence, action had to be taken. Expert working parties were set up to consider what might be done. Their proposals formed the basis for adjusting and amending the Montreal Protocol when the parties met for the second time in London at the end of June 1990. The European Communities, under the Irish Presidency, played a leading role in ensuring the adoption of more stringent measures with earlier targets for phasing out consumption of ozone-depleting substances.

The adjustments and amendments agreed in London to the 1987 Montreal Protocol can be classified in three parts:

First, CFCs and halons already controlled by the 1987 protocol are to be subjected to an accelerated phase-out programme, so as to eliminate their production and consumption by the year 2000, with intermediate targets of a 50 per cent cut by 1995 and an 85 per cent cut by 1997.

Secondly, new substances were identified for control, namely other fully-halogenated CFCs, carbon tetrachloride which is used mainly to produce CFCs and methyl chloroform which is used as a solvent. A phase-out date for the production and consumption of these other CFCs and for carbon tetrachloride was also set for the year 2000, and for the year 2005 for methyl chloroform.

Thirdly, a financial mechanism was established to ensure the widest possible participation by countries in the protocol. This recognised the burden which compliance with the new provisions would place on developing countries. The London Amendment accordingly provides for arrangements relating to financial assistance and technical co-operation, including technology transfers, for developing countries. The mechanism is intended to meet all the agreed incremental costs to these countries of compliance with the protocol. Pending the formal establishment of the financial mechanism, an interim mechanism will operate in the period 1991-93.

The London Amendment is a valuable achievement and I commend it unreservedly to the House. I readily admit, however, that Ireland pressed for and would like to have seen earlier phase-out dates for the substances which were already being controlled by the Montreal Protocol. However, not all countries were able to agree to this. But in recognition of the threat to the ozone layer, the member states of the European Communities decided in March 1991 that CFCs and carbon tetrachloride should be phased out earlier within the EC: dates of 1 July 1997 were fixed for CFCs and 1 January 1998 for carbon tetrachloride, two and a half years and two years respectively ahead of the London deadlines.

The control provisions of the original and the amended Montreal Protocol are being implemented jointly by the EC member states. EC Regulation 594/91 contains detailed provisions for the progressive phase-out of ozone-depleting substances in the Community. The Regulation prohibits the importation into the EC from countries which are not a party to the Montreal Protocol of all controlled substances with effect from 1 January 1993; it establishes a quota system and licensing regime to restict imports from parties to the Montreal Protocol; exports of all controlled substances to non-parties are prohibited with effect from 1 January 1993; a management committee, representative of the Commission and the member states, overseas implementation of the Regulation; and producers, importers and exporters are required to report data on their activities to the Commission on a regular basis. All of this represents a firm and effective regime and joint Community implementation in this area has already proven successful.

The situation in Ireland is that none of the controlled substances is manufactured here and our overall use of them is relatively small: it is estimated that current usage of controlled CFCs and halons in Ireland is of the order of 2,500 tonnes per annum or 0.25 per cent of global production and consumption. This does not mean, of course, that Ireland should not be active in tackling this problem.

Ireland acceded to the Vienna Convention in September 1988 and ratified the Montreal Protocol the following December. The Environment Action Programme published in January 1990 promised that Ireland would play an active role in the international debate on ozone depletion. In August 1990 a document entitled Protecting the Ozone Layer was published by my Department; it outlines in non-scientific terms the problem of ozone depletion and action being taken to counter it. The document was widely distributed free of charge.

There is a danger, with efforts being concentrated on control of annual production and consumption, that insufficient attention will be paid to CFCs already in use. The Government, therefore, decided in their Environment Action Programme to make available to local authorities in 1990 the sum of approximately £50,000 for the provision of facilities to recover CFCs from domestic fridges and freezers. Recovered CFCs would then be recycled, or destroyed, abroad. The grants were taken up by 16 local authorities. A further £50,000 is available for 1991 and grants have been allocated to nine local authorities. Facilities are shared by some local authorities. The local authorities are publicising the existence of these CFC recovery plants to encourage people to avail of the facilities to ensure that CFCs are recovered from discarded fridges and freezers. Most local authorities operate the recovery facilities at tipheads and the grants have included provision of equipment and assistance towards construction of safe storage areas.

Direct contact was made also with the industry and significant suppliers and users of CFCs in Ireland were asked to develop individual company programmes to reduce and eliminate the use of these substances as quickly as possible. I am pleased to report that all of the companies expressed awareness of the requirements involved and responded in positive terms. I will continue to encourage the total phase-out of these substances in Ireland as rapidly as possible and without waiting for the international curbs on production to have full effect.

The Minister acknowledges again the big role played by consumers. Consumer demand led, for example, to the labelling of CFC free aerosols and indeed the early ending of CFC use in aerosols. The plethora of labelling on aerosols and other products has of course underlined the case for a well recognised and reliable labelling of environmentally friendly products. The EC Environment Council is currently considering a regulation for a Community-wide ECO label system. I expect that agreement will be reached on this proposal at the next meeting of Environment Ministers on 9 December. The Environmental Protection Agency Bill, 1990, which is currently before this House, requires the agency to set up an ECO label system in accordance with the EC regulation. I believe that an authoritative ECO label will greatly assist consumers in taking decisions in favour of the environment.

