Vol. 122 No. 13
I move:
That Seanad Éireann, conscious of the damage that can be caused to life on this planet by the depletion of the ozone layer and by global warming, requests the Government to take all possible measures both nationally and at international level to develop and implement policies and programmes to prevent this damage.
The depletion of the ozone layer and global warming, or as it is now more commonly referred to, the "greenhouse effect", are problems which have received serious attention only in the last decade or so mainly as a result of two things: first, the growing scientific evidence which makes the issues and implications clearer, and secondly, the growing awareness of people generally of environmental issues.
Excuse me, may the Senators have copies of your speech?
My apologies, I will have the copies circulated shortly.
To place the environmental issues in perspective, it may be useful if I set out the background to the problems of ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect and then outline the implications if no action is taken. That will put in the proper context the measures which are being taken and are planned at the national and international levels to tackle the problems.
Ozone is a gas comprised of three oxygen atoms instead of the normal two. It surrounds the earth, protecting it and its inhabitants from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun. The ozone layer is a very delicate one, with the gas scattered very thinly in the stratosphere. It has been estimated, for example, that if all the ozone were collected at the earth's surface, it would form a layer of less than three millimetres thick — roughly the thickness of a copy of a daily newspaper. Ozone is constantly being generated and destroyed by natural processes in a dynamic balance. In modern times, however, other chemicals have been introduced to the stratosphere as a result of human activity and these tip the balance towards increased destruction of ozone. The most destructive chemicals contain chlorine, for example, chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs, as they are commonly called, or bromine, for example, halons. These chemicals are very stable at ground level but when exposed to ultraviolet radiation, the chlorine or bromine atoms are released and, in turn, strip single atoms of oxygen from the ozone molecule, thus converting it into ordinary oxygen. Each chlorine or bromine atom can repeat this process many thousands of times.
The thinning or depletion of the ozone layer allows the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun to reach the earth and this has implications for human health, for example, by increasing the incidence of skin cancer and cataracts. There are implications also for agriculture because the growth of some plants may be limited with consequences for agricultural productivity. Marine life could suffer through damage to small but important creatures such as plankton and underwater life in general. In addition, manmade polymers which are used in buildings, paints, packaging and countless other substances, are degraded and turned brittle by certain ultraviolet rays.
The depletion of the ozone layer is taking place and intensive scientific research has established beyond doubt that CFCs are the primary cause of that depletion. Every southern spring, a "hole" opens in the ozone layer above Antarctica, as big as the United States and as deep as Mount Everest. The hole has grown most years since 1979. In October 1987, when it was at its biggest, the total amount of ozone over a measuring station at Hallay Bay was less than half of its seventies' levels: between 15 and 20 kilometres up over Antarctica, where the depletion was greatest, 95 per cent of the ozone had disappeared.
More recently, an international airborne Arctic stratospheric expedition, involving over 100 scientists, was mounted from 3 January 1989 to 15 February 1989 to determine if there were Arctic ozone losses similar to those observed over the South Pole. The results confirmed that chlorine monoxide, the active ozone depleting radical formed by the decomposition of CFCs in the stratosphere, was present in the Arctic stratosphere in amounts up to 50 times the natural level. No loss in ozone was observed during this mission but the scientists concluded that the atmosphere was primed for ozone destruction as the springtime approached.
This is obviously very significant information and it reinforces the need for action. But what does man use these CFCs for? Well, the CFCs which are responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer are used by man as propellants in aerosols, as coolants in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, in the manufacture of foams and as solvents, particularly in the electronics industry. Halons are used in fire extinguishers. The only answer to the problem of ozone depletion, therefore, is to eliminate the production and consumption of these substances as quickly as possible.
As this is a worldwide problem, global action is the only effective means of tackling it. It is essential, therefore, that countries co-operate extensively with one another in international efforts to resolve the problem. This realisation produced agreement at the international level in 1985 in the shape of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was concluded under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme. The convention, which Ireland has acceded to, is essentially a framework one; in other words, its obligations were expressed in general terms but it envisaged more specific measures being negotiated as Protocols to it.
The only such Protocol to date is the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer which was concluded in September 1987. Ireland ratified this Protocol on 16 December 1988, in conjunction with our EC partners. This Protocol contains measures to control the production and use of the five CFCs and three halons which are regarded as having the greatest potential for depleting the ozone layer. As regards CFCs, the main measures involve stabilisation from 1 July 1989 of production and consumption at 1986 levels, a reduction of 20 per cent on the 1986 levels from 1 July 1993, and a reduction of 50 per cent on the 1986 levels from 1 July 1998. Consumption of halons is to be stabilised at 1986 levels from 1 January 1992. The Montreal Protocol is being implemented throughout the European Communities by means of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3322/88 of 14 October 1988.
