On behalf of all the members of this new committee I invite the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, to address the committee. I warmly welcome him and his officials, Mr. Tom O'Mahony, assistant secretary, Mr. Matthew Collins, principal officer, and Mr. Frank Maughan, assistant principal officer, and other officials who are present. Members of the committee look forward to a good discussion and will listen to what the Minister has to say on this very important subject.
Climate Change Policy: Discussion with Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
I am delighted to be here today and, at the outset, I want to put on the record how pleased I am that this committee has been established. As Minister I was very anxious to ensure the committee was established because I believe an all-party approach is vital when it comes to climate change. This committee is a welcome addition to our national parliamentary structure, one which clearly reflects the importance the Oireachtas attaches to the climate change agenda.
I hope today's proceedings will be the first of many engagements with the committee on national, EU and wider international aspects of the climate change agenda. I intend to present a broad overview of Ireland's climate change policy today as well as setting out some of my own priorities and I look forward to discussion with members of the committee following my presentation.
I am aware the committee has already held discussions with my colleagues, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister for Transport, as well as with the Environmental Protection Agency and Sustainable Energy Ireland. I hope these discussions have helped to inform the committee of the important roles of the respective Departments and agencies in implementing Ireland's climate change policy.
The climate change agenda is of course very broad and today's meeting will probably touch on only some of the issues. I suggest therefore that, if the committee is agreeable, we might return to specific aspects in more detail at future meetings.
Climate change is the biggest challenge facing humanity. Global warming threatens not just our quality of life, but the very survival of the human species. If global warming is allowed to continue unchecked, the consequences for humanity and for the environment are almost beyond comprehension. It is the challenge that will define this generation, and most likely the generation that follows. We will be remembered and judged on how we respond to this challenge.
Scientific research, which was last year collated and presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has left us in no doubt about the precise nature of the challenge. All countries, whatever their differences on how to solve the problem, have recognised that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represents the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of climate change to date, providing an integrated scientific, technical and socioeconomic perspective on relevant issues. That research concluded that climate change has been caused by man-made emissions, and if these emissions continue to grow they will have potentially catastrophic effects throughout the globe by the end of this century. Some of the key findings of the IPCC report are truly shocking and worth recalling.
Climate change is unequivocal. There is a very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. Global total annual greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have risen by 70% since 1970. Concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global temperatures have increased 0.74 degrees since 1906 and our current emissions alone have built in approximately another half-degree of temperature increase. Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years since 1850. The pace of sea level rises has increased from 1.8mm per year in 1961 to 3mm per year in 2005. Temperatures are likely to rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees Celsius and sea levels by between 18 centimetres and 59 centimetres this century. Human induced global warming could lead to impacts that are abrupt or irreversible. There is high confidence that by mid-century many semi-arid areas, for example the Mediterranean basin and the western US, will suffer a decrease in water resources. Between 75-250 million people in Africa could be experiencing water stress by 2020. Almost a third of plant and animal species will be at increased risk of extinction if global temperatures increase by 1.5° to 2.5° from late 20th century levels. If temperature increases exceed 3.5°, between 40% to 70% of species might be at increased risk of extinction. Carbon dioxide emissions need to peak within less than ten years, and global CO2 emissions have to be reduced by 50% to 85% relative to 2000. This would limit global warming to 2° to 2.4°Celsius above pre-industrial levels and thereby reduce significantly the number of people directly affected by climate impacts.
Despite the enormity of its potential scale and impact, there are actions we can take to tackle climate change. The IPCC found that there is substantial potential for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions over coming decades, which could offset the projected growth in global emissions, or reduce emissions below current levels. The IPCC also found that addressing climate change is affordable. The macro-economic cost of stringent mitigation would be global GDP being 3% lower in 2030 than if no mitigation measures were undertaken. This is equivalent to a reduction in the annual global GDP growth rate of 0.12%. Put simply, this means we will have delayed reaching the same level of GDP only by less than 12 months.
The European Union has based its response to climate change on the science. If we are to prevent against the worst impacts of climate change, we need to ensure the average global temperature does not rise by more than 2° Celsius on average over the next century. The only way we can ensure this is through very significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, primarily in developed countries. We will have to stabilise global emissions within the next decade or so, and then cut them at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Last year, the EU set out its aims for a comprehensive and fair international agreement to come into force by the end of 2012. The EU made an independent commitment to reduce emissions by at least 20% by 2020 and agreed to increase this to 30% as part of an effective international agreement. The EU will expect other industrialised countries to take on reduction targets that put them on a similar level of ambition so that developed countries as a whole reduce their emissions by 30% by 2020. This will keep us on track to meet the 2° Celsius target and is consistent with the IPCC findings.
Efforts by industrialised countries alone, however, will not suffice. Developing countries, and in particular emerging economies, must be encouraged to reduce the emission intensity of their economic growth. This would require new incentives and flexible types of commitments, as well as further transfer and deployment of climate friendly technologies. There are encouraging signs that countries such as China, Brazil and India are ready to consider such measures in an appropriate framework. Such an effective international agreement will be particularly complex. Targets for industrialised countries and appropriate mitigation actions by the advance developing countries must be core elements of the future climate regime. However, the agreement will also need to address efforts to adapt to climate change, to strengthen co-operation on technological research and increase financial support to spur the transfer of low carbon technologies to developing countries, to expand the use of carbon markets, and to address emissions resulting from deforestation, which accounts for about 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The European Union played a pivotal role and provided global leadership at the UN Conference of the Parties, or COP, in Bali last December, which I attended. That COP did not deliver a new international climate change deal; it was never meant to. However, it would be impossible to over-estimate the significance of the Bali conference. Its decisions set out a path to reach an agreement on a par with the Rio Earth Summit, although that summit was a missed opportunity. What it delivered was a roadmap on how we will reach that new international climate agreement. That, in itself, was a significant victory, bringing developed nations like the United States, however reluctantly, together with developing countries to reach an agreement on the best way forward.
For the first time in more than a decade and a half, all countries, both developed and developing, are negotiating new commitments for all to take action to address climate change. This represents remarkable progress by the global community. If we look back only four years, the global picture was much bleaker. The United States had already rejected the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol had not even entered into force, as an insufficient number of countries had ratified it. Only the leadership demonstrated by European Union brought us to the current situation.