As might be expected, a major international research effort is under way to develop alternative substances to those being phased out under the terms of the Montreal Protocol. This research inevitably takes both time and money. An important part of the process is the assessment of the safety of CFC substitutes, particularly from the point of view of likely toxicity. I am pleased to note that last month the EC, United States, Japan and CFC industry representatives reached agreement on the testing procedures needed to be followed in the assessment of the replacement substances.

Very recent scientific evidence shows that the ozone layer is still a cause for concern. I have already mentioned the NASA finding about the increased size of the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer. Research by NASA and the World Meteorological Organisation Global Observing System also indicates that depletion of the ozone layer is accelerating at a higher rate than predicted and is spreading to non-polar regions. Such research will continue. The parties to the Montreal Protocol are continuing to assess the situation with a view to adopting further control measures at a meeting of the parties next year. The direct purpose of the Montreal Protocol is to halt the process of depletion of the ozone layer. However, as CFCs contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, the Montreal Protocol is an important instrument of climate change policy.

A separate intergovernmental convention on climate change is currently being negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and it is expected to be adopted at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The European Communities are participating actively in the negotiations in line with the declaration on the Environment adopted at the European Council in Dublin in June 1990. A joint Council of Energy and Environment Ministers is scheduled to take place on 10 December to develop the Community position on the basis of the already agreed principle of stabilising Community carbon dioxide emission at the 1990 level by the year 2000. Climate change strategies will also have to take account of the economic development and enviromental conditions of member states. At the UN level two further negotiating sessions are scheduled for December and February to finalise a draft convention for the Rio meeting.

As an aside, I should mention that the very different problems which arise from tropospheric or low-level ozone are not being ignored. This pollution results from the chemical reaction, in the presence of sunlight, of nitrogen oxides with volatile organic compounds. Vehicle emissions are a potent source of this kind of pollution, which has reached critical levels in, for example, Los Angeles and Athens, but not, thankfully, in Ireland. Measures to control vehicle emissions and volatile organic compounds are being intensified at international level and will be increasingly implemented during this decade.

I know the House will share my view of the importance of Ireland accepting the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The motion comes before us today because of the requirements of Article 29, sub-article 5.2 of the Constitution, under which the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge on public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann. A charge on public funds arises from the proposed financial mechanism I referred to earlier; the liability under the interim arrangements is likely to be of the order of £70,000 in 1991 and £93,000 in 1992 and 1993. Payments will be financed from the Environment Vote.

It is intended that the next EC Environment Council in December will decide on acceptance by the Community of the London Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The Community and member states plan to ratify this simultaneously. It is important that Ireland should go to the Council having completed the required procedures and be in a position to actively support ratification of this measure by all member states.

I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The motion deals with a very technical subject. Therefore, it is not likely to be a headline-grabbing one. Nonetheless it is a very important motion and deals with an issue which is of critical importance not just to Ireland and the EC but to the globe. Despite the fact that we have a Minister for the Environment and two Ministers of State I am greatly surprised that no Minister from the Department of the Environment could be found to come here today to move this very important motion. This does not show any great interest or priority in this issue on the part of the Government.

The Minister in his speech did not in any sense impart the menacing nature of the depletion of the ozone layer. He did not convey any idea which ordinary people could readily understand of the implications of the erosion of the ozone layer unless we take urgent action to stop that erosion. For instance, I understand, if action is not taken speedily, that within 30 to 40 years, and certainly within 60 years, the depletion of the ozone layer will have a catastrophic effect on the level of the seas around us. Those of us who live on an island have particular cause for concern in that respect.

The depletion of the ozone layer will form the basis of the complete annihilation of many parts of the earth's land surface unless action is taken. That is no exaggeration. Scientists predict that within 60 years at the outside the ice caps on both the North and South Poles will have so melted away and sea levels will have so increased that much of the earth's land mass will be submerged. I do not see any reference to this in the Minister's speech. Yet it is one of the most easily explained consequences of the depletion of the ozone layer as people readily understand it.

Action needs to be taken urgently. Unfortunately, the actions necessary will greatly retard the already slow economic development of much of the Third World. The steps which need to be taken will greatly prevent the Third World from getting above a certain level of economic development. Therefore, there has had to be a compromise both in the original Protocol at Montreal and the refinement of it at Helsinki. Because of the need to balance the catastrophic environmental implications with the economic imperatives of the Third World dates have been set which are much less urgent than what reality dictates. Of course, we in the First World have to have regard to the desperately urgent needs of the Third World.