While I believe that the Montreal Protocol was an important step forward in bringing countries together to agree on a 50 per cent reduction in CFC use by 1998, it is now quite clear on the basis of the scientific evidence I mentioned earlier that it does not go far enough. The scientific studies indicate that even with a fully ratified Montreal Protocol, the atmospheric abundance of chlorine will double over the next 50 years and go on rising thereafter. The Montreal Protocol was ahead of the scientific knowledge of its time, but science has since overtaken it. Further cuts in CFC usage are vital if ozone depletion is to be reduced and the ozone hole repaired.
On that basis, the Minister proposed at the Environment Council meeting on 2 March last the elimination of the production and consumption of CFCs as soon as possible, and at the latest by the end of this century. He was delighted that his colleagues agreed to his proposal and that it is now part of official Community policy because it indicates that the European Communities is clearly concerned about this problem and is anxious to tackle it as quickly as possible.
While governments and international organisations have a major role to play in saving the ozone layer, informed individuals can help too by exercising choice in the marketplace. This aspect should not be underestimated or overlooked as part of a solution to this problem. Agreements with industry are also important and the European Communities have now reached agreement with manufacturers to reduce CFC use in aerosols by 90 per cent by the end of 1990. As a result of a suggestion the Minister made at an Environment Council meeting last year, agreement has also been reached with industry at European level to label cans which contain CFCs.
CFCs are not manufactured in Ireland and action in the short term in this country must, therefore, focus on their use. In the medium to long term, the use of CFCs in Ireland will fall as the production of these substances internationally is phased out. Some individuals have called for an outright ban on the importation into Ireland of aerosols which contain CFCs. The Minister has considered this option carefully but his view is that the outright banning of the importation of aerosols containing CFCs is not appropriate at this stage in view of the recent agreements with manufacturers at European level and because such a ban would be indiscriminate and might prevent the importation of products with uses related to health and for which there are no alternatives at present. However, he is keeping this matter under review and he will not hesistate to act if he feels circumstances warrant it at a later date.
The use of CFCs in filling aerosols in Ireland has already been reduced to negligible proportions and he has invited industry representatives to begin discussions with our Department with a view to achieving, as quickly as possible, reductions in the use of CFCs for other purposes. I expect the first meeting with industry in this context to take place within the next fortnight or so. The question of developing labelling arrangements which will assist consumers in choosing ozone-friendly products will also be raised during these discussions. The Minister has also written to the major supermarkets and retail trade interests asking for their help in reducing CFC use through their purchasing and marketing policies and by measures such as shelf labelling. My Department are also involved in developing and producing information notes on the whole subject of ozone depletion so that more people can become aware of the situation and, particularly, of what they can do to help solve this problem.
Action at the national and international levels to tackle the damage that is being caused to the ozone layer is intensifying as time moves on, because of the seriousness of the problem and the realisation that urgent action is required now, and not in a few years time. Ireland is playing its part both at home and internationally in the struggle to save the ozone layer and we intend to continue and intensify our efforts in the future.
The other problem area encompassed by this motion is that relating to global warming or, as it is commonly referred to, the "greenhouse effect". The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases in the atmosphere, most notably water vapour, carbon dioxide, CFCs, methane and nitrous oxide, absorb part of the infra-red radiation which is emitted by the earth to balance the incoming solar radiation. In normal circumstances, this produces a thermal balance which helps to sustain life on this planet.
Without the gases I have mentioned, the world would be colder by about 30 degrees centigrade, and almost uninhabitable. Some of these gases such as carbon dioxide and methane occur naturally and are also produced through human activity but CFCs are only produced through human activity. Thus, we can increase the heating of the earth's biosphere by adding to these gases that absorb outgoing infra-red radiation. There are also other elements, such as particles emitted naturally by volcanoes or through human activity, which act as cooling agents but our knowledge of how these affect the climate is extremely limited. However, as our understanding of the complex processes involved has increased, so has the realisation that we are changing the "natural" composition and heat balance of the atmosphere and oceans.