I want to outline to the committee some of the key elements agreed at the UN conference. It launched formal negotiations among the 192 parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change on action up to and beyond 2012. These formal negotiations will involve the United States, which is a party to the UNFCCC but not to the Kyoto Protocol. The conference set out a roadmap to guide the negotiations, which includes the key building blocks of a future agreement. These are enhanced mitigation of climate change by limiting or reducing emissions; enhanced adaptation to climate change; action on technology development and transfer; and scaling up of finance and investment to support mitigation and adaptation. The Bali agreement explicitly acknowledges the findings of the IPCC's recent fourth assessment report, emphasises the urgency of addressing climate change and recognises that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to reach the convention's objective of preventing dangerous levels of climate change. At the EU's insistence, it also makes reference to a section of the report which demonstrates that emissions reductions for developed countries in the range of 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 are required to limit global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Enhanced action to mitigate climate change will be a key focus of negotiations. The roadmap envisages commitments or actions by developed countries, which could include quantified objectives for limiting and reducing emissions. Developing countries will also take action, but in their case no reference is made to quantified emissions objectives. In parallel with these negotiations under the climate change convention, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol will continue negotiations already under way on new post-2012 emissions targets for developed countries that are in the protocol. A review of the protocol at the next UN climate conference, to be held in Poland in December 2008, will help to inform these negotiations on future commitments by developed countries. The EU sees the review as an important opportunity to strengthen the protocol's effectiveness in readiness for the post-2012 period. An important step was taken towards reducing emissions from deforestation with an agreement to launch a framework for demonstration activities. This will allow different approaches to reducing deforestation and forest degradation to be tested over the next two years in preparation for covering these issues in a post-2012 agreement.
The negotiations under both tracks - convention and protocol - will be completed at the 2009 UN climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen. The EU and many other parties insisted on this simultaneous deadline to ensure a coherent result. This agreement could not have been reached without the leadership shown by the European Union. Bali showed the EU operating at its best. It showed how EU countries, working together in a concerted, collective manner could provide the global leadership needed to tackle climate change. In a speech I gave at a recent European Commission event, I emphasised that a solid reason for asking people to vote "Yes" in the referendum that will be held on the Lisbon treaty is that direct references have been sought by Government in regard to tackling the issue of climate change. Over the coming 22 months, in the run-up to the UN conference to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, I believe the European Union will continue to show leadership. By then we will have an agreed plan of action within the European Union on our own independent 20% reduction plans and on what burden each country will take on. We will also have detailed targets for every country in terms of renewable energy.
Last January, the European Commission published a package of proposals to address greenhouse gas emissions reductions and renewable energy targets, to develop a framework for carbon capture and storage and to facilitate environmental investments under state aid guidelines. The Government considers the package to be both comprehensive and integrated and that it will provide a credible framework on which to base negotiations within the EU. The package will take some time for full consideration by all member states and it is possible that EU discussions will last into early 2009.
Naturally, the proposals raise serious economic and social issues for Ireland and a detailed analysis of the elements of the package is ongoing in the relevant Departments. Given the scale of the implications of the proposals for the citizen, it is important that the decisions on the elements of the package are seen to arise from a fair and transparent process. However, I reiterate to the committee that the Government fully supports the targets agreed by the Heads of State and Government at the 2007 Spring European Council to reduce the EU's emissions by at least 20% on 1990 levels by 2020 and by 30% as part of a global comprehensive agreement.
For me, one of the most significant achievements in my tenure to date was delivering the first carbon budget to the Dáil on 6 December 2007. The decision of the my party to enter Government was motivated by one primary concern, namely, the need to bring climate change considerations to bear on all aspects of Government policy and to accelerate our transition to a low-carbon economy. The carbon budget brought a focus to the importance of climate change as a core consideration in Government policy-making and integrated the climate change agenda into the annual budgetary process.
On that occasion, I described climate change as the greatest challenge facing humanity in the coming century. I also told the House that it presents a challenge like no other. Climate change is profound in its implications for the world and its inhabitants. It cuts to the core of modern living and commerce in the 21st century and presents the leaders of today with the ultimate test in sustainable development, namely, to ensure the well-being and prosperity of future generations. We know that the cause is human induced emissions of greenhouse gases; the scientific advice on the causes and potential effects is clear and compelling.
At a national level, we are committed to playing our part both in terms of addressing national greenhouse gas emissions and, through the EU, in supporting international efforts to find consensus on a comprehensive global response to climate change. The national climate change strategy, published in April 2007, sets out the measures by which Ireland will meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments and how these measures position us for the post-2012 period.
Since entering Government, I have taken a number of specific steps that will contribute to reducing emissions in the Kyoto Protocol commitment period 2008-2012 and beyond. These include the carbon budget, which set out indicative additional savings of 600,000 tonnes from measures announced since the publication of the national climate change strategy and which brings a new level of transparency and accountability and the rebalancing of motor tax, together with the corresponding initiative by the Minister for Finance on vehicle registration tax, which will bring a strong emissions focus to the tax regimes for new vehicles. These changes will be accompanied by a new labelling requirement aimed at helping consumers to understand the environmental and cost implications of choosing a particular car. Another measure is the new regulations to strengthen the energy efficiency requirements for new homes and deliver energy and emissions savings of 40% on the previous standard. My ambition is to increase building energy efficiency by 60% by 2010, but I also believe we can achieve zero carbon emissions by 2016 and I am arranging for a scoping paper to be delivered on that issue. The building industry has reacted positively to these changes and I look forward to its continued engagement with me in this area. I launched a major multi-annual campaign on climate change awareness before Christmas, which I will address in more detail later. I have announced proposals to introduce a national energy efficiency standard for lighting that will be the first of its kind in the EU and I have published draft planning guidelines on sustainable residential development in urban areas. These guidelines are intended to act as a blueprint for the sustainable development of Irish cities, towns and villages in the coming years.
The establishment of a Cabinet sub-committee on energy security and climate change has also resulted in greater co-ordination of our work across Government and has added new impetus to the work of other Ministers. Recent initiatives include: the publication for public consultation last autumn of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan; the publication by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, on Monday of proposals for a sustainable travel and transport action plan; the extension of the very successful Sustainable Energy Ireland greener homes and house of tomorrow programmes and the introduction of new support programmes for small businesses; the provision of initial pilot funding of €5 million for an insulation grant scheme to support energy efficiency measures in our homes - the programme for Government commits to making €100 million available over the term of the Government for this initiative and the scheme will be administered by SEI; provision in the Finance Bill for accelerated capital allowances of 100% for business investing in energy efficiency equipment, including building energy management systems; and the establishment of the Commission on Taxation with an immediate remit to prepare proposals for the introduction of carbon tax. These, of course, are just the first of many initiatives that this Government will take over the next five years and there is certainly much more that can be done.
We are seeing very encouraging research emerging relating to possible measures for the agriculture sector that address, for example, the way in which fertilisers and manures are managed on the farm and the diet of animals. Obviously these will take some time to move from research to implementation, but I am confident that we will see some important developments in this sector over the next couple of years.