I am not sure that in conceding a delay in the dates for the use of halons and CFCs we are taking a wise decision. I am not convinced that the compromise which is dictated by an understandable concern not to impede the economic development of the Third World is a wise one. I would like to see much earlier dates for phasing out these dangerous gases and substances. I know the European Community has agreed to phase out, within member states, uses of these substances before the due date under the terms of the London agreement. That is a good step but I still do not believe that the right balance is being struck as between the economic and the environmental. The balance is too much in favour of the economic and does not take into account fully the gravity of the environmental threat and the depletion of the ozone layer.

The EC, Japan, the US and Canada must act in a much more determined way to address the economic problems of the rest of the world. I do not see that sort of self-enlightened magnanimity in relation to the economic development of the rest of the world. It is the economic development outside the 25 richest countries of the world that is causing the greatest erosion of the environment whether it is the air, the waters or the forests. All these things arise from economic underdevelopment outside the 25 richest countries of the world, of which we are one.

Long-term economics, good sense and enlightened policy would dictate that the European Community together with the other 25 rich countries of the OECD come together and draw up a major economic plan for the rest of the world, otherwise the erosion of the environment will continue at a pace which is utterly unacceptable. I know that one of the fora for looking at global economic issues is the GATT talks. I would like to say in passing that the GATT discussions, even though they are basically economic, have profound potential implications for the world's environment. It seems to me that our Government and the other Governments of the EC should take a longer term perspective in relation to those current talks. It is in our long term interest, not only that the erosion of the environment is halted as quickly as possible, but that the Third World is assisted in reaching basic standards of economic development because, in due course when they have reached that stage, they will then do trade. That is the sort of enlightened view that was taken by the US after the victory of the Second World War in it's Marshall Plan. We need a new Marshall Plan for the Third World for economic reasons but particularly for environmental reasons. There is a great urgency about this. In this House the longest serving Deputy is Deputy Blaney who has been here in 43 years. It may well be that there are some Deputies here now who may be here for 43 years too. Even you Sir, might be here then.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not I, my Lord.

Mr. J. Mitchell

From what the Taoiseach said a few weeks ago he may be here. In 43 years' time if there is not a much more determined attack on the things that are undermining the global environment the situation could be dramatically disimproved. The world could be a very different place, a much worse place than it is today. In the political lifetime of even some of the younger Members of this House if something urgent is not done, both here and internationally, the effects on the environment could be enormous. Along with those effects there would be major health factors. The new Minister for the Environment, Deputy O'Hanlon, has spent four and a quarter years in the Department of Health and he knows the cost of health care. He would be more familiar than most with health factors and would know how much cheaper is prevention rather than cure.

The Department of the Environment published an excellent booklet last year on protecting the ozone layer. I suggest that booklet be reissued to draw the attention of the public to the health implications of the ongoing erosion of the ozone layer. That publication addresses the implications for health, agriculture, marine life and buildings if this erosion continues. We learned today from the Minister's speech that the erosion of the ozone layer is four times greater than was previously thought. The situation has become four times worse than when this booklet was published last year. The Antarctic hole in the ozone layer is now reckoned to be four times the size of the US. I do not know whether that means the risk is four times greater but certainly the threat is greater. The ultra-violet rays of the sun penetrating to humanity have four times more scope than we thought previously. This can do enormous damage to genetic material which can cause all sorts of long term problems with children being born with deformities etc. It can exacerbate cancer, especially skin cancers which are causing so many deaths. It greatly reduces the efficiency of the immune system, and we are all aware of how rapidly AIDS is escalating. That arises from a breakdown in the human immunity system. This increased risk can increase the incidence of blindness because it can affect the eyes and can accentuate cataracts etc.

Therefore, this is no unimportant boring Friday afternoon matter. It is a vitally important issue, one to which we need to alert people increasingly. We need to get more people on the side of the environment, to use discretion in the commodities they are prepared to buy and use and to be co-operative in disposing of those items which contribute to the erosion of the ozone layer. In that respect the step by some local authorities to provide a disposal facility for old fridges etc. that cause CFCs and halons to be injected into the atmosphere is a welcome development. Will the Minister let us know what further plans he has to extend this service to more local authorities than the nine presently providing the facility and what further plans he has to publicise it?

It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this subject and even more difficult to interest the public in it. We need global action in this area. If even a handful of countries do not take action and continue to use substances which will erode the ozone layer they can threaten the entire globe. It is not easy to get all countries to agree on global action but the GATT talks should facilitate that process. The process can be helped by the World Environment Conference to be held in Rio de Janeiro next year. I hope we will have an opportunity in advance of the Rio conference to debate in this House the implications of the conference, its potential and the contribution we are going to make to the conference.

We readily agree to this motion because it will facilitate a decision by the EC countries to act next month in relation to the Helsinki addition to the Montreal Protocol. At future meetings of the Environment Council of the EC the Minister should stress the urgency felt here with regard to more speedy action to prevent the depletion of the ozone layer.