The evidence to date indicates that there is net heating of the surface of the earth and the lower atmosphere as a result of increasing concentrations of the greenhouse gases that absorb outgoing infra-red radiation from the earth. Climate changes will follow this modification of the thermal balance, but the extent of those changes will depend on the size of the modification. While it is not possible at this stage to reliably assess in detail the various impacts of such climatic change and their socio-economic consequences, preliminary work on this subject shows that the risks are alarmingly high and that the likely direct and indirect consequences are potentially disruptive. The indications are, for example, that we can expect an increase in the average surface temperature of the earth of between 1.5º and 4.5º Centigrade if carbon dioxide levels double, as they are likely to do, within the first half of the next century. The implications of this, according to computer models, are the following:
(i) Sea levels could rise by between 30 centimetres and 1.5 metres by the middle of the next century, although one should stress that a wide range of different estimates of future sea level rises are available and this is but one of them. It is, however, regarded as the most likely range.
(ii) There may be reductions in water resources in some regions with implications for the availability of water for human consumption, for power generation, for effluent dilution and for navigation.
(iii) There may be modifications in agricultural productivity as a result of changes in the length of the potential growing season, in plant growth rates, in yield and quality of yield, and in the sensitivity of plants to the application of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides.
(iv) There could also be effects on human health in that some diseases which require year-round temperatures could survive at high latitudes and there could be more frequent famines and shortages of food supplies.
(v) There could also be ecological impacts which would affect marine and wildlife ecosystems.
The most relevant greenhouse gas in carbon dioxide (CO 2) which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning and by deforestation, particularly in the tropical regions. It has been estimated that this gas accounts for just over 50 per cent of the greenhouse effect with emissions of CFCs accounting for a further 25 per cent. As I mentioned earlier, action is already in hand to reduce and eventually eliminate CFC emissions and that will obviously help in containing the changes that are taking place by way of the greenhouse effect.
In relation to CO 2, it has been estimated that world yearly emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased by 100 per cent in the 25 years from 1960 to 1985. Coal and oil are the major contributors to these emissions. Of the carbon which has been emitted since the first century, it has been estimated that about 59 per cent of it has been emitted in the past 25 years. This increase in CO 2 emissions is clearly a by-product of the modern times we live in. Action to halt the increase in CO 2 emissions must focus on the use of fossil fuels and on reafforestation. While the former is primarily in the hands of developed countries, the latter is mainly a developing countries issue but one which the developed countries cannot ignore.
Present emissions of methane come mainly from livestock, rice paddy fields, natural gas exploitation and the burning of biomass and coal as well as natural processes such as decaying vegetation. It has been estimated that the atmospheric concentration of methane has increased over the 30 years from 1951 to 1981 at the rate of 1.1 per cent per annum. Action must, therefore, focus on how this trend can be changed.
Man-made emissions of nitrous oxides are mainly due to combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. Natural emissions are due to terrestrial and ocean biota. The present rate of increase of these emissions has been estimated at around 0.25 per cent per annum. To reduce this trend, action will have to focus primarily on fossil fuel use.
I should point out at this stage that there are significant uncertainties concerning the quantitative relationships between emissions of greenhouse gases and the observed increase of their atmospheric concentrations. There may be considerable delay — perhaps a few decades — before the global climate system responds to changing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. It is for this reason that no acceleration in sea level rise has yet been seen. There is also much debate in scientific circles on whether recent increases in global surface temperature are proof of the greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, recent model predictions indicate that greenhouse warming should be clearly identifiable by the end of the 1990s. The risks are too large to wait until then and so we must act how to plan for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases as quickly as possible.
Like the ozone problem, global warming is a worldwide problem which requires global action if it is to be tackled effectively. The policies and programmes required to deal with the situation are already being discussed at the level of the European Communities and at global level. The European Commission has prepared a report which analyses the problem, discusses the options and proposes a work programme to deal with the situation. This will be discussed at Ministerial level at the June Environment Council when I expect that an initial programme of measures will be adopted.
The European Communities work is being carried on in co-operation with work on the greenhouse effect which is being undertaken by the World Meteorological Organisations, the United Nations Environment Programme and, in particular, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This work is absolutely essential if an effective solution to the greenhouse effect is to be found. I will ensure that Ireland will play its part in whatever way it can to help progress this work and reach relevant conclusions. National policies and programmes will obviously be needed as knowledge of the phenomenon itself, its causes, and its implications increases. I can assure the House that we will keep in close touch with developments in relation to these matters and will not hesitate to bring forward proposals as soon as this is appropriate.
