I welcome Professor John Sweeney of NUI Maynooth and Mr. Oisín Coghlan of Friends of the Earth to the committee. We look forward to their presentations. After the presentations we will have a question and answer session.
Scientific Findings and Legislative Framework for Climate Change: Discussion.
Professor John Sweeney
I am fairly long in the tooth when it comes to researching climate change in Ireland — I am entering my 32nd year of research into the subject. I have watched the topic change over the years from being a dry, dusty, academic subject to one that has captured the public imagination. In recent years the subject has become mainstream, which is a reflection of the importance of the topic we are addressing today. It is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity in the next few decades and one which will occupy strategic planners in Ireland as we seek to position the country so it does not lose out as a result of climate change in the years ahead.
As I have watched the debate unfold, I have watched the scientific evidence change dramatically. Over the years, tentative suggestions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about the causes of the problem have gradually solidified into more strident, confident statements, as exemplified by the fourth assessment report recently published. That report, which has been signed up and agreed to by the Government, as well as nearly all other governments in the world, indicates a useful partnership between policy makers, decision makers and the scientific community. It is perhaps a model that will be of use elsewhere in the years ahead.
The scientific evidence that is now emerging is indisputable, showing the globe has warmed by about 0.8° centigrade in the past century. It shows that 11 of the 12 warmest years have occurred in the past decade and a half and, even last year, which was a disastrous summer in Ireland, it was still one of the top ten of the world's warmest years.
The changes we are seeing scientifically are not always obvious to us in Ireland in terms of our day to day experience but they are much more serious in many parts of the developing world where we are seeing serious rainfall changes beginning to emerge. The changes may appear small at first but they are magnified greatly in terms of changes to the extremes. That is a theme scientists are becoming concerned about — what may seem a relatively small change of less than 1° centigrade, when we look at the frequency of hazardous events, is magnified and may, as we see in Ireland, necessitate changes in many other areas.
In Ireland we have seen the world's changes in the past century replicated. The country has warmed by 0.8° centigrade and we are seeing substantial rainfall changes: in winter in the north of the island, rainfall has increased by 70%, a huge amount and something the models for the future suggest will become more pronounced.
In the past year we have learned more to add to the fourth assessment report. This is a rapidly changing science and one of the more significant elements of the past year is that the speed of change has overtaken projections, especially in high latitude regions, where things are changing much faster than before. We may have been too conservative in our model approaches globally over the past decade or so. We base our projections for the future on a range of scenarios of population growth, economic growth, technological growth and food supply. The indications are that when we translate those into greenhouse gas emissions, they give us a way of handling and projecting future climate. What we have seen from the figures that have emerged for 2005-2007 is that global emissions are outside that envelope completely, that they are more pessimistic than even the most pessimistic option on which we based our model runs so far. The problem, far from being over-emphasised, is probably being under-emphasised considerably.
For our own work in Maynooth where we have been using those models to project Irish climate, we now anticipate an increase in temperature of between 1.5o C and 2o C in the next 40 years. We anticipate significant changes in rainfall, especially in wintertime in the west — a 12% to 15% increase — which will necessitate considerable changes in how we protect the population against flood events. It will have implications for agriculture and a whole host of areas. We anticipate more serious changes in rainfall reductions in summer in the east, 30% less summer rainfall in Wexford, which has the most profound implications for water supply, agriculture and competition between water resources. That would be the most significant scientific finding on which we would like to dwell.
There are some positives from climate change for Ireland. The most positive is that the temperature change will have a significantly positive effect on winter cold mortality. Ireland has one of the highest rates of death from winter cold than anywhere in Europe, despite our mild winters, which is due to our poorly insulated housing stock. We expect the death rate to fall considerably as winters become milder and even though summers will become hotter they will not enhance mortality overall. The negative aspects of health will be in areas such as salmonella and campolabacter which will also respond to increased temperature.
Those are the keys issues I see in climate. In particular, we must focus on the rainfall changes and its impact on our river courses. It will have two impacts in particular, including increased flood events in winter. We have modelled many of the rivers of Ireland and have fed in future climate data projections to them. For example, they show that rivers, such as the Boyne, where the once in a 50-year flood will become the once in a less than ten-year event by 2050. We have a major issue in terms of protection of the population from winter flooding with all its planning implications. There is also the issue of reduced summer flow with, obviously, less dilution water available to carry effluent. Therefore, problems of water pollution will become more serious. We have to be more conservative about effluent discharge permits and, more seriously, we have a conflict in terms of water competition use between population centres, such as Dublin and other towns and other users of water such as the agricultural community which will use it in increasing quantities by the middle of the century.
There are major issues in terms of biodiversity, for example, protecting our landscapes, allowing for migration of species to proceed, not losing valuable ecological niches and valuable wetland habitats. Those are issues we will have to tackle in the coming years with much vigour and energy.
The challenge is for us to adapt. Adaptation will take several different avenues. We will have to adapt our tourism industry, our building standards, our water resource and flood protection measures considerably as well as agricultural practices and management. Some crops will grow better while others will grow worse. Some of our practices in terms of storage of fodder crops will change. All of this will position Ireland better to cope with climate change. In the absence of adaptation we will be left behind the field. Many other countries are moving quite rapidly in the adaptation area. They are positioning themselves economically to cope with climate change. We have a responsibility to try to position society and our economy here to adapt as well.
We will also have a mitigating set of responsibilities which will require the committee's strategic view point. I am delighted this is an all-party issue, on which there is widespread agreement, because it will require collective effort to tackle some of the strategic issues that lie ahead in terms of mitigation and also strategic issues in terms of energy security, implementation of alternative energy sources and landscape biodiversity protection. That will require a concerted effort to put into practice policies at the local level especially where everything happens in Ireland.
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee. Mr. Coghlan has some more to say about how we might move from the scientific knowledge and awareness of the problem to implementing a process of trying to manage it more effectively.
I thank Professor Sweeney. I invite Mr. Coghlan to make his presentation.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the committee. Before commencing my presentation, I welcome very much the work of the committee during the past two years. It has been very interesting to watch it. It has increased the level and the depth of political engagement in the climate change issue and the fact that it is approached on an all-party basis will help to contain climate change nationally and internationally.
Before coming to our proposals to help Ireland make the transition to a low carbon economy, I wish to say a few words about the present context. At the moment the international negotiators are meeting in Bonn, as part of the UN negotiations to agree a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol in its current form. The plan is to have that treaty adopted in Copenhagen in December. Everybody knows that the Kyoto Protocol was just baby steps in terms of what is required to contain climate change. There is some good news in the global politics with the US seriously engaged and getting on board and there are positive signs from the developing countries who are becoming large polluters in their own right. If the US and Europe take the lead the other countries will come on board also. At global level there are good signs but if the Kyoto Protocol is baby steps, the Copenhagen treaty has to be leaps and bounds. I shall refer to the size of the challenge.
Nicholas Stern, the economist, who conducted an influential report two years ago has called the meeting in Copenhagen the most important meeting of world leaders since World War II. For an environmental organisation such as Friends of the Earth we would go further. If one takes the signs at face value and lets climate change run out of control, it poses an existential threat to our life support systems on earth and ultimately human civilisation is at stake, then if not at Copenhagen with the single meeting, these negotiations are some of the most important in human history if we are to protect human civilisation.