Minister for the Environment (Dr. O'Hanlon)

Just before Deputy Gilmore contributes — I understand that Deputy Mitchell referred to my absence at the commencement of the debate — I regret that I was not here but, as Deputy Mitchell knows, the debate was to commence at 2.30 p.m. had the Estimates gone on that long. I am sure Deputy Mitchell will be interested to know that I was opening the new by-pass at Blanchardstown, a very important development for part of the Deputy's constituency as well as for the north-west of Ireland.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I readily accept the Minister's explanation. I, too, was told that the debate would commence at 2.30 p.m. but I was called in an hour earlier. I got an invitation to the opening of the Blanchardstown by-pass at 12.30 p.m. today, but it was received at 12.35 p.m.

Mr. Gilmore

I am surprised that Deputy Mitchell would not have realised that the Minister was opening the Blanchardstown by-pass. I can only assume that Deputy Mitchell's absence from that event and the fact that he did not realise that the Minister was there has something to do with the fact that a large part of Blanchardstown has been shifted into a new constituency and may no longer be of immediate interest to Deputy Mitchell.

I welcome the new Minister for the Environment and congratulate him on his appointment. The Minister is taking up office at a very difficult time in the Department. There is a serious housing crisis and local authorities are debating the Estimates, shortage of funds and so on. I do not propose to make the Minister's task in that respect any easier, but I am sure we will have plenty of opportunities to exchange views as the months go on.

I welcome the debate now taking place on the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer. I regret that it has taken almost a year and a half since the London conference at which the amendments to the Montreal conference were agreed, for this debate to take place here. There is now a fairly widespread understanding among the public generally that the ozone layer is being depleted and there is an understanding and awareness in connection with some of the substances which are contributing to that depletion. There is also general public awareness of the threat which the depletion of the ozone layer poses to the future of the globe and the more immediate threat which it poses to the health of people including our own citizens. It is well established that the depletion of the ozone layer is contributing to skin cancers. When one considers that about 30 per cent of the cancers detected here are skin cancers, it is something that has very direct relevance for the health and wellbeing of the people on this island, apart altogether from the threat it poses to the globe generally.

There is a mistaken view that the depletion of the ozone layer is confined to the Antarctic, to the hole that was detected in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. There is now considerable scientific evidence, and the Minister of State referred to some of it earlier, which was presented to the London conference, which shows that the extent of the depletion of the ozone layer is greater than had previously been understood and that it is far more extensive and not by any means confined to a relatively small area over the Antarctic. The Australian delegate at the London conference reported a 15 per cent ozone loss occurring over MacQuarie Island which is 55º south, over the last ten years. It is in a region which typically has high ozone levels. The region is outside the south polar vortex where the ozone hole forms, extending over a 30º mid latitude and 300º longitude range, about one-eight of the planet. The northern hemisphere has a similar region extending approximately across Britain and Ireland, Europe, the Soviet Union, the North Pacific Ocean, Canada and the Northern United States. Evidence was also presented by another scientist who found that in areas which were measured in Germany and in Switzerland there was a strong decrease in the ozone layer and that the decrease in those areas over 20 years is approximately 0.5 per cent per year, leading to 10 per cent reductions in lower stratospheric ozone levels after 1967. Observations from New Zealand show a strong decrease in the yearly average ozone column of 4º to 6º degrees over the last three years compared to the average from 1974 to 1983. This might be an indication that the special chemistry observed over Antarctica is occurring outside the polar vortex, leading to a more widespread ozone depletion of the southern hemisphere than previously. The problem relating to the ozone layer is not confined to the area around the Antarctic.

Deputy Mitchell in his contribution referred to a need to stimulate public interest in the problem of the depletion of the ozone layer. I do not think public interest needs to be stimulated in this area, because the public are well ahead of the politicians in their awareness of the problem of the ozone layer. One has only to walk around the corridors of this building today, for example, to find that some colleagues regard the idea of a debate on the depletion of the ozone layer as a matter of some mild amusement, a Friday afternoon filler in the Dáil's agenda, rather than a matter which is, and which the public regard as, extremely serious. The policy makers have been well behind public opinion, certainly behind scientific evidence and opinion, in relation to the ozone layer over the past 20 years. Indeed, if the policy makers had taken seriously the first indications and evidence presented about depletion in the ozone layer the degree of the problem might not now be as great.

As far back as the early seventies scientists warned that the ozone layer might be endangered. In 1974 scientists identified that CFCs might be a possible cause of the depletion. Some countries at that time banned CFCs, but it was not until almost a decade and a half later that the first Montreal Protocol was agreed, and that was only after British scientists had discovered the hole in the ozone layer in 1985.

It is now widely acknowledged that the 1987 Protocol was inadequate. The fact, for example, that these amendments — some of them are very significant — are to be made is proof of that. My worry now is that the amended protocol may not be adequate, and I feel that this country should be giving more of a lead in the international debate than it is doing.