In summary, then, the ozone depletion and greenhouse effect problems are global ones which require international co-operation and action to analyse the problems, to develop the policies needed to respond to them and to implement appropriate measures. Ireland will continue to play its part in the formulation of policies internationally to tackle these threats to the environment. In the case of the ozone problem, we have already been able to influence policy, particularly at Community level, and will continue to press at the international level to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions of ozone-depleting substances as quickly as possible. Programmes to tackle problems likely to arise from the greenhouse effect are still at the developmental stages but we will concentrate our efforts on ensuring that conclusions are reached soon and that action follows quickly thereafter.
Ireland is a small player in the international arena but that has not and should not prevent us from playing a significant role in helping to develop policies and programmes for action at global level. I, therefore, ask the House for its support for the approach which we have adopted on these issues and for a continuation of that approach in the future.
I second the motion. From the spring of 1987 to the end of March 1988 we had the internationally designated year of the Environment. In January of last year, when there was absolutely no sign either of the Government or the EC taking any measures even to note the problem that was already attracting widespread attention in most of the rest of the world, with some of my colleagues I tabled a motion asking the House to draw attention to the problem. I must compliment the Minister on the comprehensive way he dealt with the problem from a scientific point of view and I do not propose to go over the same ground because the case has been made.
I am very happy that the Department of the Environment are aware of the dangers and understand something is happening. Indeed, you do not have to be a scientist to know that there are, in recent times, considerable changes in the weather patterns. I am slightly taken aback by that. This can be described as a global problem and the Government recognise that the hole in the ozone layer will have what is referred to as the "greenhouse effect", which will cause the sea level to rise. In my mind, steps should be taken in coastal zone management.
The Minister has responsibility in the Department of the Environment and already, in the south-east we have considerable coastal erosion. The Minister indicated that an estimate of sea level rises over the next 60 years could be as high as 1.5 metres. Indeed, in some of the more authoritative scientific papers, for instance Projecting Future Sea Level Rises Methodology. Estimate for the year 2100, and Research Needs, which was published by John F. Hoffman, Dale Keyes and James G. Titus, EPA for the Strategic Studies Staff Office and Policy Analyses of the US Environmental Protection Agency that study indicated that in the next century we can expect to see sea levels to rise, if the same progress is maintained as has been for the past 20 years or more, as high as it is estimated, 11 to 20 feet. They have come up with a very interesting figure that as far as the Atlantic is concerned, the sea level rise in the Atlantic will be an additional problem, of at least six inches to 18 inches. That is the problem.
We did not table this motion just to focus attention on the problem from a global point of view, I am happy to note that at least the EC last October addressed themselves to the problem. In the Montreal Protocol, which came into force on 1 January, steps are being taken to control the use of chemicals that lead to the depletion of the ozone layer. The protocol, will freeze production of the five most destructive chlorofluorocarbons, that is the CFCs, at the 1986 levels, later reducing CFC consumption and production by mid-1998 in two stages, 20 per cent cut by mid-1993 and a further 30 per cent reduction by mid-1998. Three halons I understand, 1211, 1301 and 2402 will be frozen at the 1986 levels of production entirely. It is good to know that steps are being taken and that something positive is being done.
The global ramifications of this entire problem should rightfully be with the international bodies. From our point of view, I would feel much happier if the Department of the Environment had a medium to long-term policy on coastal erosion. I would hope that the local authorities in Wexford, Wicklow and perhaps Meath-Louth would take it on themselves at the very earliest opportunity to visit the areas of the Nertherlands and Denmark that are below sea level at the present time and see what steps can be taken now well in advance of the estimated sea level rises which will affect Ireland. We are an island nation and we should be conscious of the dangers to us in regard to this problem.
I do not think it is too much to ask that the Department of the Environment and the Government would have a medium to long term policy and would have a heading in the Estimates for the Department of Finance to treat coastal erosion, having regard to the hard scientific evidence which indicates that it will be an increasing problem, carrying great dangers in the years immediately ahead. We must contain coastal erosion and we have infrastructure protection and development measures. They must take account of the mass of scientific studies and knowledge at the disposal of our planners for the years ahead. The inaction of the Government over the past number of years and indeed the difficulties and the indolence of the EC in taking so long to come to grips and accept that there is a problem, to my mind, is inexcusable.
As the Minister has very clearly told us, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases are expected to warm the earth several degrees in the next century by the mechanism known as the greenhouse effect. Such warming could cause sea levels to rise, as has already been stated, with the knock-on effect of the glaciers and the polar caps raising the sea levels.