Turning briefly to the scale of the threat and the challenge we face, before coming to more practical matters for Ireland, Professor Sweeney mentioned that we have seen global warming so far of less than 1o C and even with that we are seeing real impacts on the Arctic icecap and on livelihood primarily in the developing countries where ironically, unjustly, they have done least to cause it. The EU and most of the scientific community agree that two degrees of global warming on average would be the dangerous threshold. We have almost got to 1o C but if we exceed 2o C that would constitute dangerous climate change. Stern and others who have done the models would say that if we continue to emit at business as usual levels, global warming at the end of the century will be between 5o C and 6o C, as opposed to the 2o C that is the dangerous threshold. That would be truly catastrophic for human and other life on earth. We are talking at the very least — as the Stern report would say — of cutting global emissions in terms of climate change and gases by 50% by 2050. Even at that, there would still be a 96% chance that the temperature would increase by more than 20C, but it would probably mean it would not increase by more than 3o C and almost certainly would not increase by more than 4o C or 5o C. It would still be unsafe but would not be catastrophic. That 50% cut in emissions globally, in anyone's numbers, is a large undertaking. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would say that the rich countries have historical responsibility for having caused most of this problem and, to begin with, they have to begin make most of the effort to address it. The IPCC figures, which the EU has accepted as good science, indicate that this will mean a 25% to 40% cut in emissions for us in the rich world by 2020 and an 80% to 95% cut in them by 2050. When we consider those numbers we realise the scale of transformation necessary. This is not about small changes at the edges, it is about changing the way we live and do business in Ireland.
It is not good enough that these numbers should be our opening ambition in negotiations, which is the way we do most of our human interaction. We set high ambitions and then work down to the lowest common denominator. We cannot negotiate with the atmosphere. We either cut emissions enough to prevent climate change running out of control or we do not. I would be the first to acknowledge that poses a real threat, problem and a challenge for politicians and for those who are sent into negotiations who are used to seeking to get the best deal for our country or our party in negotiations. If every country approaches the negotiations on that basis, the chances are we will miss meeting our targets which will have fundamentally problematic outcomes for humanity, Ireland and other countries. It is a tragedy of the commons, as is often said in environmental matters.
For those reasons we in Friends of the Earth have examined not only policies individual countries can adopt to reduce emissions but management systems and frameworks of action to make sure we take the necessary steps. Without putting in place such frameworks, our record in this respect has not been great. As members are probably aware, we are the sixth most climate polluting country per person in the rich world. On the same basis, we are the second most polluting one in the European Union. People to whom I have spoken on this issue have found a figure I have told them shocking, but it not surprising given the underlying figure. It is, namely, that if everyone polluted like the Irish, we would need three planets to absorb that pollution. Of course, we do not have three planets available to us. Even under the modest targets of the Kyoto Protocol where we were allowed a 13% increase, we did not manage to adhere to that. We had reached the level of a 26% increase by 2005. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, who signed up to the Kyoto Protocol on Ireland's behalf said a few years ago that we had failed to take enough action to reduce our emissions. Not everything we identified as possible emissions reduction measures were implemented or even promised and then not everything that was promised was implemented.
To the extent that we are possibly seeing a major downturn in Irish emissions now, although we do not know that yet for certain, is principally but not exclusively a result of the economic downturn rather than concerted policies. Some good policies, to which I will refer later, have been put forward. That is the reason we need to examine a framework that delivers momentum for policy making. To draw briefly on the lessons of the financial crisis, it seems the crisis was caused by poorly understood risk, weak regulation and by too much focus on the short term. Those risks or factors are also in play in terms of climate change. We do not necessarily understand the risks or we find them difficult to grasp. There is weak regulation around climate policy. We find it difficult to look 10, 20 or 30 years into the future and to take action now to prevent the worst outcomes in such future years. When there is economic upturn, we need to make sure our emissions do not rise rapidly again with such growth, which is why we believe a legislative framework on climate change would assist us in this regard. It could be the cornerstone of a low carbon recovery of a green economy, if we were to ensure we operated under it as we go forward.
I mentioned that some good policies have been put forward and some of them are coming into place, but an overall framework is missing. People see pieces of the jigsaw. Some of the big pieces, such as some of the strategic decisions by the ESB, do not get enough coverage. What people tend to see is what the media tends to focus on and sometimes trivialise, namely, the smaller initiatives around bicycles and public transport. A debate on a climate change law, putting our targets into law and putting a system in place to achieve them into law would be like putting before people the picture on the front of a jigsaw box, namely, the frame within which we would work. It would allow us set that vision for the future and mobilise people to support the policies necessary to reach the targets set. In the context of the Copenhagen conference it would be good to be seen to be preparing to do that. It would give Ireland renewed credibility at the international level and send a signal to other countries in the global south in particular that we are ready to do business, to play our part.
I will briefly outline why a law in this area would make sense. There are a number of factors involved. It would give us certainly over time. A homeowner investing in insulation or renewable technologies, a business investing in energy efficient plant or changing it processes to reduce its emissions or public policy makers deciding what policies to choose are operating in conditions of uncertainty. We do not know for certain if the targets that are being talked about will be met. If those targets were put into law, investors would know it would be worth their while investing in cutting costs up front because as we go down the emissions pathway and reduce our emissions over time such investors would begin to make savings and a return on their investments.
Such a law would help to make Ireland an attractive venue for green investment, green technology and green jobs. Only one country, the United Kingdom, has so far adopted a national climate change law and the framework we are talking about. Other countries, such as Sweden, Belgium, Hungary and the US, albeit in a somewhat different way, are now examining it. We can learn from the experience of other countries but we can also do this early enough to benefit from some of the first mover advantages. We have a green image in various ways, but we can show that we are serious about this issue and that we will lead from now on in building a sustainable future. We can invite people to invest in electric cars here, in wave technology and in other renewable energies because this is a safe and conducive climate for that kind of business. Such an approach could help us build a sustainable economy and sustainable jobs that are not subject to the boom and bust cycles of the economy but can last the century ahead of us.
A law in this area would give the Government commitment we need here. Environment Ministers attend international treaty negotiations and sign up to targets but their Cabinet colleagues do not always have full knowledge of what that will mean in practice, be it a carbon tax or the closing of Moneypoint. Colleagues will respond to such a Minister regarding such a decisions that it is does not come under his or her remit. Therefore, we need ways that make sure all Departments buy into the climate change deal. Putting the targets into law is a way to do that. There is more detail on this in our paper which members have received and is on the screens before them.
The elements that would be included in law would be an independent commission to give expert advice to the Government and Parliament on the targets we should adopt based on the latest science and the least cost measures we should adopt to deliver those targets. There is an example in this respect in the UK. It is a committee there chaired by a former head of the Confederation of British Industry and it also includes scientists and economists, although it is a small committee comprising only eight people. The establishment of a commission is promised in the current programme for Government to propose advice to the Government and to complete progress reports every year on how these targets are being achieved. We would see this committee as an obvious one for the referral of such reports in the same way as the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is examined by the Committee of Public Accounts. The reports from such a climate change commission could be well dealt with here and this would be a forum for transparency and accountability from Ministers who have responsibility for delivering those targets. The targets should be set in line with the best available science to drive innovation in public policy, private lifestyles and private enterprise investment.
