I move amendment No. 31:
In page 6, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(a) this shall include agreed targets of reductions in CO2 emissions through 2050,”.
The Bill needs to set targets rather than aspirations. Otherwise there is no incentive to design a plan that will bring about any kind of meaningful reductions. Why were other amendments tabled by me and other Opposition Deputies that would incorporate and embody targets within the agreed timeframe not accepted? When discussing the need for this Bill and in its report on what it should contain, the all-party committee was clear in stating that the State needs to have targeted reductions in line with the international agreements to which it has signed up. The absence of such targets means the Bill lacks any real powers to ensure any meaningful steps are taken to address the issues involved in bringing about a reduction in CO2 emissions across the economy.
Will the Minister accept this amendment? I deliberately put this amendment in at the start of this section to ensure the national mitigation plan would be put up in big lights and that there would be agreed targets on reductions in CO2 emissions right through to 2050. We need to deal with this problem on an incremental basis, each year and every five years, right through to 2050. Our children will be adults by then. They may have children of their own. Our grandchildren may be in communities and workplaces throughout the State and they will be the ones dealing with the catastrophe of a carbon cliff. The State will also be burdened with the need to purchase carbon credits, which are not cheap. Apart from the environmental damage, this will place a financial burden on the State.
I have heard people on the Government's side of the House criticising Fianna Fáil Governments and Governments of other hues for short-termism in the past. This is an opportunity to set out a plan for the next 30 years, which is a relatively short period of time. Any one of us who remembers the past 34 years will realise they have gone quickly; perhaps more quickly than we would have liked. I hope most of us will still be around in 34 years' time, but we must do what we can during that time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We must have long-term plans and we need to move away from short-termism. We have to move away from three, four, five and six-year cycles and look at things over periods of ten, 20 and 30 years. Will the Government agree the targets in the national mitigation plan and set them out for the next 34 years?
We have already lost a lot of time on this matter. I am not saying it is the fault of the Minister but time has been lost. I first raised this issue in 2011, if memory serves me well, during my first year in this House. Other Deputies have also raised it. People who were here before us wanted this to be in place in 2008 and 2009. We are playing catch-up. We do not have the benefit of a springboard that will propel us half way towards those targets. We have increased our greenhouse gas emissions and we are not and have not been doing enough to reduce them. We cannot keep playing catch-up. If there is further slippage over the next three, four or five years, we will reach a carbon cliff in six or seven years' time. We will need to meet this challenge by reducing dramatically our greenhouse gas emissions at that point. We will also have the cost, perhaps, of paying for carbon credits.
Will the Minister and his officials deal with this matter? Will he accept the long-term approach Sinn Féin is proposing? It is not a great vote catcher. It will not result in votes immediately, but many young people see the benefits of looking at things over a 20 or 30 year period, particularly in the area of climate change. We cannot afford to leave the planet worse than we got it. This is an opportunity for us to take a hands-on approach and it is an opportunity for the Minister to leave behind him that legacy he wants to leave.