We should ensure that the necessary steps are taken to conserve the island as it is, that we have adequate supplies of fresh water for human consumption and for all other uses. That calls for early and considerable planning.
The major impacts of the sea level rise are permanent inundation of beaches, of erosion, increased flooding and salt water intrusion. The most obvious impact is that land just above sea level today would be permanently inundated along the open coast. Land well above sea level could also erode. Loss of the protective beaches, higher storm surges and decreased drainage would increase flooding in coastal areas, it would increase the salinity of estuaries and could threaten drinking water supplies.
Little has been published concerning salt water intrusion. The EC and the Governments of the member states have started to tackle the problem. I quite agree with the Minister in his closing paragraph when he said:
Ireland is a small player in the international arena but that has not and should not prevent us from playing a significant role in helping to develop policies and programmes for action at the global level.
That is good enough. We want action at national level. We must take immediate steps to combat coastal erosion especially in the sloblands in the Wexford area, where it is an ongoing problem. I would make a very special appeal to the Minister to include in the next Estimates significant increases in the allocation of moneys to combat coastal erosion, thereby ensuring coastal protection.
A headline has been set in this regard in that, in the very first tranche of payments from the Regional Fund considerable moneys were allocated to the Netherlands and Denmark to strengthen their coastal protection dykes or embankments that have existed there for years. It must be possible for our Government to get significant financial help from the Community. Since the EC are now aware of the dangers confronting the whole world, they will not be averse to acceding to a special request from this small island country to enable us literally, not just to keep our heads above water but to keep our feet out of the water. That is important. The sooner that kind of systematic programme can be implemented the less expensive will it be.
It would be my hope that the Minister and the Government would tackle this problem with a desire not merely to support the global polices clearly defined in the Montreal Protocol to slow down the deleterious effect of CFCs on the atmosphere/stratosphere — that may be viewed as protection — because it would be foolish of us, as a nation to sit back and hope that this gap in the atmosphere/stratosphere will correct itself. We must take action on the ground. As I said, there are precedents for the EC to make special, very generous fiancial provisions to those countries experiencing these almost unique problems of coastal erosion.
I second and support this motion. I regard it as being extremely important. I regret that the EC were the last of the major economic blocs to involve themselves. The United States and Japan have been worried about these problems much longer — perhaps they are greater contributors to them — but the US have initiated strenuous measures against production of some gases. I was somewhat disappointed that delegates attending the meeting in London last March did not protest more strenuously at production of some of the agents causing such world or global imbalance.
I wish the Minister well at his next meeting. I hope we will be able to relax in the knowledge that our Government are taking every possible step to ensure that our people living in coastal areas, whose homes are very near sea level, can look forward to the necessary protection that will ensure that we retain the land mass we have that constitutes this country and not lose a tremendous section to the sea.
When we talk about global figures, about the stratosphere, CFCs and so on they do not mean that much to the ordinary man in the street. Even bearing in mind the figures the Minister gave for the projected increase in sea levels over the next few decades — he takes them as a median, or half of the average figure the scientists have suggested — it would still mean that much of our population, perhaps half that of Cork city, would be heading for Watergrasshill——
Oh, my God.
——unless they wanted to live in submarines. It would also mean that a city like London would lose a considerable part of its habitable areas unless all their houses were built on stilts. We must remember when talking about raising the level of the sea its effect which would certainly change the face of considerable areas of this country. I hope we can avoid that eventuality. I still hold the view that our population should continue to increase, that our policy as a nation should be such that we can guarantee that people can live with some element of prosperity and decency at home when we will need every bit of land we possess.
I asked a colleague whether he would participate in this debate. He told me he would not, that he would leave it to the experts. I want to confess that were this debate confined to experts, or even those who are knowledgeable in this area, I would not be taking part.
It is an important subject. I join with the previous speaker in complimenting the Minister on his introductory remarks which were comprehensive. Indeed, I asked myself—in the light of information of that kind, realising that by and large we are talking about a scientific area — what is the point in going over the same ground again and again. I will confine myself to making general comments and deal then with areas with which I am more familiar.
The Minister sought the support of the House for the approach the Government have adopted on this issues and for a continuation of that approach in the future. It goes without saying that, since this is an all-party motion, that support will be readily forthcoming. I note that in the other House a debate took place on 9 June 1988 with regard to ratification of the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol. It seems to me to be in a sense a pity that so much time has elapsed before this motion has been introduced in this House. One would have thought that had it been considered so urgent it would have been slotted in at that time. Nevertheless, having regard to the operations of the House and problems that may have arisen in the interim I welcome it even at this stage.