The other main feature of such a measure is carbon budgeting, something that has been talked about in Ireland but it is an idea that has not yet taken hold. The example we have of this is the British one, which, as we understand, will be replicated elsewhere. This is the idea of putting five year carbon budgets into law. As in the case of a fiscal budget, the amount of money available to be spent is set out, in this case the amount of pollution we can afford to emit can be stated and that can be allocated to the different Departments and the line Ministers can be given responsibility for delivering on those targets by implementing policies.
A question then arises as to who should co-ordinate this. There is some debate as to whether it might best be done by the Department of the Taoiseach which in the past and on the basis of cross-party consensus co-ordinated policy relating to Northern Ireland, by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, where the expertise on climate change currently resides, or by the Department of Finance, which has cross-Government authority to ensure every Department reports on numbers and budgets. The UK authorities have decided the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change should be jointly responsible for carbon budgets.
As members are aware, climate change law has real cross-party potential. The current programme for Government states the Government will seek a cross-party approach to climate change targets. The Minister has informed Friends of the Earth on a number of occasions that the Government sees this committee as the crucible for developing that cross-party approach. In our efforts to have climate change legislation placed on the political agenda and debated, we have received support from all parties and Independents. When the Independent Group in the Seanad moved a climate protection Bill two years ago, it was welcomed, in principle, by all parties. As members are aware, the Labour Party has since drafted its own Bill on the matter and this may come before the Dáil later in the year.
The committee indicating its support for legislation would be a real signal that Ireland is getting serious about this matter. Having observed its work during the past 18 months to two years, I am aware the committee has compiled some useful reports on other aspects of the climate challenge. I refer, for example, to its research into other aspects of the European energy and climate package, for example, that which relates to electric cars. Perhaps the committee might consider researching emerging laws throughout Europe and the rest of the world and making recommendations to the Government in respect of the shape a climate change law for Ireland might take.
On the latter point, the committee earlier agreed, on an all-party basis, to appoint Deputy Liz McManus as rapporteur to examine the proposal for legislation and to consider what is being done in other countries. The Deputy will, it is hoped, be reporting back to the committee following the summer recess.
Before we take questions from members, I wish to put a particular point to Professor Sweeney. We discussed this matter previously and I have always been of the view that we need to bring the people with us. We must provide, in simple language, examples of what the effects of climate change would mean to different parts of Ireland in the context of agriculture or whatever. Are we experiencing a change in our seasons? It is difficult to persuade people with regard to climate change and rising temperatures, particularly when they ask one when it was that we last enjoyed a good summer. We must be able to put the facts before the people. When one refers to increases in temperature, people immediately think of blue skies and believe that instead of visiting Lanzarote they will be able to holiday in Brittas Bay. I cannot remember the weather being good in the month of May for many years.
Has there been a change in the seasons? We have witnessed extremes in weather. Last week those of us who were out canvassing were dressed in shirt sleeves etc. By Saturday, however, people were wearing overcoats because the temperature had dropped dramatically and there was extremely heavy rainfall. Is Professor Sweeney in a position to explain how such extremes in weather occur?
Professor John Sweeney
A great deal of it is based on perception and on people's memories of their youth when they thought the sun always shone. We tend to forget the wet Sundays on which we spent our time staring out at the rain. There is evidence that spring is beginning slightly earlier. Over a period of 40 or 50 years, meticulous measurements have been taken in a number of gardens throughout the country in respect of when trees bud, when flowers bloom and when leaves begin to fall. Although there is still an astonishing amount of variability from year to year, there are signs that spring is beginning earlier in the year on most parts of the island. There is also evidence that autumn leaf fall is beginning slightly later. However, it is only a matter of a few days overall and the year-to-year variability masks that completely for most people. A clear signal has yet to emerge in this regard.
The extremes to which the Chairman refers will happen at the change of the seasons because climate in Ireland is very much controlled by the direction from which the wind blows. Due to the fact that the wind was blowing from the Continent during the past two weeks, Ireland had sunny, warm weather. However, when the wind comes in off the Atlantic Ocean, the temperature of which is only 20° Celsius or 13° Celsius, a very different set of weather conditions prevail. That variability has always been and will continue to be a feature of the Irish climate.
With regard to the impact of climate change on a local scale, I often ask farmers how they would cope if they could not graze their cattle on grass in March or April because the soil was too moist following the winter rains. If such a scenario comes to pass, they would be obliged to store extra silage, house their cattle for longer and make arrangements to put in place additional storage for slurry. I ask those in Wexford for their thoughts on their being obliged to house their cattle indoors in July or August if the temperatures were particularly high. The latter is almost unthinkable for a farmer but the projections for grass growth for the summer months in that part of Ireland indicate this could become a reality by mid-century.
When one begins to discuss that matter at this level, it begins to resonate with people. What I am describing will not happen every year and it is not something that people will even perceive very strongly on a year-to-year basis. However, with the benefit of hindsight, after a decade those to whom I refer will begin to see that the weather was very different in their youth and that what they could do with the landscape when they were younger will no longer be possible. That is the kind of down to earth message which we, as scientists, sometimes obscure. We talk gobbledegook a great deal of the time. When one takes the approach of asking whether it might be possible to grow potatoes in Ireland if the month of August is particularly dry or inquiring as to how people would cope if there were no rainfall in the summer months, a realisation begins to dawn that this is not merely a global problem to be dealt with by others but rather that it is also one which we must seek to manage.
The reason I posed my earlier questions is because this is an extremely important matter. On the question of water shortages, people take it for granted that when they turn on the tap they will get fresh water. Will Professor Sweeney outline the consequences climate change might have in the context of water shortages?
Professor John Sweeney
People in Ireland tend to think of water as a birthright and as a common resource that will always be available in plentiful supply. Ireland is one of the wettest islands in the western hemisphere. However, it is clear that as the storm tracks begin to migrate north and divert the depressions away from our shores, areas in the east and south will suffer considerable water shortages during the summer months. I referred to a reduction of 30% in summer rainfall. Such a reduction would mean that during dry periods the level of water flowing in rivers in Wexford and Waterford would be halved. As a result, we would be obliged to cope with twice the concentration of pollutants and effluents and the cost of purifying such water for drinking or other purposes would double.
We must, therefore, begin to consider how we might manage this resource in a much more active and robust manner than heretofore. From a practical point of view, we must plan for eking out alternative supplies for the parts of the county that will be under extreme pressure. The water supply for Dublin will be on somewhat of a knife edge within five to ten years. The existing supply from Ballymore Eustace will not be sufficient to cope with the increasing needs of this part of the world from population growth alone, regardless of climate change, over the next decade of two. We have a problem in that regard. The water supply that is available to meet the demand for water in this part of the world is approximately 7,600 litres per person per day. That sounds like an awful lot until one considers that there is a supply of 76,000 litres of water per person per day in north-west Donegal. There is a huge disparity between where our people are and where our resources are. Unless we plan much more robustly in the future, we will face very high infrastructural costs when we try to bring the resource to where the people are. Part of the logic of the national spatial strategy, for example, is to try to match people and resources better. That would be possible if the strategy were implemented in an ideal way. In practical terms, if we do not plan to augment the supply of water in the Dublin area over the next decade or two, the area will run out of water. It would take 15 years to implement a proper programme of supply change. We have to address climate change now. We cannot kick for touch on it. Water is where the pinch will come. The huge population growth in this part of Ireland has ratcheted up the pressure at a time when resources are dwindling. We need to address these twin pressures. In the years to come, we will feel the effects of climate change on water supply in our purses as well as in our taps.