Another new dimension to the national agenda is the commitment in chapter 12 of the national climate change strategy to publish an implementation status report annually. This will be a new departure because it is the first time any Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has reported to the Oireachtas on the Government's progress towards meeting its climate change commitments. My intention is to publish the first such report around the beginning of May this year. The commitment in the strategy was that the report should be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government but now that this committee is in existence, it makes more sense to present it here. I am sure there will be general agreement on that point. As I indicated in the carbon budget, the first implementation status report will reflect final emissions figures for 2006 from the Environmental Protection Agency and will include an updated assessment of the effects of measures already in place as well as the new measures that are included in the carbon budget.
That is what we have done and are doing. However, I believe we can do more, and quickly. There is a responsibility on Ireland and its citizens to show a greater level of leadership within the EU. As a small island with a clean, green image, I believe there is a much greater and more meaningful role for us to play in EU policy on environmental protection and climate change. We are already beginning to show such leadership, particularly with the proposed energy efficiency standard for lighting. More fundamentally, we also have a very ambitious target to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions by 3% on average over the lifetime of the Government. The 3% target is ambitious because it needs to be - it is very much in line with the scale of emission reductions recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its fourth assessment report published last year.
The committee will be aware that the national climate change strategy provided for a multi-million euro public awareness campaign on climate change, which was to be launched before the end of 2007. The emphasis placed on the issue of climate change in the programme for Government reinforced the necessity to put in place the resources necessary to effectively communicate this complex and far-reaching issue. Following an EU-wide tendering process, the consortium chosen to undertake the first two years of the campaign is made up of Cawley Nea/TBWA, RPS, Mary Murphy and Associates and OMD. The campaign will be titled "Change - Ireland's Plan of Action on Climate Change", or, in short, “the Change Campaign”. The official launch took place last November.
The campaign has a number of aims. As well as raising general public awareness of climate change and promoting behaviour change to reduce emissions, it will also include a strong partnership aspect to focus on stakeholders in specific sectors and work with them to develop specific programmes and initiatives tailored to achieve emission reductions in their sectors. Another important goal of the campaign will be to empower individuals and groups to play their part in tackling climate change. Since November, the campaign has been busy meeting with key players in various sectors and more formal stakeholder engagement events will take place around the country from the end of April.
The campaign has been specifically designed to ensure that it dovetails with related public sector awareness campaigns and initiatives such as Power of One, One Small Step and the Race against Waste. Duplication in messaging and unnecessary overlaps will be avoided and every effort will be made to enhance the messaging of existing campaigns and programmes. I understand that following a recent proposal made to the committee on behalf of the change campaign, the committee will invite campaign representatives to make a fuller presentation on the campaign. I hope this campaign and the committee will find themselves to have a common purpose and that opportunities to work together are found.
However, the programme for Government also contains a commitment to agree an all-party approach on climate change targets. I have already indicated my view that, given the scale of the emissions reductions required, it is important to develop a broad national consensus on longer-term targets to reduce Ireland's emissions. Our efforts to achieve this national consensus would be undermined if we could not achieve consensus among the parties in these Houses. I believe this committee has a vital role to play in shaping this consensus. With regard to the longer term, we must start focusing on the period not only to 2020 but to 2050. To give the committee an indication of the scale of reductions I am talking about, the EU, in last year's spring European Council conclusions, said that developed countries should collectively reduce their emissions by 60% to 80% by 2050 when compared with 1990 levels. There is no doubt that, with this level of reduction, there will be a transformative impact on our society and our economy. Such transitions offer great opportunities for those who prepare well and act decisively, but we must also plan for these transitions well in advance.
The committee will be aware that a technical advisory steering group has been recently established to provide analysis to the Government on the implications for Ireland of the Commission's proposed 2020 targets. I propose to ask this group to identify, as part of its work, an ambitious but realistic long-term target for Ireland and to examine the possible implications for Ireland's economy and society. Once this group has completed its work, I propose to then bring proposals to this committee. I am anxious to make progress on this particular aspect of work and I hope we can discuss this in more detail as soon as the committee's agenda permits. I believe all parties are genuine in their stated commitment to tackling climate change. If that is indeed the case, we should rise above adversarial politics and show united leadership to the Irish people. We can focus on working out our long-term targets and objectives and this committee has a vital role to play in that regard.
We should not lose sight of the fact that, while there will undoubtedly be significant challenges, there will also be great rewards. Our move to a low-carbon society in the coming decades will undoubtedly transform our economy, and for the better. By thinking carbon we have the potential to unleash a wave of new innovation across our economy not only in the obvious areas such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, but also in areas such as: sustainable, low impact agriculture; intelligent, sustainable, transport systems; low carbon architecture and construction technologies; and a high value-added services sector based on a low carbon information economy. If we realise this sort of potential for our economy, we can also have transformative impacts that, arguably, will only enhance people's quality of life.
There are many ways we can achieve this but let me just offer a few examples: changing the way people think about how we construct our communities, which will in turn radically change our work-life-leisure balance - precisely the sort of vision that underpins my draft planning guidelines on sustainable residential development in urban areas; reducing the dependence that so much of our working population has on the car to get to and from work and otherwise live their daily lives; and building homes that have such high standards of insulation that there will probably be no need to heat them with fossil fuels.
There will be other changes, but these are only some that we can envisage under the initiatives already taken by the Government. I see an important role for this committee in envisioning just what sort of country we want, how a low carbon society and economy will look like and working with us in Government to get there.
This committee has a major role to play in reaching the consensus to which I referred not just on targets, but also the measures involved. Deputy Hogan attended the launch at which I stated that this is an enormous challenge. While I do not underestimate the extent of that challenge for one moment, I am prepared to work closely with this committee with a view to achieving those targets.
I welcome the Minister to the committee. The objectives he enunciated in his contribution are ones that the committee shares, but the devil is in the detail. The difficult part will be in teasing out the details of implementing the various policy areas the Minister has outlined. That is where the greatest challenges will arise. The Commission on Taxation is now being established and part of its remit includes a carbon tax. I was expecting that initiative would be made in the next budget but it probably will not be, given that the commission's report may not be available for about 18 months. The Minister may wish to comment on that point.
In addition, the Minister indicated that we may have to put a price on carbon. Has he done any work on what he perceives to be the appropriate carbon price per tonne? Has the Department undertaken any analysis in this regard in order to shift attitudes and behaviour generally?
The Minister has set a target for an annual 3% cut over the lifetime of this Government. However, does that figure include or exclude the tradeable emission credits for power generation and large industrial sites? If they are included, it sets one target, but if they are excluded, it would obviously set another one and could therefore put pressure on other parts of the economy to make larger cuts.
The Minister referred to "sustainable, low impact agriculture" and "intelligent, sustainable transport systems", but will he provide more detail on what he means? What are the practical implications and what can people expect in this regard? Sooner or later, the public needs to be conditioned about such matters if we are to achieve the Minister's target objectives.