Essentially, this Protocol is an international agreement for a phasing out of CFCs by the year 2000. That certainly is an improvement on the unlimited use of CFCs or the more conservative approach to the phasing out of CFCs contained in the 1987 Protocol. We have to bear in mind what that means. It means that for the next decade the world will continue to produce, in very large quantities, substances which we already know are depleting the ozone layer and which have already caused a depletion of the ozone layer to the extent of the evidence already produced.

There is an old saying that if one finds oneself in a hole the first thing one does is to stop digging. One thing we could apply to the ozone layer is that if we detect a hole in the ozone layer we should stop spraying at it. Unfortunately, the Protocol before us does not provide for that. It provides for a phasing out, a relatively slow phasing out, but it seems that that is not adequate. The inadequacy of the year 2000 deadline is highlighted by the number of countries who have declared voluntarily to phase out the use of CFCs completely by the year 1997.

It is also interesting to note that many countries, as the Minister of State said in his contribution, sought an earlier date to ban CFCs. It is interesting to note that the principal opposition to that ban at London came from the United States and Japan who have very significant industrial interests. They would seem to be putting the industrial and economic interests of their own States ahead of the international need to deal with this problem.

One matter not dealt with in the new Protocol is HCFCs, the substitute for CFCs. They do not appear to have been brought within the ambit of the Protocol. CFC substitutes, called HCFCs are 2 per cent to 10 per cent as ozone depleting as the bench mark CFC11 and are potent greenhouse gases contributing to global warming. A number of governments have, or soon will, take domestic action to curb use of these environmentally damaging substances. HCFCs have not been brought into the Montreal Protocol. European Community and Japanese opposition to controls on HCFCs are largely to blame for international inaction. Governments have sanctioned production of a new generation of ozone destroyers, giving the chemical industry carte blanche in legal terms to use these as it pleases. This is an area that now needs to be addressed.

Essentially the problem posed for the ozone layer by the production of CFCs and other substances which deplete the ozone layer is essentially one caused by the developed world. Almost 88 per cent of the use of ozone depleting substances is in the developed world.

In addressing the issue of the depletion of the ozone layer — and here I agree with Deputy Mitchell — we have to take account of the need to address the problem of underdevelopment in and the need to provide development aid for the Third World. A fund will be established under the amended Protocol to provide some assistance for the countries in the developing world to enable them approach development without the use of substances which deplete the ozone layer, but the amount of money provided is pathetic. The amount of money this State is committed to provide under that arrangement — £70,000 in 1991, £93,000 in 1992 and 1993 — would hardly buy a car for a former Government Minister much less make a serious contribution to a major international problem of this kind. The UNEP which has done a lot of work in this area is seriously underfunded and that needs to be addressed.

My final point relates to the absence of steps being taken in Ireland to address the problem. The amount of money provided under the environment action plan, £50,000 per annum in grants to local authorities, is completely inadequate. There is very little any local authority or group of local authorities can do with such a small sum. If the Government are serious about giving effect to the Montreal Protocol a greater sum of money should be provided in the Estimates and made available to local authorities to enable them provide safe methods of disposing of fridges and other commodities which use CFCs.

Mr. Quinn

First, I welcome the Minister to the House in his new position as Minister for the Environment. Deputy O'Hanlon's family, and my own, go back some time. It is in the nature of Irish society that one cannot move very far on this island without bumping into somebody who has not had a close relationship with one's family.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Is the Deputy related?

Mr. Quinn

I am very proud to claim relationship with Dr. O'Hanlon on a family basis. We have radically different political views but I do not think that should get in the way of the bonds of affection. I do not think for my part or, indeed, for his that they do. I wish him well in his new post.

It is appropriate that a medical doctor should assume responsibility for the Department of the Environment because the health implications for the human race, and for Irish people in particular, of the deterioration in the protection from the rays of the sun in the context of skin cancer are very serious. For this reason the advent of Deputy O'Hanlon at the Department of the Environment, given his political experience and medical expertise, is to be welcomed.

I am not going to go over the ground covered aleady by Deputy Mitchell, whom I listened to on the monitor, and by Deputy Gilmore but I put it to the Minister in relation to what can be done here at home, because what we are doing in effect is ratifying an international convention, that our biggest problem is in facilitating those people who have preenvironmentally conscious type fridges in their possession to dispose of them in time. There is no satisfactory system of disposing of these items. We are all aware of the politics which surround the provision of refuse tips and disposal sites but I earnestly request the Minister and his Department to communicate with the local authorities on how best this problem can be dealt with. There is little point in us bringing forward the date by which the production of CFCs must cease if the CFCs already produced can be discharged into the environment where they would have the same negative effect as new CFCs.

The slogan which has been adopted by a number of environmentally conscious groups is "Think globally and act locally". We are thinking globally but we must act locally. In particular we have to think specifically about our own local authority areas. Besides being Minister for the Environment in the broader sense Deputy O'Hanlon is also responsible for local government and the local authorities. He has a precise and concise role in that area. One has to reinforce the concerns expressed by Deputy Gilmore who indicated that it is a serious matter and that if the ozone layer continues to deplete, the life expectancy of Irish people, because of increased risk to skin cancer, will be reduced below the level of, dare I say it, a Cheann Comhairle, of that of your own generation.