I welcome Professor Sweeney, who has distinguished experience in dealing with the issue of climate change. I am grateful to the joint committee for appointing me as its rapporteur. I hope I will be able to avail of Professor Sweeney's experience and expertise when I prepare my report for the committee. The central point that needs to be made at this juncture is that the achievement of cross-party agreement on these issues will be an important strength when we try to produce climate change legislation. Mr. Coghlan has itemised certain matters that we need to take on board in producing that legislation. As he said, it is important we try to create momentum. We have been looking at many of the factors that are contributing to this problem. However, we do not seem to be able to ensure that the factors are changed and our targets are met. I agree it is important for any future legislation in this area to create some momentum. It is clear that we need to examine the issue of certainty in a little more detail. As well as developing an integrated approach, which is obviously important, we need to ensure the legislation we produce will have economic benefits. For example, it should help to make Ireland an attractive location for investment in this area.
I would like to ask a couple of questions that follow on from what the Chairman asked earlier. When one starts to talk about climate change, one is always told that there have been temperature cycles throughout the history of the world. I appreciate that it is an obvious argument. While Professor Sweeney may have been asked about it many times, it continues to arise. It is suggested that the current phase of climate change is taking place for reasons other than the ancient ones. Perhaps Professor Sweeney can comment on that. What is so different now that it is bringing so many people to this conclusion? There seems to be a certain amount of disagreement or uncertainty when it comes to the impact of climate change on sea levels. Perhaps Professor Sweeney can outline the latest thinking in that regard. I appreciate that as a scientist, he is looking at projections. That is what he does. Can he tell us what he latest thinking is? I would also like to ask about adaptation. While Professor Sweeney was talking, I was struck by the thought that the local authorities have an absolutely central role in providing water, sewerage, roads and flood protection services. It is not a runner to depend on the spatial strategy because that is just not happening. Perhaps Professor Sweeney can explain how we can ensure that the local authorities are beefed up in some way. We appreciate that they are experiencing funding difficulties, but they must meet the adaptation challenge. I will conclude by asking about the impact of the recession on climate change initiatives. Certain things that have happened relatively quickly have had a very significant impact on the economy. Has Professor Sweeney had a chance to project how the recession will impact on our responsibilities in this area?
Professor John Sweeney
When the Deputy spoke about climate change cycles, she correctly mentioned that climate change has always been driven by long-term natural factors such as the degree of obliqueness and eccentricity of the earth's orbit around the sun. These long-term cycles tend to play out over hundreds of thousands of years. I refer to the inter-glacial cycles of the past 2 million years, for example. Solar activity and ocean currents may also change as a result of more short-term influences. When we feed all these natural factors into our climate models for the past century or so, it is projected that the earth should be cooling down at this time. It is only when anthropogenic factors are fed into our models, in addition to the natural factors, that the models replicate what has actually happened over the past 50 or 100 years. This seems to send a signal to us that people are driving the pace of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a strong statement to the effect that there is a 90% probability that the main cause of the climate change of the past 50 years has been the enhanced greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. Very few atmospheric scientists believe what we are experiencing at the moment is a natural phenomenon. With a few exceptions, they all strongly believe that climate change is being driven by anthropogenic forces. There is a vociferous community of sceptics who have not gone away, but are able to make themselves heard in very high places. Their position is not held in much scientific esteem by responsible scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change certainly denies most of their claims.
The Deputy also asked about the impact of climate change on sea levels, which is an important issue although it will not affect the people of Ireland to the same extent as it will affect people living in small Pacific Ocean island states or along the coast of Bangladesh, for example. It will affect us when we are deciding where to locate our infrastructure, however. There are many instances in Ireland of infrastructure that may have to be changed because it is quite close to sea level and high investment costs are associated with it. The main railway line in Deputy McManus's constituency runs quite close to the water's edge. I will comment on the latest thinking on sea levels. It was the most controversial aspect of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Many people considered the suggestion in the report that sea levels would rise by approximately 50 cm by the end of this century to be extremely conservative. We are now aware that when the panel arrived at that figure, it discounted the uncertainty in Greenland and Antarctica. In the last two years, we have become aware that such areas are actively contributing to sea level increases to a much more considerable extent than we had previously thought. We now understand that it is likely that sea levels will increase by up to a metre by the end of the century. While that might not sound like much, it means the coastline of Bangladesh will retreat by 25 km. Sea level increases will have serious implications for many parts of the world, such as the mega deltas. Such areas are often populated by the poorest people in society, who have nowhere to which to migrate. We need to reflect on the difficulties that will be caused in Ireland too, particularly in so far as the balance between erosion and deposition along our coastlines may be tipped. I refer in particular to the soft coastlines of counties like Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow. Places that were formerly stable will be eroded. The rate of erosion in places where the coastline has already been retreating rapidly will be accelerated. We have to manage our coastlines carefully with the issue of sea levels in mind. The Deputy also asked about the recession.
Yes, and about the role of local authorities.
Professor John Sweeney
The local authorities have an essential role. They represent the most appropriate point of action for every decision that will be made by this committee. If local authorities cannot implement things at ground level, success will not be achieved.
My department has been working on a project to consider adaptation at local authority level and ask what information local authorities need, the areas that are vulnerable and the threats faced. One essential instrument at local authority level that the members might consider is the more widespread and robust application of the strategic environmental assessment directive. Programmes, policies and plans at local authority level are now subject to strategic environmental assessment. This statutorily requires that climate change considerations be taken on board. If implemented with a greater degree of commitment to the ideal, development planning at local authority level would be much more sustainable and conscious of the need to take climate change issues on board than may have been the case in the past. It would help with sustainable planning, settlement policies on flood plains, coastal management, energy and transport. It is very important to have more vigorous application of the instrument at local level.
With regard to the recession, the ESRI has, using the ISus model and the HERMES model for the economy, projected the impact of the recession on Irish greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome is that the recession will effectively reduce our emissions in the next two to three years to the point where we will not be obliged to buy greenhouse gas quota from outside the country. This will result in a saving for the Exchequer, which has earmarked considerable sums of money for the purpose. However, the recession will not last forever, one hopes, and at the end of it we will still face the same problems we faced two or three years ago. The projections for 2020 mean the target will become very difficult. Although we will be fine for 2012, we will still have to face the same issues for 2020 as we did heretofore. Perhaps they will be even more severe, which makes it all the more important that we emerge from the recession in a way that decouples economic growth from emissions growth in some form. It is a very pressing problem. If we move to a 30% reduction, which many believe likely at this stage, it will make the target even more difficult to attain. We face a major hurdle.