I welcome the Minister and commend him for his work. He described the Rio summit as a missed opportunity but what, to his mind, makes Bali so different? Looking at it from a distance, one sensed that the Americans were reluctantly dragged into the agreement. The incoming US president will face severe economic challenges and one suspects that the Bali agreement may be dropped with a view to getting some early favourable winds for the new presidency, of whatever hue.
As regards the growth of the Chinese economy, the Minister said the Chinese are showing early signs of engaging in the process. Having read various articles, however, one does not see that happening on the ground.
The Minister placed great importance on renewable energy. However, those involved in that sector, particular wind energy, consistently express frustration about the planning process, including obtaining permissions at various levels. Smaller operators in particular are also frustrated in getting connections to the national grid. Does the Minister have any proposals on planning guidelines for renewable energy? The committee has already tackled the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, on issues concerning the national grid.
I welcome the Minister and agree with him fully that climate change is the biggest political challenge we are facing. He will find that this committee agrees it is the big one. I commend the Minister for his role at the Bali conference and I agree that the European Union played an important and progressive role in those talks. He mentioned that the Government is at one concerning the proposals currently set out by the EU Commission, but that is not the impression one has. There have been clear indications from the Minister for Finance that he is not happy with the way these proposals will impact on Ireland. Is the Minister saying that no case will be made to the EU Commission on reducing the requirements?
I have to say that I part company with the Minister on his carbon budget. It was not a carbon budget that he presented to Dáil Éireann; it was a speech. It was not part of the budget, or a budget at all, which is indicative of a downgrading of the issue.
As regards motor taxation changes, including VRT, the Minister will recall that these were clearly set out in the previous budget by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. Apart from some details, there was nothing new in the Minister's statement to the House. The only thing that was new was the delay involved. The date set by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, was 1 July, whereas the date set by the Minister, Deputy Cowen, was 1 January. As a result, many people were extremely annoyed because they had taken the indications from the previous budget that this measure would come in on 1 January. They did the right thing by buying the right car and to their amazement then found themselves being hammered by a Green Minister. I now understand that there has been a change of heart so perhaps the Minister will explain precisely how he will deal with people who have been caught in a bind.
I also wish to ask about the light bulb ban. The Minister was quite specific about this earlier but he now has a rather vague term. I may be misreading it but it is important for us to know precisely how he intends to manage this major change. The Minister referred to it as an unprecedented change. What is the timeframe, how will it be managed and what will the benefits be?
I commend the Minister's decision on energy efficiency in new houses, which was a significant step forward. I am concerned about the lack of enforcement, however, so perhaps the Minister will comment on how he intends to enforce this progressive decision. In the same way, the draft planning guidelines were all very well but as long as they are only in draft form, they will not get us very far.
Within his environment portfolio, the Minister is in charge of local authorities which are by far the biggest landlords in the country. In part at least, they are responsible for housing, much of which is of a poor standard, particularly in terms of energy efficiency. Local authority accommodation is occupied by people who do not have the resources to make their houses energy efficient. Consequently, the Minister needs to tackle that situation. I understand that the previous Minister's scheme for providing windows, doors and central heating is to finish by the end of this year. Local authorities are merrily putting in oil-fired central heating units. I suspect more money will be spent on that scheme this year because it is being closed down, although I am not sure why that is happening. There have been some experiments on wood pellet heating systems, some of which have failed. I appreciate there is a learning curve but this issue must be addressed. If we are putting in central heating units in local authority homes for which people will not be able to pay in the future and which are not good for the environment, we need to see action on the part of the Minister.
I refer to the Minister's responsibility for water supplies. As the climate changes, water will become increasingly important. The most recent report shows that 300 public water supply schemes are not being properly monitored or managed by proper procedures. That is a damning indictment and I would like to hear the Minister's response.
It is a long time since the first decision on smoky coal was made. The previous Minister extended the scheme. I tabled a parliamentary question to try to have extensions made to it to ban smoky coal and received a reply which dismayed me because it seemed the coal sector was determining policy. However, I will leave it to the Minister to reply.
I warmly welcome the idea of a report on the strategy because we have heard many speeches about climate change and tremendous rhetoric but it is not worth a hill of beans, unless we see real change. The Minister set a target figure of 3% per annum. How will his Department meet this target this year? I have asked every Minister who has come before us that question. It is not satisfactory to say it will cover the entire period because that is putting off the inevitable, will create further problems down the line and essentially undermine the Minister's position because he is genuinely committed to this project. We must see results. I ask him Minister clarify the position in regard to what will happen this year.
I welcome the Minister. One of the most important things he did was to change the building standards. Having had an interest in the issue in the last Dáil, I knew there was ferocious opposition in the Department to changing those standards, and I do not mean to be disrespectful to the officials present. The Minister will know to what I am alluding but it was found that there was not an appetite in the Department to change the building standards in order to protect the cement industry.
I was interested in what the Minister said about low carbon homes by 2016, a laudable ambition which I share. If one has the will, it is deliverable. How does the Minister propose to produce this because it could make an extremely significant contribution to our CO2 emissions? Does he intend to start in the local authority housing sector? The plans will need to be set in train now.
How well is the sub-committee on climate change working and how frequently does it meet? I ask that question with particular reference to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which the terms of the REP scheme were reassessed. A farmer at a meeting I attended recently referred to the part hedgerows played in dealing with CO2 emissions, yet farmers are constantly being encouraged to wipe them out. There does not appear to be coherence.
I refer to afforestation. In Bali I learned not only about the damage being done internationally but in this country. To what extent can afforestation mitigate the damage? I do not see coherence between Departments in terms of timescales or singing off the same hymn sheet. The sub-committee on climate change is where joined-up government should begin. I am curious to know how the sub-committee is working.
I thank members for their supportive comments. I will deal with Deputy Hogan's questions first. Yesterday the Deputy asked a question which was disallowed. I understand the repeat rule applied in that one cannot ask a question on the same topic within four months. That is the explanation I was given.
The ground is always shifting in regard to the carbon and climate change agenda. I should have used the words "progress report" in the question. I acknowledge what the Minister said.
The Deputy's first question related to the Commission on Taxation. We have appointed some excellent individuals, including an old colleague of mine, Professor Frank Convery, who has been pushing for a carbon levy for some time. If one looks at the terms of reference, one will see we have asked the commission to prioritise the issue of a carbon levy. The terms of reference state it can produce interim reports and report on environmental measures and levies. I hope there will be an interim report before the reporting date - September. That is doable.
The Deputy wanted me to put a price on carbon. There are bodies such as the EPA which are in a far better position to do that than I am. The Deputy will be familiar with the research of the EPA and the ESRI which have done and continue modelling work. I do not want to pre-empt, in any way, the outcome of the Commission on Taxation's discussions.