The second point I would like to make, and again I concur with Deputy Gilmore, is that the Irish public are way ahead of the political decision makers in this regard. Young people in particular, including members of my own family, have expressed to me their concerns about the ozone layer because they think globally on these maters. All the measures being proposed, such as an ecolabelling system, all of which I support, cannot come soon enough. I would encourage the Minister, his staff and the environmental agencies associated with the Department of the Environment to bring these measures forward. They will have to be brought forward, however, in the context of the single market, on a European wide basis. There would be little point in bringing them forward in the Republic of Ireland only.

While over 80 per cent of CFCs are used in the developed world the Third World does have its problems. There is a real danger that products containing a high level of CFCs which are no longer acceptable for sale on the retail markets in the developed world because of their damaging effect on the environment will be dumped on Third World markets. I am not sure what the Minister for the Environment can do in this respect but it is a matter which should be noted. The environmental protection elements of our bilateral aid programmes, in addition to our multilateral aid programmes, for a small number of countries should include a refrence to the problems associated with CFCs.

Most people are of the view that climatic changes, such as those that occurred in the Ice Age, take place over a long period of time and therefore can never affect us. They are of the view that the climatic changes of the scale we are talking about will take so long to occur that it does not really matter. History tells a different story. For example, one can visit the ruins of cities that are now in the middle of deserts, such as the classic Roman city of Magnus Leptis which is located 40 to 60 kilometres south west of Tripoli in Libya. Tripoli was the home town of the Emperor Hadrian who built the famous wall dividing Scotland and England. The north coast of Africa, most of which is now desert, was verdant up to about 1200 AD. However, because of climatic changes and changes in agricultural practices, in particular the introduction of the goat which cropped all the grass, the top layer of the soil covering large portions of that part of the world, which had been the bread basket of the Roman Empire, was irrevocably altered. That is the point I am making: an area which for the previous 2,000 to 3,000 years had been as verdant and which had a temperate climate, similar to the climate on the other side of the Mediterranean, was converted in the space of about 200 years into desert. Once the process of desertification takes place it cannot be reversed. The same could happen with the ozone layer.

We can go back in time in determining what the future may hold for us. One can walk through the streets of Magnus Leptis and see the baths and the elaborate system, unique at the time, which the Romans constructed in a city which is estimated to have had a population of between 120,000 and 150,000 which would make it similar in size to the city of Cork. In other words, it was a very big urban settlement and sufficiently sophisticated politically to produce an emperor of the Roman Empire but it is now desert. Therefore, climatic changes are not new and the timeframe involved is comparatively short. I support the views expressed by Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Gilmore that we have to try to convey this message to the decision makers because, quite frankly, the public, in particular our young people, have already accepted the message. It is for that reason that I welcome the Minister's appointment because he will bring to the Department a dimension which was absent in the past.

It comes down to the question of getting local authorities to communicate with the people in their areas in the matter of providing special systems of collection for the offending articles which contain CFCs and systems of disposal which are both safe and properly managed. While this may not amount to much globally it is the only relevant course of action that is open to us locally. Now that the dust has settled on the political horizon——

Mr. J. Mitchell

Or so one would hope.

Mr. Quinn

——may I ask the Minister if he will notify the various local authorities of their rate support grant as soon as possible? If Dublin Corporation are given the money that we know the Minister will give us, he is a generous man at heart, we will be able to deal with the problem at local level and if he gives us the level of rate support grant we need and which has been requested, I can assure him on behalf of the civic alliance and even of the entire city council — I am sure Deputy Mitchell will agree with me — that we will make a special effort in Dublin city to deal with the problem of securely disposing of offending articles which contain CFCs, such as fridges.

An Ceann Comhairle

That was quite a deviation but done in such a complimentary manner the Chair could not find fault with it.

Mr. Garland

I should like to add my good wishes to the new Minister. As previous speakers mentioned it is interesting that he comes from the Health portfolio and, being a medical doctor, I am sure he will have a particular interest in this area because it impinges so much on people's health. I hope that, in his new capacity, he will be preaching the necessity to take great care with sunbathing which causes a lot of skin cancer.

This is a very pleasant debate, we are all — including the Minister — on the side of the angels and I hope it will make up for some of the rancour, bitterness and personalised attacks made in this House over the last couple of days. I hope we have seen the last of that. Every few weeks in newspapers and journals there are new reports about the thinning of the ozone layer. The latest problem, as the Minister is probably aware, emanates from southern Chile, where the animal kingdom are seriously affected; there are blind salmon and rabbits with bulging eyes. Apart from the effect this will have on us, as hunters and consumers of wild creatures, we must also have sympathy for them as they have a right to be on this planet. They are entitled to live their lives without these terrible diseases being inflicted on them which are caused directly by us. They do not have any control over the management of this planet; the planet is managed by us and I am sure all Members in the House agree that we have made a woeful mess of it. The result impinges on us and on the animals and plants who share the earth with us. We must always remember that.