The magnitude of the hurdle is such that if we were to opt for the same kind of reduction by 2050 as the UK Government is opting for, our total emissions in Ireland would need to be as low in 2050 as those of our entire agriculture sector today. In other words, every other sector in the economy would have to be carbon neutral to allow us to continue to have agricultural emissions at the same rate that obtains today. That is very difficult to envisage and it shows the magnitude of the problem we face.
I thank Professor Sweeney and Mr. Coghlan. Professor Sweeney's presentation was about analysing, on the basis of the science, how we need to adapt to the inevitability of global warming and climate change and prepare for them. Mr. Coghlan's presentation focused on what we need to do to achieve a reversal or at least mitigate the worst impacts if we allow ourselves to continue to live as we do today. A professor, whose name I forget, stated in a news bulletin from London that it will take us 40 years from the time we apply the brakes to stop the train, from which time we can seek a reversal. That fits in with what the delegates stated.
The challenges agriculture will face are such that production levels will drop. Emissions from farming will decrease because production and growth patterns will be less intense. If one must seek emissions decreases in agriculture, be it in terms of livestock production or another form of food production, one will have to change one's method of production and one's output will not be the same. If the problem is global and the population is increasing, resulting in an increase in food demand in the order of 3% per annum, bearing in mind that we cannot feed everyone as matters stand, we will have to consider alternative ways of providing food. I do not know how. It is a challenge in itself and it will certainly be a cause of civil unrest if there is widespread hunger. That is a stark reality we will have to face.
Deputy McManus has covered many of the relevant points. Both delegates referred to carbon credits and carbon currency. The challenge concerns fossil fuels. Prices will remain as low as they are as long as there is a recession and will rise with an increase in affluence on a global scale. In such an environment, which we need to consider, how can we make competitive the production of carbon-neutral energy to heat our homes, run our cars or fly our planes? We must persuade the people who will make the agreement in Copenhagen that savings can be made by switching to carbon-neutral energy and efficient use of the earth's resources. I do not yet know the formula for achieving this.
Law, as opposed to a Kyoto-Protocol type agreement, gives certainty to investors. Ironically, the new economy of the planet could be founded on saving the planet. How does one make the law enforceable? There was a reference to the Office of the Taoiseach. If the law is broken, will the Government or the people be culpable? Who is to blame and how does one enforce a fine or sanction? Compliance was referred to but not in respect of penalties. I am not trying to be flippant because one must consider the sanctions if one breaks the law.
The basic issue is that we must change our lifestyle totally, but this must be sold in a way that is acceptable to the people, as the Chairman stated. That is the challenge faced by those who will sign up to the agreement in Copenhagen. That agreement will set the parameters but it will extend much further in that the proposals will have to be bought into by every government and people. There will be a slow change based on the principle that it will take 40 years to apply the brakes. We must begin now and, to be fair to this committee, it has recognised that since it was established. That is the reason it was set up. I thank the delegates.
I welcome our visitors and their presentations. I was musing on the fact that a beach in Dún Laoghaire on the edge of Dublin Bay no longer has its blue flag. One of the reasons the county manager cited was that, over the past two years, there have been many instances of extremely heavy rain. Traditionally there was such rain once or twice per summer but, in the past two years, there was extreme rain on perhaps a dozen occasions that led to the mixing of storm water and surface water, causing pollution. This made it harder to make the case for a blue flag.
Does Professor Sweeney see a propensity for extreme weather events happening in Ireland in the future? I suspect there will be more extreme weather events but I accept his caveat of not confusing weather with climate change.
Presumably climate change legislation and levies will require changes in planning, transport, agriculture and so forth. However, what specifically will have to happen in these areas? There have been robust discussions in the environment committee about settlement patterns. Does Professor Sweeney have information on carbon emissions for different types of settlement patterns such as dispersed rural settlements versus dense urban ones? Climate change legislation is likely to happen sooner rather than later. However, policy changes must be introduced and I would welcome his thoughts on that.
The auctioning or allocating of emissions permits is a lively European debate. Denmark has gone for the full auctioning choice. I believe Ireland should do the same. Does Professor Sweeney favour auctioning or allocating?
As David MacKay points out there is much hot air in the climate change debate. What are the delegates' pet hates in the debate? What really makes their blood boil?
Professor John Sweeney
Weather extremes are changing and there has been a significant change in high intensity rainfall in Ireland. We detected it first in the west five years ago when it was noted that the number of days with a certain threshold of rain was increasing. It had not been noted on the east coast then. However, over the past two summers the sheer intensity of rainfall on the east coast has not been experienced before. It looks as if we are beginning to see a higher intensity rainfall event which is what we would expect if the land surface is a degree or so warmer than its historic average temperature. There will be more convection and overturning. The air can hold more water vapour, so it is natural that we will have that energy release through higher intensity rainfall.
While we expect the summers to become drier, when rain does fall in the summer it will become a more intense event. This factor has been included in the modelling aspects we have done on river flow. That is why some of the flood events have been so enhanced over the past two summers. Rain water is arriving in river channels faster because it is falling in a shorter period than usual. We must also take this into account.
Concerning planning and the aspect of settlement in particular, we have looked at models of land use change for counties Dublin, Louth, Wicklow and Kildare. In one case study, we examined what would happen if market forces were allowed to transform agricultural land into urban settlements with a dispersed settlement pattern taking place. The second case study examined a compact city with more high density core areas in the Dublin region and less in the way of commuter and dispersed settlements around it. The journey to work data from the last census is a very useful data source in these analyses. We can tabulate every person in the State, where they live and where they work, and how they get to work, allowing us to work out the transport-related emissions for both scenarios. We found we get a difference of around 30% in transport-related emissions between dispersed and nucleated scenarios.
If we let things slide, we will have a much more difficult task in getting emissions reductions in the future. It is, as Deputy McManus said, essential that we move to local authority level to implement many emission reduction targets. That is where the action will take place. Implementing sustainable policies at local level will achieve many of the reduction targets.
I am not an expert in the auctioning versus grandfathering debate. The plans for a next generation emissions trading system suggest we should auction in every case except a few. It will provide a more efficient and rational allocation. In the first round of the emission quotas inequalities and discrepancies emerged and, perhaps, it did not achieve the low-cost reduction for which it was designed. Certain industries were favoured and others were not. Auctioning will get over some of that in the future.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan
Deputy Doyle's use of the analogy of applying the brakes over a long period is a good one. Almost all the adaptation challenges laid out by Professor Sweeney will need to be implemented even if we halt all our emissions now. Given the inertia of the climate system and the time lag between when pollution is emitted and its full effects are seen, even if we stopped all emissions now there would still be a need for reductions. The reductions I spoke about are to prevent it running out of control.
Changes to lifestyles are coming, whether we like it, because of climate change and the oil peak. The question open to us is what kind of change we want. Do we want one we can manage ourselves by reducing our emissions step by step? Alternatively, do we dally and dither so long that we cannot actually manage the changes, somewhat like the recent financial crash?
Real opportunities for Irish agriculture will be presented by climate change. There will be a period of adjustment but there are opportunities in biomass production to replace peat-burning stations, which we should be doing regardless. Opportunities will arise in bio-fuel production as well but there are debates as to how viable it could be. There is also the food security question. We should not take for granted that we can source all our food from elsewhere. Ireland has been able to feed itself over the years, an important skill that must be protected.