The Deputy asked about the 3% target and how it related to the ETS sector. Since that sector has been given an emissions allocation limit for the period 2008-12 of approximately 22.3 million tonnes per annum, the limit should be its contribution towards meeting the Government's commitment.
The Deputy, among a number of other members, asked about sustainable agriculture, in regard to which a number of measures can be taken. I must give my colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for food, Deputy Sargent, due credit. We are pushing for an increase in the level of organic farming, less fertiliser, less intensive farming and better on-farm management of manure. These are all part of the package. The EPA has conducted some very good studies of how we can use grass as a fuel.
Senator O'Malley made a point about hedgerows. We require joined-up thinking, which is what the sub-committee is all about. Agriculture presents a huge challenge. Comparing Ireland with the United Kingdom, it only accounts for approximately 6% of emissions in the United Kingdom, whereas it accounts for close to 29% of ours. That, undoubtedly, presents an enormous challenge for this country.
Deputy Hogan hit on an important point. The challenge is this. Food prices are now rising. This is related to the bio-fuel issue. The price of commodities is rising continuously. On one level, because of expanding markets in China and India, there is a considerable appetite for protein. There are those involved in the sector here who say we can expand the national herd. To put it bluntly, the problem is that when it comes to climate change, we are speaking about cows and cars as the problems we must address. If I were to pinpoint the challenge, it would be how we deal with those two issues. Joined-up thinking is required at the sub-committee because obviously we need the Ministers for Transport and for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on board. I repeat that I do not underestimate the extent of that challenge.
In response to Deputy Calleary, I stated in my speech in Bali that I saw the conference in Rio as a missed opportunity. I said so because it was the truth. I had great hopes. Like many environmentalists, I remember it so well. I had been speaking about climate change since 1988, right back to the first NASA report. I thought the world was finally waking up to the problem when we got to Rio. We had all the high-flying rhetoric but it did not happen.
Deputy Calleary asked how the conference Bali was different. It was different because there was an economic and ecological imperative. Countries, including the United States, know it must happen. I am confident the United States will be on board when we get to Copenhagen in 2009. There will be a new US Administration. Whether it is headed by Senator John McCain, Senator Barack Obama or Senator Hillary Clinton, there will be a change in attitude to climate change. Once the United States comes on board, there will be a completely new dynamic because the Chinese and developing countries will then come on board. The Chinese also understand that it is in their interests to move to having a low carbon economy as quickly as possible. Given what I know now, they will accelerate the move. There is much talk about their building a coal-fired power station approximately every five days but they have been active in using consultants and members of the German Green Party. What they are trying to do is amazing. Once they get into that new drive, no doubt it will happen quickly.
Their water supply is being seriously affected, as the Minister will be aware.
Yes. There are many issues involved. That happens when an economy expands at an unprecedented rate. Most of our environmental problems are related to our unprecedented economic growth which, it must be acknowledged, was not managed well. It is a symptom of badly managed economic growth. If an economy such as China's grows at a rate of approximately 11% annually, those are the unfortunate consequences.
Deputy Calleary mentioned renewables. Last year was not a great year for onshore wind farms. There is controversy surrounding certain wind farm projects but when it comes to climate change, if we are to make omelettes, we must crack a few eggs. Similarly, there are problems coming to my attention about offshore wind farms. My colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, is well aware of these problems and doing his level best to sort them out as quickly as possible.
Deputy McManus asked a number of questions. She stated there were differing views within the Government. If one were to look closely at them, from what I have seen in the newspapers - I have spoken to the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, about the issue - the only point the Minister made concerned how the figure was calculated, whether by gross national income or GDP. I would say, however, that we are speaking about a zero-sum game. If one country receives less, another will receive more. For that reason, it will be extremely difficult to unpick the package presented by the European Commission.
Will the Government try?
I stated clearly that my view is that this is a package which is in line with our own ambitious targets. The Minister for Finance has identified that one particular issue but my view is that the package cannot be unpicked.
What I am asking is whether the Government make an effort in that regard?
The only criterion laid down by the Government is that the package be absolutely fair and transparent. As far as the full package is concerned, as I reiterated, the Government is supportive of the Commission proposals. That is it. It is as clear as that.
If one is to have EU targets which make sense, we must have EU solutions. I do not see any evidence of a common policy on the crops used for bio-fuel or an understanding of the effect of the changeover to alternative fuels on overall Union policy on food supply. For example, Ireland cannot carry out research on its own because it does not have the necessary resources and is too small.
The other day I saw figures produced in the economic report of the President of the United States for carbon capture and storage in the case of coal. As I understand it, in the United States, figures have been produced indicating that electricity generation works out at a cost of $60.90 per MW hour in the case of coal. It is the cheapest form. If one was to include the estimated costs of carbon capture and storage, the cost would be approximately $83.80. Are we looking at the issue in a European context? What research is being conducted? We use coal generated electricity. What is the European proposal on the use of nuclear power? What is the European Union doing to achieve these targets? Where does Ireland go from here? From the information we have received to date, it is too small to consider the use of nuclear power. What are the alternatives for us? We can use peat, coal and oil. Are we included in a European grid? What bothers me is that it is one thing for the European Union to set targets but it is another to enable member states to do their bit.
In the context of energy supply and our policy on land usage, Dr. Jerry Murphy provided the committee with some extremely interesting information on the subject of using grass to produce methane. If we are going to commit ourselves to reaching various targets, we must get something back from Europe in terms of an overall policy.
The United States has a federal system. This matter revolves around the sort of European Union people want. We do not have a federation, we have a system of member states. Reference was made to the policy on nuclear energy, which is decided upon by the member states. As members are aware, enshrined in our legislation is a ban on the use of nuclear power in this country. A decision was made by the House in that regard. There may be people who want to change that decision. My colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, indicated that he is open to debate on the issue but it is his view - it is also my considered view - that, for a number of reasons, nuclear power is not appropriate for this country at present.
The European Union funds research on a range of issues, including carbon capture and storage. The Germans are of the view that consideration must be given to this matter. However, we are at an early stage. The United States is the largest proponent of this technology. I spoke to the US ambassador about it because the Bush Administration is interested in it. In a sense, it seems to offer an ideal solution because it would still be possible to burn coal without creating nasty emissions. I am absolutely open to such technology, provided it works. If it does work, we should pursue it. There will, as with most technologies, be some cost implications. However, if one considers whether in the future we are going to concentrate on renewables or encourage the building of better insulated homes, it is obvious that our energy usage patterns are going to change dramatically.
The European Union is also taking steps in respect of cars. It has difficulty in respect of car emissions because one of the leading countries regarding environmental awareness and progress thereon is Germany. However, when it came to dealing with emissions, particularly those caused by cars, the Germans were somewhat reticent because of the impact on their car industry. I am sure previous holders of my position will testify to that fact. I recall having arguments with the former German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, who was determined to protect the German car industry. I was opposed to that and wanted the level to drop to 120g as quickly as possible. However, we are making progress and the European Union is aiming to reach this level as quickly as possible. As I understand it, the initial level will be 130g.