This is a wide-ranging debate. We must remember that we are talking not only about the ozone layer but about the greenhouse effect and attendant problems such as acid rain and air pollution which was dealt with to a large extent when the Air Pollution Bill was discussed in this House. While we may refer to such Bills in passing there is not much point in going into them in any great detail.
I am grateful to my friend, Jim Fitzsimons, MEP, who is a member of the EC Environment Committee, for having briefed me for this debate. I want to pay tribute to the work he has done in this regard. Over the years he has discussed this matter, on occasion, at party political gatherings at which such discussion would rate as a low priority. Nevertheless he has attempted to bring this matter to the forefront and he has done so very successfully.
It has taken totally unpredictable weather trends throughout the world in recent summers and winters — ranging from severe storms, blazing heat waves, droughts and blizzards — to bring to the attention of the general public the possibility that human activities may indeed be responsible for the greenhouse effect and ozone holes. The greenhouse effect is directly related to changes in the earth's climate. The major cause of the greenhouse effect is excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, brought about by the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, natural gas, and deforestation, such as the rape of Brazil's tropical forests.
The concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing. The more it is absorbed the more it prevents the earth from shedding its heat. The result is the warming of the earth's climate to which the Minister has referred. When one realises — as the Minister has said — that the molecules of oxygen or atoms which comprise the ozone layer are very dispersive and, if concentrated would be as thick as a newspaper then one equally appreciates how vulnerable is this type of dispersed stratosphere.
It is anticipated that the CO 2 content of the earth's atmosphere, compared with the pre-industrial period, will have doubled by the middle of the next century or very soon thereafter. It has been estimated also that some 5 billion tonnes of CO 2 are discharged annually into the atmosphere, which corresponds to an annual carbon dioxide increase of 0.3 per cent. Therefore it will be readily appreciated that concerted EC and international action is urgently required.
For example, again, between 1950 and 1980 the earth's global temperature averaged 15 degrees centigrade; it was one-third of one degree higher in 1987. I understand also that the highest temperatures have been recorded in six years of the past decade. Between the years 2030 and 2050 the earth's global temperature could increase by 2 per cent. A 2 per cent global increase would comprise latitude — based regional differences, the rise being three to five times higher at the poles. More recent model-based calculations — of which I understand there have been many — and actual measurements suggest that human activity influences climate and that this causes temperature increases. Even minor temperature build-ups would have major repercussions for peripheral areas. The polar regions would be most affected, the equator least affected with Ireland in between. The EC Commission published an action plan to combat the greenhouse effect in November 1988. Some years later the report of Jim Fitzsimons, MEP, on the same subject was adopted unanimously by the European Parliament. The main recommendation of the Commission's Report was that more urgent, ambitious international targets must be set for reducing CFCs which are also to blame for the trapping of the sun's heat. The Commission called for the revision of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which Ireland has ratified. It is designed to regulate the production, use and emission of chloroflourocarbons and of other substances capable of modifying the ozone layer. In seeking the virtual elimination of CFCs by the year 2000 the Commission is forced to acknowledge the fact that some vital medical treatments have no alternative at this juncture, a point emphasised by the Minister and which must be borne in mind.
The Montreal Protocol includes the following targets: the first step is to freeze consumption at 1986 levels by 1 July 1989; the second step is to reduce consumption by 20 per cent by 1994; the third step is to reduce consumption by a further 30 per cent by 1999 and production of CFCs to be reduced in a staged manner with developing countries being permitted greater flexibility. I appreciate the efforts of the Minister for the Environment concerning the elimination of the production of chloroflourocarbon substances.
The Commission predicts a rise in the earth's temperature of between 1.5 to 3.1 degrees over the next 40 years if the present trend continues. EC leaders, at their Summit meeting in Rhodes last December, in a special declaration, indicated their determination to play a leading role in the action needed to protect the world's environment, particularly with regard to such global problems as depletion of the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect and the evergrowing threats to the natural environment.
According to US and German studies propellants have a greater impact in temperature build-up than has CO 2. The EC Commission agrees and states that, although the atmospheric concentration of CFCs is much lower than CO 2, these substances are 10,000 times more efficient in trapping heat. This is so because CFCs exacerbate the greenhouse effect due to their capacity to absorb thermal radiation.
CFCs are man-made chemicals which are responsible for the destruction of the earth's ozone layer, which — as the Minister has stated — is a modified form of oxygen. The European Community produces 40 per cent of the world's CFCs and is also their largest exporter.