Eating like the Americans is a growing global trend. The Chinese want to eat meat now in a way they did not before. If everyone eats as much meat as we do now, we will not be able to meet any of the targets we have spoken about with current technologies. In agriculture, compared with energy, it is difficult to see how fast one can change the technologies for growing beef. It is a carbon-intensive and pollution-intensive process. That is a challenge for us all. Either we tell the Chinese they cannot eat meat or we must decide to share out what is possible to grow around the world without exceeding dangerous levels of emissions.
On the issue of oil prices which the Deputy asked about, there is no alternative to putting a price on carbon, particularly as the economy picks up, if not sooner, so that the non-carbon based energies become competitive. To an extent, when oil was at $150 a barrel it was attractive to invest in the alternative energies and it almost looked as if the thing would take care of itself. Scarcity in oil indicated people would invest in the alternatives. Now that the incentive to invest has fallen off, however, at the very least we need some type of floor price on carbon based fuels, as well as some sort of carbon levies so there is an incentive to switch and invest in alternatives.
On the issue of compliance and the law, when Friends of the Earth in the UK first published the draft climate Bill for its campaign, it provided that if a Minister failed to meet his or her targets, there should be an impact on his or her salary. Every percentage point above the emissions target would mean 2% off the Minister's salary, in effect, which served well for getting media attention. I do not believe it was ever envisaged this would become law, and of course it did not.
Friends of the Earth has done research in terms of the European targets and explored how the European Commission or the Union, if it wanted to, could adopt an enforcement role above and beyond the terribly long legal challenge model at present being adopted by the Commission. One example is the milk quota system which has very immediate sanctions that do not require such a long drawn out legal process at the European Court of Justice. If someone exceeds his or her milk quota there is a fine on the spot, so there are models at the European level. More broadly, however, as Friends of the Earth has worked on this issue in other countries over time it has become more clear that it is a question of avoiding that scenario rather than providing for it. It is about putting the systems in place which if focused on sufficiently will give rise to policies that will build momentum around those issues so we do not end up every year tabling no confidence motions or seeking to imprison or fine Ministers. We are looking to facilitate decision making.
One analogy has been made as regards a person's relationship with his or her bank or mortgage provider. Their first instinct is not to foreclose, but rather to work out a repayment plan. Similarly, if emission targets are exceeded the law is supposed to impose corrective action and put in place a facility for doing that.
On Deputy Cuffe's questions——
The banks can move far too quickly.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan
I know, although they are not seeking to foreclose, because they cannot sell the house.
It is quite similar to the emissions.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan
I would not want to use too many bank analogies, perhaps. As regards Deputy Cuffe's question about auctioning, we need, absolutely, to move towards full auctioning. Grandfathering was allowed because it was the only way the EU could get the industries to go for it at all and not block it entirely as they were mounting major lobbying. It has led to a silent windfall for big companies, however, about which people should be outraged, involving the mass transfer of resources from taxpayers to companies. They were given these emissions rights free of charge, and at certain times, although not right now, they were worth a good deal. They had a book value on their balance sheets and they passed the value of that through to the price that was charged to consumers for whatever services there were. Therefore they got a windfall profit and a free ride to buy them into it and certainly as we move into the next phase — in the case of America, as well, where they are having the same debate — we really should be pushing for full auctioning. That is absolutely the fairest way to do it.
Professor Sweeney has spoken mostly in terms of "then what?", after the law and the pricing, and obviously that still has to be addressed. Upscaling some of the stuff being done on energy to facilitate people to refit their homes and so on is an option as is the question of facilitating investment in renewables, broadly speaking, and obviously public transport. We know that when public transport is reliable, affordable and convenient, people flock to it. We need to be looking at buses as well as largescale infrastructure in that regard.
Has either of the witnesses any pet hates?
Professor John Sweeney
My pet hate is the obsession with the balance the media sometimes have, the idea that this is an equally balanced topic so that they have to have somebody with a sceptical outlook to counter the real scientific perspectives. Sometimes that balance goes the other way so that the scientific perspective gets completely lost, as we have seen recently. This imaginary obsession with balance is something that annoys me somewhat. There is no balance.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan
At a certain point we stopped debating whether smoking damaged health and we should have got to that point with climate change. However, we do not seem to have reached it in the media as yet. We have reached it here, and in the academic world for the most part.
I heard Professor Anthony Giddens, an eminent sociologist, talk about this recently. He framed the issue in an interesting way that could be helpful. In the mainstream debate the way it is styled is to present the scientists who believe in climate change as against those who are sceptical. Therefore in seeking balance one goes for one of each. Professor Giddens has written a book on climate change, having come to the topic fresh, since it is not his area of expertise as such. He argues that there are, in fact, three schools. There are the sceptics and the mainstream scientists represented in the IPCC. Since the IPCC findings were published, in the last three years there are the more radical scientists, too, some of whom pioneered the science of climate change, such as Dr. James E. Hansen in the US and these are saying the IPCC is too cautious and conservative and that matters are far worse so that we need to be acting much faster. When the spectrum is painted that way, catering for two extremes — although it is probably not fair to call Dr. Hansen an extremist — it then becomes much more difficult to deny the mainstream middle. It is a pretty simple example as outlined but actually this is not how it is discussed. It might, however, be a useful way of discussing it because unless one is to opt for one of the three it is safer to go for the one in the middle. That is fine because it means Professor Sweeney does not have to debate the arguments of people who represent less than 1% of the scientific community every time they appear in the media.
I wish to thank both speakers, Mr. Coghlan and Professor Sweeney, for coming before the committee. For me this has helped to enrich the debate and inform the committee. We shall try to address the challenges from an Oireachtas viewpoint and I hope adopt a cross-party approach, which is a fundamental way of achieving progress.
Ireland is a small country, with a small population. Theoretically I am sure the witnesses would agree, it should be easier to manage, but nonetheless, there are enormous challenges. We have already spoken about agriculture, an indigenous industry, which is of major concern in this predominantly rural country. If we are to meet our targets there will have to be major change and adaptation within agriculture.
We can have all the academic reports and data that are available, and these are very important in properly informing the debate. However, can we create a formula or road map for Ireland to respond to the challenge that can cater for all of those facets, since agriculture is such an important part of the economy? Can that function be provided for so that we remain sustainable? Can the economics and the science merge somehow to create a formula that will help convince sceptics that this can work in a practical, tangible manner that is tailored to Ireland's economic statistics? I believe we are not convincing sufficient numbers of people and perhaps that is why the legislation is being delayed. I have contributed to it in the Seanad and in principle and in theory we all agree there has to be climate change legislation. However, I believe we need to convince the wider public, if we are to bring in legislation, that there are mechanisms in place that can help them achieve those targets. As the Chairman said, we need to speak more in layman's language in trying to communicate our messages. In the short-term can we come up with a roadmap that will help communicate and change the mindset and the culture that exists, using science and economic data to achieve a formula that can work and is sustainable, regardless of balance? We can set our targets and bring in the legislation once we have the general support of the public. There is no point in passing legislation and sanction unless we have that general acceptance beforehand. In the long term, we can then create a policy to produce more sustainable infrastructure, such as water resources, large scale energy renewable projects and so on. We need to set out a road map to convince politicians and the wider public that this is a workable solution to the challenges we face. I would like to hear Professor Sweeney's comments on whether such a formula is achievable.