The Minister in his comprehensive speech — and previous speakers — made a number of points and I will not go over them again. I commend to the Minister the sentiments expressed by Deputy Quinn in the latter part of his speech. Now that our party have councillors in the city and Dublin county councils I am getting constant complaints about money shortages, particularly in this area, and if the Minister could be more generous it would go a long way. It is very important, for instance, that refrigerators are disposed of in a proper fashion. That would cost very little but, up to now, it has not been done although I know that Dublin County Council are making progress in that area.

When we examine some of the products which cause the ozone depletion, the first thing we must ask is whether we need them. The propellants in aerosol cans are a major contributory factor in the ozone layer depletion. I know that progress has been made using environmentally friendly substitutes but one could ask an even more fundamental question: do we really need the contents of these aerosol cans? I suggest that, in many cases, they are not necessary or even desirable. We should look at this area.

Towards the end of his speech the Minister referred to the problem of car emissions. I know that the car is a necessary evil — and it is undoubtedly an evil — but we would all find it very hard to do without one. I confess that I would find it very hard to do without a car. Have we done enough in this area? I do not think that the control of motor vehicle emissions, useful as it is, is any substitute for the development of an electric car, which has been hindered by the oil industry for a number of years. We should also have improved public transport which would enable us to get round much more easily. This is the kind of thinking we need to get away from the narrow outlook, to broaden our horizons and to examine our lifestyles and the way we do business. There are all sorts of ways in which we could improve our environment, not just in this area, but in many others.

As Deputy Quinn said, young people are way ahead of us in many cases, they are doing things voluntarily and we should encourage this by providing more information to enable consumers to make a better choice because, inevitably, these conventions move very slowly and must be ratified by many different countries. While we are on the subject of ratification it is very pleasing that we are, for once, within the deadline. Many times in this House I have seen conventions ratified ten or fifteen years after they were originally signed. As the Minister probably knows, it is a requirement of the amendment to the Montreal Convention that, before it comes into effect, at least 20 signatories shall have ratified it. Perhaps the Minister will say whether 20 countries have in fact ratified the convention and that it will come into effect on 1 January 1992. If not, I ask the Minister to take whatever steps he can to make representations to a sufficiently large number of countries to have it ratified. We have an obligation here beyond merely ratifying the convention, we must see that it is ratified.

I should like to refer to industry and some of the multinational companies. It appears that some of them, who have been responsible for so much of the degradation of our planet are now at last waking up to their responsibilities, which is very good news. I have it on very good authority that the IBM Corporation in America some months ago issued a circular to their branches and subsidiary companies throughout the world saying that CFCs will be eliminated from their products in two years' time. They added that the companies concerned were not to say that it could not be done or that it would cost too much, they were told just to get on with it and to do it. If all the large international corporations did this it would be the right approach because substitutes can be found for these things. It is a cop-out to say that they cost too much and that it will take five, ten or 15 years to bring them into use. It is amazing what we can do if we are put to it. I commend the example of IBM to other companies and there may well be many others; I am just using them as an example. I would be delighted to hear from other companies who are doing this, they should get up on their soap box and tell us about it because the more companies who do it the more it encourages others to do it.

Obviously the Green Party commend this convention to the House. We are all agreed that the depletion of the ozone layer is probably one of the most serious environmental crises to confront the planet. While I welcome this amended protocol progress to date has been painfully slow. In order to effect the necessary reductions and the eventual elimination of CFCs it is necessary to have cohesve international action, hence the need for these types of protocols.

Useful as this amendment is, it by no means goes far enough. There are serious problems relating to this protocol. If we look at the compliance procedures, for example, they are extremely weak. At the convention, delegates from a number of countries rejected punitive measures in favour of setting out procedures to discuss problems which might arise. A number of countries regard the procedures as inadequate. Norway and the United States were instrumental in ensuring that the non-compliance working group will meet further in an attempt to improve on this mechanism. This is an area we certainly need to look into. The countries involved are Trinidad and Tobago, Hungary, Uganda, Norway and Japan.

It must be said again that this revised protocol will not protect us from the risk of severe ozone depletion and the catastrophic environmental damage this would bring about. The protocol allows parties to take more stringent measures and controls legally required by the protocol itself, but all too few countries have legislated to take advantage of the provisions of Article 2.11. A few nations have blazed trails for others to follow by setting national goals to eliminate these substances on a sector by sector basis, demonstrating that tougher targets can and should be pursued. At the same time their industries often get ahead in new technology.

The stark reality is that if one or two industrialised countries can force the pace there is no excuse for others to hang back. It is the political will which is lacking, not the technical means to protect the ozone layer. Non-Government organisations will focus on appropriate national action to create the conditions for a more stringent agreement to see that the protocol is revised again. Once again I commend this amendment to the House.