We are leading the way. Having served as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for over eight months, I am of the opinion that there would be no progress on environmental matters in this country were it not for the European Union.
Deputy McManus inquired about the position in respect of motor tax. I made it clear that I wanted to listen to her colleagues. Deputies Ciarán Lynch, Hogan and others thanked me yesterday for doing so. I listened to what they had to say. I also received some legal advice. The core issue remains the same. We are introducing a CO2-based emissions system and a labelling system from 1 July. As a result, people will have the opportunity to purchase low emissions cars from that date. In the context of amendments, I am allowing people to opt into the system from 1 January. As a result, they can choose to opt for the cc system or the CO2-based emissions system.
Many people identified an anomaly in respect of second-hand cars imported from abroad. Under the previous system, such vehicles' carbon emissions were the key factor. This placed second-hand cars bought and sold here at a disadvantage. I have removed both anomalies.
The devil is always in the detail.
Yes. Deputy McManus raised a number of other questions. She referred to planning matters. As stated in respect of any of the guidelines I have issued - the most recent of these relate to our cities, towns and villages - the relevant mechanism to be used will be section 28 of the relevant planning Act. In other words, local authorities will be obliged to have regard to the guidelines I issue. There will be no shirking the guidelines or ignoring them. In my opinion, they will make a difference. The guidelines and the other measures I have introduced are making a difference. The difficulty is that we are starting from a position where there has been bad planning for many years.
I suggest that we suspend proceedings in order that Members might attend in the Dáil for a vote.
Sitting suspended at 10.48 a.m. and resumed at 11.15 a.m.
The communications Commissioner is attending the Joint Committee on European Affairs. It would have been great if this committee also had the opportunity to meet her. Could the clerk write to the Joint Committee on European Affairs and ask its chairman to advise committees when European Commissioners are due to appear before it in order that the committees could dovetail to meet them when they are in town?
Certainly, that is a good idea. It is not easy to get a Commissioner in town.
Deputy McManus had a number of other questions. She asked about local authority housing. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, who has responsibility for housing, is anxious that a number of schemes be put in place because we would like to achieve 60% installation in a number of the schemes in order that we are ahead of the curve in installation of standards at local authority level. I have discussed this with him and he is anxious to get on with that.
Is funding available this year for that scheme?
Deputy O'Keeffe is proceeding with it.
Is funding provided in the Minister's Estimate?
Yes, it is a question of installation.
How much?
This relates to installation of standards increasing to 60%, not the housing itself.
I beg the Minister's pardon. He is referring to new housing and I appreciate the efforts he has made in this regard but my question relates to the older housing stock with poor energy efficiency standards.
No funding is available for existing housing stock and retrofitting requires massive investment. The Deputy's colleague, Brendan Halligan of the SEI, has tried to estimate the cost.
My question is simpler. I presume the Department still administers a refurbishment programme under which houses considered not to be of the proper standard are refurbished. The Department is spending money on the installation of oil fired central heating but a scheme should be in place to upgrade houses while ensuring they are energy efficient. That will be costly but it is part and parcel of the Minister's work.
The Deputy has made a good point. I will go back to the Department and check out the refurbishment scheme. I will write to the Deputy in this regard.
Local authorities lead the way in many of the efforts all of us are trying to make to promote the concept of energy efficiency and dealing with climate change. Dr. Jerry Murphy appeared before the committee last week. He has a deal with Cork City Council--
That is exceptional.
The council is using gas from grass in its fleet. Local authorities generally can set the example. A number has passed motions to take specific actions but, as a general principle, this should be done to create awareness locally. Everyone favours a campaign in this regard and public bodies must take the lead. I have written to the Ceann Comhairle to find out what is happening with this building. If we are asking other people to do things, we should be the first to do them.
I agree with the Chairman.
By and large, everything that local authorities do should be taken into account. There should be leadership by example and local authorities should issue statements on the progress they are making in this regard. It is a mindset.
The Department has new service indicators for local authorities which include the whole question of energy efficiency and sustainability. Benchmarks will be in place to measure their progress. Deputy McManus is of the view that the local authority referred to is an exception to the rule. Unfortunately there is a lack of consistency of performance between local authorities and the Department must endeavour to ensure consistency across a range of issues. The system of new service indicators is an effort to do this.
The Chairman's point about the performance of State buildings is very valid. For instance, the heating is always on in this building. The heating is on full blast and one can be roasting in the summer and need to open windows to let in fresh air. The lights are left on. We have a way to go with regard to the most basic actions.
Machines and computers are left on.
The computers are left on. I have been informed the reason for this is the mainframe computers must be left on to allow for data storage. I have examined the electricity usage in my own Department. One would expect a significant dip in usage at the weekends but this is not the case because of our reliance on computers. Deputy Hogan referred to the devil being in the detail. In my view, some of the changes that need to be made are no-brainers and can be done immediately while others are far more complex. We must lead by example.
Deputy McManus asked about water quality. Does the Deputy mean in the context of climate change?
I suppose this issue is slightly tangential but it will become an issue in particular on the east coast where there will be water shortages as climate change occurs. I would expect public water supplies would be of pristine standard in a situation where we could be facing shortages but this is not the case; we have a serious problem. Many of these changes will occur even if best practice is adopted.
The Deputy is correct. It is known that precipitation patterns have changed and some parts of the country are getting 20% more rain. The rain is occurring less frequently but the rainfall has greater intensity. Some parts of the country have less rainfall, as is the case in much of the east coast.
The Department has rolled out a very ambitious programme for water supply. This week I visited the new Terryland plant in Galway. The cryptosporidium outbreak in Galway was probably the most graphic example of bad management of water supplies. However, because of the investment made by the Department, Galway will not only have good drinking water but, according to the assistant manager, aims to have the best drinking water in the country. The situation where the consumer was getting a bad deal has changed. As a result of the investment in the water services which continue to be rolled out, I can inform Deputy Hogan that we have ramped up the roll-out of the new treatment plants. This will certainly make a difference but it requires sustained investment.
Should there be a requirement that all new dwellings would have water meters installed?
Many new dwellings have water meters. The domestic sector is not required to pay water rates. However, we can raise people's awareness of the importance of water. I refer to the changes in precipitation patterns and also the huge increase in consumer demand. Dublin will require about 300,000 extra litres per day by 2031 and this will be a massive increase in demand.
Leaving aside charges for the moment, a water meter would give a clear indication of water usage to the individual house owner and would help in the checking of usage.
The Chairman is correct. This was one of the consequences of installing water meters in schools. The controversy over the installation of water meters in schools arose when schools started to receive huge bills and it was only then that in some cases schools discovered they had a leak in the system. Water meters have the advantage of allowing users to detect leaks very quickly.