I come from Waterford and there is anecdotal evidence of coastal erosion there. Local authorities are aware of the threat, but I am not sure if they have the resources, skill sets and supports to respond to those threats. It is something that we need to examine as a committee. Coastal erosion is happening as we speak, and local authorities have an unfunded mandate. They are too busy trying to deal with the day to day issues. The bigger picture has been lost and slowly but surely, that erosion is happening and affecting the whole county. Professor Sweeney stated that he was involved in some group examining how local authorities will adapt to the new challenges. Could he expand on that further to clarify what is being done in that area?
During my time as Minister of State with responsibility for this area, I had a small allocation of funds available for coastal erosion, mainly coming from Europe. It was tiny compared with the problem with which we had to deal. It can only be made available for public lands, but sometimes the land can be public for a certain section and then it becomes private, before becoming public again. That makes the work far more expensive. Funding for things like coastal erosion should come from the funds emanating from the ETS. It should be a provision in the ETS that a certain percentage of money going back to the Government should be used for such things as coastal erosion and necessary infrastructure that is being damaged by climate change. I would like to hear Professor Sweeney's views on that, but first I will ask Deputy Fitzpatrick to make his points.
I compliment the two speakers. I have known Professor Sweeney for quite some time in Maynooth. He and his team have been ploughing a lone furrow for a long time, and it is only in recent years that they have come to the prominence they deserve. I commend them for the work they do. Can the professor outline to the committee the work he has been doing in the past few years? How has he progressed from the small beginnings to the current faculty in Maynooth?
What impact will climate change have on wildlife? When he speaks about climate change in Ireland, does he refer to the whole island? If the impact is as severe as we believe, has he concerns for the island of Ireland in the future? He said today that we are the second most polluted country in the EU. That is not a nice record to hold. In the short term, does he believe we could do more to improve the environment and CO2 emissions? Should we have a greater focus on short term or medium term targets? Climate change is a very serious issue.
How are we educating young people now? What we are doing today is for the next generation and the generation after that. Only they will see the benefits of the work we are doing here. How is our education system teaching our young people the effects of climate change? We will all survive, but do our younger people realise the importance of the work going on here and in the universities? How is the professor linking up with other universities for the benefit of the entire community, the entire island and Europe?
Professor John Sweeney
I will start with the coastal erosion issue. It is quite sensitive, although it will not be a big problem in Deputy Fitzpatrick's constituency. Coastal erosion is a natural process and we will not stop it. In many ways, we should not attempt to throw money at stopping coastal erosion of agricultural land. The cost benefit analysis for that is extremely unfavourable. The only circumstances in which we should defend the coast is where there is high value public amenity land, urban land or infrastructure at risk. In such circumstances, we should defend the coast. We run a risk of tinkering with a system that we still do not fully understand, when we start defending small areas of agricultural land by building revetments or sea walls around it and thinking that by protecting that area of land, we will protect other areas adjacent to it. The energy will simply be transferred elsewhere.
We must be very sensitive on how we handle the coastal system. It may be more complex than simply the emotional response that we all have when we see a field disappearing. It may well be that we must treat it as part and parcel of nature and retreat and plan for not building infrastructure or settling people in such vulnerable areas.
We are working on a project at the moment looking at how habitats and ecosystems can move physically through Ireland as the climate changes. We are looking at key species and seeing whether in the conditions to the north more favourable for such systems, they can relocate or migrate. We will be able to do that in many instances. There are often issues such as whether there are corridors for migration, whether there are physical obstacles such as walls on the central reservations of our motorways, which wildlife cannot climb anymore. There are many practical issues which must be taken into account. We will certainly lose species in some very important habitats. For example, we will lose many of our Arctic-alpine species in the high mountain areas. We have species in the lakes of Wicklow and Donegal such as Arctic char which are relics of the Ice Age and which will be vulnerable to increasing temperature. We will also run the risk of losing wildlife in wetland habitats which may become submerged as the sea level rises. In some cases, they will be able to relocate further inland, but in other cases towns or walls or roads will stop that migration taking place. A great deal of work needs to be done on what we think will be vulnerable, what kind of provision we need to make to ease migration for some of the things that we value.
We did a survey many years ago which we sent to North America, and we asked Irish emigrants there what they would miss the most about Ireland if the climate changed. We were surprised at the response we received. The thing which Irish emigrants in North America would miss most about Ireland was the cry of the curlew. It is an example of the emotional attachments we have to certain habitats, places and aspects of our life. We do not want to lose the aspects that make us distinctive. The bogs, the curlew, the turloughs of the west — these are the types of features and species to which we must pay special attention because they will be at risk as our climate changes. With such losses goes part of our identity.
We at NUI Maynooth have been working on climate change issues for approximately a decade. When we started there was no national funding for environmental research of any type in the State. We began with a small grant from the Environmental Protection Agency, initially focusing on modelling work for several years. We gradually built up our research team to the current complement of 15 people who work on various aspects. It says something about the importance of research and development that the emissions trading scheme could be used not just for the purposes mentioned by the Chairman but also to enhance research and development in this State, which is a long way behind what is being done elsewhere in Europe. As a country, we put much emphasis on information technology and biopharmaceuticals in the past 20 years, neglecting many areas of environmental research in which several of our continental partners have forged ahead of us. As we look to the future, it is important that we do some catching up.
Senator Coffey spoke about the way ahead. We have a great asset in our young and educated population. Another great asset is our national resources, including tremendous wind resources and the potential in wave resources and biomass. These assets offer us a strategic competitive advantage for the years ahead. If we can bring together these personal skills and natural advantages, we can look to a strategic vision whereby we can take the lead and be in front of the pack in the years ahead in terms of tackling this problem through renewable energy technologies. Another of our great advantages is our smallness, as referred to by the Senator. This should allow us to change direction more quickly, for example, than the behemoth economies of Germany, the United Kingdom or Italy. We have a chance, because we are nimble, to make a strategic choice for the future at a time of rapid change which harnesses our environmental and personal advantages and offers us a comparative advantage to ensure we can be a winner rather than a loser from this process.
Mr. Oisín Coghlan
I wish to respond to Senator Coffey's questions. In terms of persuading people to make the necessary changes, one approach is to refer to the old proverb that a stitch in time saves nine. According to recently updated figures in the Stern report, taking steps now to prevent climate change running out of control may cost us 2% of GDP in 2050 terms, whereas failing to do so will cost us 20% of GDP, a tenfold increase. Clearly, it is worth bearing some costs now to suffer less later. However, this type of argument relates to avoiding a negative, which may be a difficult sales pitch.