Chlorine and fluorine compounds are used as aerosol propellants in spray cans, as well as in air conditioning and refrigeration systems. CFCs are used in the manufacture of plastic foams and to clean micro-electronic circuitry. They are also found in hamburger wrappers.
It was claimed at a UN conference in The Hague last October that the earth's upper ozone layer is deteriorating faster than predicted and will not recover unless countries take tougher measures to protect it. The ozone layer protects us from the sun's potentially ultraviolet radiation. Any interference with it damages the protective shield the ozone layer provides for human health and the environment. A NASA expert attending The Hague conference said that, even if the Montreal Protocol was ratified by all nations of the world — an Antartic ozone hole would remain forever. An 85 per cent reduction would be required to start a recovery process. It is quite clear, therefore, that the Montreal targets are inadequate and must be revised at least in line with the Commission's new targets.
CFCs were banned in the US in the late seventies. The science of climatology is still a young discipline. For example, some ten years ago assessments of the climatic impact of trace-present gases gave rise to Ice Age prophesies. These have been abandoned in favour of the view that the earth's temperature is increasing. We are now more certain of its causes but we must be very concerned about its effects. As the impact of the increased temperatures will be substantially greater at the poles, the ice caps covering Greenland and the Antarctic will be most at risk. If these ice masses melt the most serious repercussions will be felt in the level of all the world's seas, with the sea levels rising by an estimated 60 metres. The immediate impact would be submersion, flooding, beach erosion and problems with drainage systems. Fresh water fish stocks and their habitats could be directly affected by salinisation of ground water and rivers, damage to ports, property and industry.
We must also bear in mind that almost one-third of the world's population lives less than 60 kilometres from a shore. Therefore it will be readily appreciated that a one metre rise could lead to the displacement of 15 million people; 10 million in Bangladesh and Egypt are particularly at risk. Rainfall patterns could change with more rain in the subtropical belt, the Sahara, parts of India, Australia and the US south-west. The same could apply to Western Europe. Rainfall in Northern Europe and the US mid-west could decrease. The world's granaries would have to be relocated. In brief, some regions would benefit from a change in climatic zones while others would suffer. In addition, warmer autumns and winters are likely in high latitudes and drier summers in regions of average latitude in the Northern hemisphere.
Action must include the funding of alternative medical treatments that do not have or need recourse to CFCs. A worldwide information campaign must be conducted so that the general public can learn about and respond to the dangers involved in the use of all CFC products. Politicians must lead by example and use ozone-friendly products only. Industry must not wait for public trends to change. It must establish new ozone-friendly products and undertake the necessary research and development programmes. There must be an immediate cutback on the burning of fossil fuels so that excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are eliminated. This must be accompanied by reafforestation programmes so that the balance of nature is restored. New substances for nitrogenous fertilisers, released in intensive farming and which also add to the boiling cauldron of the greenhouse effect, must be devised.
We must not lose the impetus built up by actions at the level of the European Parliament, the Commission, the Council, the Heads of State or Governments. That is why this motion is so important at this time.
I am sure Members read the article on this matter in last Sunday's issue of The Sunday Times. It has been pointed out that the UK Government and their Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, have become very concerned about the depletion of the ozone layer. In this respect, many environmentalists are pleased. However, others feel perhaps — because of their somewhat sudden conversion — the position known at official level may be far more serious than the general public realise. I have no problem in understanding this conversion. For example, those involved in housing will know that, in recent times, the UK Government have concentrated on producing energy-conscious housing. In this respect also I recall a recent monetary seminar located at Milton Keynes which I had the privilege of attending for one day. It was a pity local authorities did not avail of the occasion to send local representatives because there was much to be gained and learned there; the money spent going there would have been worth while. It is difficult to define exactly the results of the monetary world's efforts to improve insulation and conservation of heat. Those who may envisage a danger in the recent conversion of the British Prime Minister will realise the UK Government have been more or less consistent in their efforts over a long period.
In principle, the greenhouse effect can be compared with that in an ordinary greenhouse where heat is carried on a particular wave through the glass and must escape on a different wavelength which is not possible and, therefore, is trapped. This phenomenon is used to very good effect in housing, as was clearly demonstrated in Milton Keynes. In tackling this greenhouse effect we are endeavouring to reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Anything we can do to help in that regard must be encouraged.