Would the Minister consider including water meters in future regulations?
Yes, that is a possibility. I will speak to the Minister of State with responsibility for housing.
Another reference was made to smoky coal. What was the reply received by the Deputy on that matter?
The reply I received from the Minister referred to the 16 urban centres where smoky coal is banned. However, it stated that the solid fuel trade group and the Department have an agreement not to extend the clean air regulations to any other areas for the moment. I thought this was slightly odd.
I will double check with my officials and reply to the Deputy.
I wish to ask a question about the light bulb ban.
There is no change in the ban on light bulbs. I had very good meetings with Commissioner Verheugen and Commissioner Dimas. They have assured me of their full support. We are going ahead by consultation. We will ensure that we are not making any unreasonable demands of people. There has been no change from what I said in December. I said I would set minimum standards, I would consult and I would adopt a practical approach.
This is a somewhat vague reply, with all due respect to the Minister. I ask him to explain the timeframe envisaged. When he says he will not make unreasonable demands, what reasonable demands is he planning to make?
There is a period of consultation. I have set out the timeframe. It is planned this will be in place in time for the carbon budget next year. The timeframe is one year and I believe we are on course.
Will the Minister implement it in that budget or is it simply that he will signal it?
The date will be 1 January.
Is that 1 January 2009?
That is correct.
What is the Minister's expectation for 1 January 2009?
This is to do with the sale of incandescent light bulbs. We have said all along that we want to ensure that incandescent light bulbs, those energy-inefficient light bulbs, will no longer be on sale.
Has the Deputy another question?
I have a question about the 3% per annum target.
It is not a yearly target. It is an average target.
It is an average per annum target of 3%.
Yes.
What target has the Minister set in order to meet the average 3% per annum target?
I have already set this out in some detail in the carbon budget. The Deputy said it was not a budget but I believe it was a budget. We set out in great detail the savings that could be made. At that stage I pointed out that we are looking at an annual reduction of 3% on average over a five-year period. I am sticking to that. That is where we are at.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. The issues of climate change and energy security are critical. Having listened to the Minister, I am somewhat concerned about the implementation of all these regulations, which will be extremely costly on the consumer. I come from a farming background. I am concerned when I hear the Minister talking about two things, the motor car and the cow. Those of us in rural areas have a long association with farming, animals, etc. What involvement has the Department had with farming organisations? Very little has been said by the IFA on climate change. I have not heard of much lobbying by it on the matter even though it lobbies us on a range of other issues.
We must sell the message to the people at the bottom of the ladder because they will be affected. The people at the top can afford to pay for climate change but the people on the bottom of the ladder, some of them on very small incomes, will find it very hard. Even the requirement to change bulbs will be an issue for people on low incomes if they need to pay extra for light bulbs. While it may be only a small issue for many of us, it is a major issue for some people. The pain will be felt in the implementation phase and there will be much hurt for many people. Has the Minister estimated the cost of the climate change policy to the ordinary Joe Soap on the ground?
We have a Cabinet committee, whose brief is energy security and climate change. Both issues are related. The Deputy spoke about pain. The real pain, if we want to use that word, will come with price increases. That is inevitable as we now reach a peak oil situation. In preparing for climate change, we are also preparing for those inevitable price increases. So it is also an opportunity. I believe people can make substantial savings. By insulating houses, people immediately save money and stop the leakage of CO2. We have calculated the great savings that can be made by using energy-saving light bulbs. I see it as an opportunity. It is a question of one's perspective. Is it a case of the glass being half-empty or half full? For me the glass will always be half full. I agree with the conclusion of the Stern report that the cost of not acting is very difficult to contemplate. If we do not act, we will need to pay considerably more than if we act. Taking action also gives considerable opportunities.
I see society transforming and it can happen very quickly. If we consider information technology and the ways things have changed, Google, Facebook and others have changed the way we operate within a period of approximately three years. I see a similar transformation taking place in the new carbon era. I stress that we will need to make those changes. There is now an imperative in that regard. People need to adapt and understand that if they are wise about this they can save money. It goes back to the whole question about the motor car. One of the reasons we needed to make small changes to motor taxation was that we saw behaviour was already changing dramatically. Some people I met in the embassy in London told me they had worked out clearly the car they would buy on 1 July. That represents a transformation in the way people are thinking. They will work out the carbon emissions. People are quite astute in how they use their money and they will go for a low-emissions car, even one with a bigger engine. Voter behaviour is changing. I meant to say consumer behaviour is changing. I hope voter behaviour is changing also.
That may have been a bit of a Freudian slip. As this is the first time the Minister has appeared before this committee, I wish him well on trying to achieve what I am confident he is genuine in trying to achieve in reducing emissions dramatically, changing people's behaviour, trying to change the entire attitude towards carbon by putting a value on it, understanding the consequences of climate change, etc. I am concerned that as yet the Government does not have a master plan to achieve it. While it is trying to put it together, it is doing so in a piecemeal fashion. It is a fair assumption that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his Department need to take the lead in co-ordinating Government policy. It involves working with the transport and energy sectors and influencing the Department of Finance to try to put together a grand plan for what needs to be achieved in the next ten to 12 years.
Research and development and capital assistance programmes have been and continue to be successful and will be expanded around improving efficiency in the business sector and in people's homes. While we have a large number of State bodies doing similar things, there needs to be much more co-ordination between those bodies. For example, we have the Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Energy Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland, FÁS, EirGrid and Forfás, all of which are doing slightly different things. The co-ordination between those bodies is not as it should be. I would like the Minister to comment honestly on the matter. For example, people coming to me are genuinely confused as to where they should go to get State subsidy for a project. They are unclear as to whether they should approach the EPA, SFI or SEI. The Minister could establish a central Internet portal to give clear guidelines as to what body deals with what. That would represent a good start in helping people who want to buy into the new thinking.
I met the Minister in Bali before Christmas - it was a fascinating few days. Towards the end of that week there was considerable excitement that Ireland might host a conference, hearing or think tank on technology transfer issues. I believe it was due to be held here in March. Have we managed to achieve that? It would raise public awareness in the role Ireland can play in co-ordinating international policy. I am not trying to catch the Minister out on the matter; I genuinely do not know where it now stands.
The Minister has already made some announcements, including the energy ratings for buildings, which are necessary. I am somewhat confused about how it will be paid for. Will it be paid for by individual householders and businesses? I understand that approximately 5,000 qualified people will be needed to rate this country's 2 million houses and 1.2 million other buildings, such as businesses, offices and schools. Do I understand correctly that is it intended to provide energy ratings for all of those buildings within a certain amount of time? How will that be paid for? I understand that it will be very cheap for a person to get an energy rating for a house. Will the process of securing an energy rating be subsidised by Sustainable Energy Ireland? Has a budgetary allocation been made to that end?