Minister for the Environment (Dr. O'Hanlon)

First I would like to thank Deputies Mitchell, Quinn, Gilmore and Garland for their good wishes on my appointment to the Department of the Environment. I look forward very much to working with them in a constructive way for the benefit of the people we represent. It is interesting that comments were made about my transfer from the Department of Health to the Department of the Environment. Yesterday when I was speaking about my transfer I referred to the fact, as I did often in the Department of Health, that environmental policies contribute as much to the maintenance and improvement of health as do the health professionals. I referred specifically to the advent of water and sanitary services as being a major contributor worldwide, where these services have been developed, to the improvement of the health of the people of so many nations. It is also important that we do not forget that the Department of Health were part of the former Department of Local Government and Public Health until 1947.

We have had a very constructive debate on this motion and, again, I thank Deputies for that. They have rightly stressed the global nature of many of the environmental problems facing us and the corresponding need for coherent global solutions. This is a new and important orientation of international environmental efforts. Until the mideighties the major pre-occupation of international environmental activity was with transboundary or regional problems: management of shared marine areas or river catchments, transboundary transport of air pollutants and other regionally related issues tended to be the focus of attention.

The publication in 1987 of the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the so-called Brundtland report, was a watershed for a new more global approach to environmental management. Entitled "Our Common Future", the report stresses the interdependence and commonality of the world's environmental problems. It advanced the concept of sustainable development as the key to a more rational and viable management of our natural resources.

Deputy Mitchell spoke about the dangers of a sea level rise to an island country such as Ireland. This is an urgent and threatening problem, but it does not directly arise from the phenomenon of ozone layer depletion. It is related rather to the question of climate change in which, as the Minister of State has said, CFCs play a significant but not an exclusive part. CFCs are one of the major man-made contributions to the problem of global warming. Their impact as a greenhouse gas is highly concentrated and persistent, and they represent 20 per cent of man-made greenhouse emissions. Elimination of CFCs therefore has two beneficial environmental impacts; it eases pressure on ozone layer depletion and on the increase in greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide emissions arising from the combustion of fossil fuels are of course the prime source of greenhouse gases. The strategy for dealing with global warming must address centrally the question of carbon dioxide control. Measures to this end are being urgently debated at European Community level at present against the background of agreement in principle already reached by Environment and Energy Ministers to stabilise Community carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Deputy Mitchell referred to the Department's booklet on protecting the ozone layer. I thank him for his compliments about the booklet and I assure him that copies of it are still available from ENFO, the environmental information service, and also directly from the Department. Deputy Mitchell also referred, as did Deputies Gilmore and Quinn, to the need to involve developing countries in global environmental strategies. The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development has been mandated to translate the principles of the Brundtland report into a set of global conventions and action programmes for the protection of the environment. UNCED hope to conclude in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 an earth chapter setting out fundamental legal principles for environmental protection, specific conventions on biodiversity and on climate change and a so-called Agenda 21 which will set out a series of practical action programmes for the management of different natural resources. The need to develop special measures to enable the developing world to participate in all of these elements will be a central theme of the UNCED process.

I would like to remind Deputies that the Irish Government will be making a special contribution to the UNCED preparatory process by hosting a major UN conference on water and the environment in Dublin in February 1992. The conclusions of this conference will feed directly into the Agenda 21 process.

Deputies referred to the need to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer and asked what we are doing in this country in that regard. As was explained in the opening contribution, the international scientific panel assisting the review of the Montreal Protocol has produced evidence of a worsening situation across most of the globe as regards ozone layer depletion. Deputies referred to that also. These findings are expected to lead to proposals for an even more accelerated phasing out of ozone-depleting chemicals in the further review of the Montreal Protocol next year. This should be feasible within the industrialised countries at least, and Ireland would support such a proposal. The major world producers of CFCs have also indicated that an earlier phase out may be possible.

I should also stress to the House that the European Community has already set more advanced phase-out targets for the main CFCs and for carbon tetrachloride than the Montreal Protocol has set. I should clarify also that HCFCs are covered by the original Monteal Protocol of 1987 and not by this amendment. Of course, Ireland is contributing to the protocol's financial mechanism in accordance with the established UN rate of contributions for such funds.

Deputy Mitchell referred to the nine local authorities who are grant-aided by the Department. Sixteen local authorities were grant-aided initially and an additional nine were grant-aided in the current year, making a total of 25 who are grant-aided out of the 32 local authorities. I hope the remaining local authorities will be grant-aided in the near future.

Some Deputies referred to the need for a number of signatures to the amendment to bring it into effect. I understand that 11 signatures are necessary — Deputy Garland thought 20 signatures were necessary — and four countries have already ratified this amendment. When the European Community as a block ratify it, this will bring the number of signatures up to 16 and the amendment will come into operation in the countries that have ratified it. I agree with Deputies that as many countries as possible should ratify the amendment, which has an important bearing on protecting the atmosphere.

I wish to thank the Deputies for their very constructive and interesting contributions. I look forward to working with them in a whole range of areas for which my Department have responsibility.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 3.5 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 November 1991.