A more attractive prospect may be to focus on the jobs issue, as referred to by Professor Sweeney. There is great scope in this regard in Ireland. We must also focus on the nitty-gritty issues such as transport, housing and so on. People do not want to sit for three hours in their cars to get from A to B. They want to be able to travel from their homes to shops, schools and workplaces within a reasonable and reliable timeframe. We must plan better so that there is not such reliance on private vehicles. If we have convenient public transport, including school transport, if it is safe for children to walk to school and if we have more walking and cycling communities, there will be positive lifestyle gains such as getting in touch with our environment outside a metal box and tackling obesity. The changes required are not all negative but they involve adjustment. In regard to housing, people do not want to have oil-fired central heating running for six months of the year to stay warm. What they want is houses that are affordable to heat. With proper investment in insulation and renewable energy, that objective can be achieved in a cleaner, more efficient and 21st century way. Such changes can be sold as positives.
On the question of the law, unless we focus on that positive vision, people will react badly to what they may perceive as being penalised and imposed upon. It is important that the law is not framed in that type of way. People must recognise that the law is not aimed at penalising the individual but is rather a facilitative framework. It is not terribly easy to make it a populist issue but it certainly should not be seen as a negative issue. It is for the political establishment — the State and its agencies — to focus minds and mobilise policy resources rather than penalise individuals. Hopefully, it will spur policy changes that make life easier for individuals.
On adaptation and the emissions trading scheme, it makes great sense to look closely at how we use emissions trading scheme revenues, because they will be considerable and rising in the years to come. Adaptation makes sense. However, another claim is being made strongly on those funds. It has been suggested that up to 50% should go to the Third World to compensate it for the damage we have done in terms of climate change and, more important, to enable it to cope with that change. Countries in the developing world will face far more severe adaptation challenges than we will. In this context, overseas aid agencies in Ireland and developing countries are making a strong case for a share of these moneys.
I absolutely agree with the points made regarding education. From my limited experience of speaking to pupils in schools, it seems to be the case that third years know far more than sixth years. The latter will speak in generalities about litter and pollution but the former, because of the scientific training they have had from a younger age, will refer to the Kyoto Protocol and carbon emissions. They know far more about these issues. We cannot wait until they are in charge to make the changes required. If we do so, it will be too late and we will leave them to clear up our mess. We must be quick learners ourselves and do what is necessary on their behalf. We can be confident we are handing over to a generation that will appreciate it if we take the necessary actions now and will have some serious questions to ask of us if we do not.
I thank the delegates for their contributions. I have some final questions. Professor Sweeney referred to the growing problem of water shortages and provided some figures comparing Dublin with Donegal. It is vitally important that these figures are known to the public. People will not realise this is a problem until they turn on their taps and nothing comes out. Drinking water is something the human being cannot do without. It would be irresponsible of us not to ensure people are fully aware of the reality of the situation.
Politically, there has been uproar in the past over so-called water charges. People do not seem to think they should have to pay for water. I am not promoting the reintroduction of charges at this stage. However, I propose that a water meter should be installed in every household in the State, with a specific allocation to which each is entitled. This would make people realise, for example, that they cannot wash their car three times a week. The installation of water meters would function as a warning mechanism, making people conscious of the limited supply of water. Does Professor Sweeney consider this to be a useful first step without having initially to go through the whole debate on water charges? It is a serious issue that cannot be ignored. It would be cowardly of all those in politics to give the impression there is an endless supply. Professor Sweeney should reiterate——
I wish to add to the Chairman's comments before Professor Sweeney responds. While I agree with most of what has been said, obviously there always will be a demand for water and although drinking water of high quality is being produced, it is being used for industrial processes and elsewhere, where a lesser quality of water might suffice. In Professor Sweeney's view, is a mechanism available that could be introduced to address this issue? We must cherish the drinking water of high quality that is being produced and use it for that purpose rather than for industrial processes, washing or whatever else has been mentioned. An argument can be made in this regard.
Moreover, the amount of leakage within our infrastructure is criminal. While I am open to correction, I understand it can be as high as 30% in some local authority areas. Good quality drinking water is being lost because although it is being funnelled into the system, by the time it gets to the end user, 30% has been lost to leaks into the ground water and so on. I seek Professor Sweeney's views in this regard because it is such a valuable resource.
One also should bear in mind that people are prepared to pay €2.50 for a bottle of water in a shop, which is completely contradictory.
Professor John Sweeney
First, discriminating between good and bad quality water probably will not be an option for us because we are obliged, under the water framework directive, to have only good quality water in the next decade. Consequently, we certainly must think in terms of having the best available water. There is a certain interaction between water, energy, greenhouse gas emissions and food and one could almost state they are four parts of the same syndrome in a way. Water is energy, energy is water, food is energy and food also is water. We quite happily pay for our food and look at our electricity meters spinning around while thinking that perhaps we should switch something off. The Chairman has a point in that even before getting into the controversial area of charging for water, which ultimately is not for a scientist like me to decide as it is for politicians to bite the bullet on it, a case can be made that just like having a quota for CO2 emissions, one should have had a quota for water, whereby those who go above that quota are unnecessarily straining the resources of the State in some form. Consequently I agree with the Chairman that some kind of practical limit might be useful in that it would give equity to people in the sense that a person with a small family who was a light user would not necessarily be discriminated against by having a water charge, which might lead to the problems that arise in respect of fuel poverty. It would be a fairly equitable system and given that in the main, water meters are being introduced into all new houses at present, there may be an opportunity for a pilot scheme to consider this system and to come to some consensus as to whether it might be applied more widely.
However, there certainly is a case for discouraging the wasteful use of water. In the green schools scheme to which I believe Mr. Oisín Coghlan alluded, tremendous savings in water use have been achieved when people began to consider their usage and became conscious of wastefulness. The waste factor certainly is above 30% in many parts of the State. While this has been improved significantly in the Dublin area in the past decade, there comes a point at which it simply is not cost-beneficial to go further. Put simply, the water one saves would not justify the cost of saving it. We will continue to have a certain percentage of wastage, which may be in the range of 25% to 30% for many water supply systems. It may be higher in many parts of rural Ireland about which we are unsure. However, we have a legacy of old piping to overcome and we simply must face up to the fact that we may never be able to achieve a completely 100% leak-proof system. However, I completely take the Chairman's point that we should try, where possible, to use it more efficiently. We also should try to consider a quota system such as that suggested by the Chairman.
I thank Professor Sweeney and Mr. Oisín Coghlan. The joint committee greatly appreciated what I found to be a fascinating discussion, as well as the presentations by both witnesses. Hopefully, this will be of great value in the future and it certainly will help the joint committee in its work. In view of the witnesses' remarks, many of the solutions lie in the hands of local authorities and I sincerely hope this committee's influence might encourage local authorities in general to set up similar committees to which people such as the witnesses might be prepared to give advice. Following the recent elections, many new members have been elected to local authorities and were committees similar to this one, albeit perhaps not on such a large scale, to form part of their committee structures, it could be extremely useful. It is obvious, given the witnesses' statements, that the membership of local authorities must have knowledge of the facts as outlined by the witnesses. One cannot centrally impose such measures consistently on local authorities, which must generate them themselves. Perhaps as a result of the witnesses' contribution to this meeting, word could go out to local authorities that it would be worthwhile to set up a committee and seek advice. There is plenty of expertise available and I am sure people would be willing to impart the knowledge that members of this joint committee are fortunate to have.
I again thank both witnesses and it is greatly appreciated that they gave of their time voluntarily.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 June 2009.