While the Government has some good ideas, I am concerned that it is not prepared to make the financial commitment needed to deliver on them. I could pick out many individual things as symptoms of what I am saying. The only way to change people's behaviour dramatically is to make it financially worth their while to make changes. The plastic bag levy is a small example in that regard. If we are to encourage people to spend money on making their homes more energy efficient, we will have to demonstrate to them that they can make cost savings as well as environmental or emissions savings. What is the Minister's PR plan in that regard? The action that is being taken in the motor tax areas needs to be expanded to other areas.
What was the Deputy's last point?
I agree with the Minister that if one is going to change people's behaviour in a large scale way, one needs to make it financially worth their while.
Yes.
If we put in place a system like the energy-saving mortgage system used in other countries, we need to structure it in a way that ensures that the mortgage can be repaid using the cost savings that result from energy savings. A public relations campaign needs to be launched to make it clear to people who take out loans to put insulation in their attics, for example, that they will save a specific amount of money over a period of time. We need to emphasise that such endeavours are, at worst, cost-neutral. People will not take out loans to do environmentally friendly things, particularly in the current economic climate, unless they see that they will get their money back. Clear messages of guidance and leadership are required from the Minister. What is he doing in this regard?
The Deputy's last point is very important. A number of focus groups have been established as part of the campaign to increase awareness. Deputy Fitzpatrick will be pleased to note that the farming community is one of the stakeholders in this area with which we are engaging. We are trying to understand what motivates people and learn more about their perceptions of climate change. Some interesting things are emerging. People are looking for leadership. The perception has changed and they now believe the Government is showing leadership, which is gratifying as they previously thought that was not the case. People do not like to be harangued by those who say "You can't do this, you can't do that". They are looking for the carrot rather than the stick - there is no question about that. Deputy Coveney also spoke about the need to make it easy for people to get information about investments, etc., which is an issue we are addressing in the awareness campaign. We will have a central portal, as suggested by the Deputy, where people can get all the information they require. That mechanism will be of great assistance to many people. It is incredible that so many people, across all sectors, want to put new ideas into practice. I get requests for meetings with such people all the time. People will make use of the portal, which will be a great boon. The Deputy also asked about the building energy rating. The significant forthcoming expansion in this regard will offer great business opportunities. If one is selling or renting one's house, one will need a rating. Many companies are being established to do this work. House owners will pay for assessments to be conducted. I am straying into the area of responsibility of one of my colleagues.
Will it have to be certified by Sustainable Energy Ireland?
Yes, absolutely. Sustainable Energy Ireland is the sponsoring body. While I am straying into the territory of the Minister, Deputy Ryan, as I have said, it is a climate change issue and therefore relevant. When I was in Longford recently, I met representatives of a company, National Energy Assessors, which is undertaking energy assessments. This will be a huge industry. It is a question of opportunities. Certain people will benefit significantly. People who are selling properties understand that properties with good energy ratings will command higher prices. Buyers will choose not to buy houses which are not properly insulated. There is no doubt that better insulation standards will result from that. Have I forgotten any of the Deputy's questions?
Will the Minister try to co-ordinate the various State bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainable Energy Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland?
Yes. That is how the central portal, which was one of the ideas mentioned by the Deputy earlier, will work. I am aware that organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency are doing fantastic work on climate change. I will draw on their expertise at all times. As Fine Gael's spokesman in this area, Deputy Coveney may have been approached by people who are interested in wave or tidal energy and want to know where to go for assistance. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, is looking after such people. I see huge opportunities in the wave and tidal energy sector. We have to ensure we do not miss the boat. We certainly missed the boat when we had opportunities in the wind sector.
I will give the Minister an example of what I am talking about. I have made this point to the Chairman previously. A professor from University College Cork outlined to this committee last week the practical realities of the production of methane from grass.
We have discussed that previously.
Yes. I asked him who he has spoken to about State assistance, etc. He has spoken to nobody because his work has not been noticed. He is working with Cork City Council to try to switch the council's fleet to methane. He seems to be doing it on his own, however. He is working within a small isolated area. He is trying to get EU funding for the project.
He said he has received some funding from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
He has got some money from that Department.
Is he not working with the Environmental Protection Agency on this? Mr. Padraic Larkin from the agency has been in touch with me about this. I would be surprised to learn he is not working in tandem with the man in question.
When the man told us last week about this project, it was news to us. We need to reflect on whether biodiesel, ethanol, methane and electric motors in cars should be part of the mix. There are many people in Ireland with good environmental ideas and business propositions, as the Minister has said, but there is no central co-ordination. Different bodies are doing different things. We need to try to pull it together.
We are investing almost €13 million in the awareness campaign. We are developing a website on which people can access information, contact experts in this area and get the necessary resources. This programme will be of huge assistance to people with good ideas. I could tailor the awareness campaign specifically to be of use to people who have good ideas but feel they are not being listened to, the time period is too long or the grants are insufficient. We can get information from such people as part of the awareness-raising campaign. We will make the vast changes we are required to make if we implement good ideas and make technological advances in a way that enhances people's lives and does not affect their pockets. The changes which are needed in the interests of the environment should be seen as an opportunity rather than as a burden, which is how many people currently see them. I agree with the Deputy.
I asked about progress on holding the technology transfer conference in Ireland.
Yes, we were offered an opportunity to host the conference and discussed the matter in Bali. The secretariat asked if it could hold the first meeting in its headquarters in Bonn. We agreed to that proposal and offered to host the second meeting, which is due to take place in the autumn.
Climate change is a major theme in primary level education. While I have visited primary schools which have secured green flags and so forth, I have not noted similar enthusiasm at second level. What steps can be taken to increase awareness among second level students who are an important target group?
While I am aware of the disparity highlighted by the Deputy, the position may be changing. As part of my role in awareness raising, I will present certificates to schools which are discussing climate change. I have visited a number of secondary schools which want to get involved in activities in this area. When one reaches a certain age, one becomes much more questioning and one wants to take action. Many secondary school students know their stuff and put one through the wringer when asking questions. We have a major opportunity in this area. I would like a new form of green flag to be available for secondary schools to get them much more involved in this issue.
Academic pressure at secondary level means students tend to be focused on the leaving certificate. Transition year, however, presents a major opportunity in this regard. I would like the Department of Education and Science to be more involved in increasing awareness in secondary schools.
The Minister indicated that he looks forward to having regular contact with the joint committee. As he will have noted, members of the committee have a great interest in these matters. I will invite him to appear before us from time to time. If he wishes to avail of the committee to test ideas and so forth, he should contact us and we will be pleased to work with him.
I will be more than happy to do so.
I thank the Minister and his officials and look forward to future contact.
The joint committee adjourned at 11.55 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 March 2008.