In a debate of this type it is important to ask: what can the ordinary man or woman in the street do to help in this regard? The Government are doing all they can with regard to their role within the EC, that of our MEPs and those representing us. At the end of the day perhaps legislation constitutes the only way we can effectively deal with the problem in toto. It is important to remember that the Minister has been instrumental in reaching an agreement within the EC that the manufacture of CFCs be terminated at the end of this century.
In passing I would pose the question of whether the use of propellants is necessary in all cases. While I appreciate there may not be alternatives in most instances in the medical area, there are other areas in which substitutes could be found, or where perhaps propellants or their usage is unnecessary. In many other areas we might feel that it is not essential to have that particular type of article manufactured. There may be people who depend on these sprays or appliances for their livelihood but by and large I think, outside the medical area, substitutes could easily be found. They might be a bit more expensive but in the long term they would be worth while.
I also ask myself the question, since we do not manufacture any of these chemicals ourselves and as our imports are relatively small, what at the end of the day our contribution can be. Strange as it may seem, I feel there is a lot of research and investigation still to be carried out. I think this is one area where Ireland can help. At least we have the brains and we have the potential to train in our third level education establishments people interested in this area who would make a sizeable contribution. That is one area we should concentrate on.
The burning of fossil fuels was discussed at some great length during the passage through the House of the Air Pollution Bill. We dealt with the ESB and their contribution to acid rain, which in effect is the same thing, because what we are doing in instances of that kind is getting rid of the problem ourselves, but some other country or part of the world has to deal with it. Other sources of power should be investigated rapidly and grants for that purpose might be established by the Government.
I spoke before at considerable length about the potential for wind power and wave power. I know there are individuals in third level educational establishments at present involved in trying to harness these sources of power. Much more should be done, particularly since we are an island nation completely surrounded by sea. It seems strange that we have not been able before now to harness the wave power. Of course, necessity is the mother of invention. I recall during the Second World War that around this country we had windchargers, some of which remained for a considerable time after the war. In my own area there was a windcharger which was very successful; it was only dismantled about ten years ago. We have that potential, which can be a help. This is something which could be done at Government level.
I will complete my contribution by saying that at a personal level everybody can help by being more conservation conscious where insulation and heating are concerned. The article in The Sunday Times I spoke about had this statement at the start: “While Margaret Thatcher grapples with green policies each of us can do something now about the threat to the environment from the greenhouse effect saving ourselves both energy and money”. I think that is important. Some of the areas are given. We can increase the insulation in our lofts. At present it is necessary, if we are to qualify for a Department of the Environment grant, to include four inches of fibreglass. It is recommended that we use six inches of fibreglass, which is very little extra expensewise; but in the area of conservation it is well worth while. We could fit energy efficient light bulbs. All these aspects were highlighted in Milton Keynes. The unfortunate thing is that when I came back from Milton Keynes I was interested in pursuing the different areas with regard to housing and where heat could be saved. I looked for energy efficient light bulbs. We do not have them in this country; at least, we did not have them then. That is a pity but it is something the Government could look into. There are anomalies which are hard to understand with regard to things manufactured in this country. For example, we have Waterford Glass chandeliers, but we do not produce bulbs to fit them.
The installation of double glazing is something which could be done over a long period. If people do not have the money initially to instal double glazing at least it is something they can do subsequently and they can make preparation for this. Again this reduces the amount of heat required, consequently, reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Fit doors and windows with effective draught excluders — again this is something which is very simple to do. Even the Government information with regard to this matter suggests that people, in order to conserve energy, perhaps could wear heavier clothing. This is very simple though perhaps not something that would be readily acceptable. But we must look at all of these options — insulate cavity walls, instal gas condensing boilers, fit up to date controls, check thermostats, etc.
This is a debate where those with scientific knowledge could make a major contribution. I am not too sure what the effect of that contribution would be, because by and large the debates, which end up in the Official Report, are, I suspect, read by very few people. Perhaps the Government might consider effective advertising. I accept that a debate of this kind must underline the importance of the subject. The Government should make an effort to convince RTE and the various people in control of the media that it is most important that this subject be debated. In that sense those who are knowledgeable with regard to this matter, those who could make a contribution, could be invited on a programme and given an opportunity to convince the people.
This is something we must all contribute to; we must all play our part. We must realise that, for instance, in the manufacture of hamburger packaging, which we see strewn around the streets, and in its destruction we can be causing considerable damage to the environment. I think people will think again. But, by and large, we have a major problem. I do not understand all of the reasons we have so much waste and rubbish at this time because when we look back 30 to 40 years ago we did not have that problem. Now we have a problem in getting dumps and in getting rid of the rubbish. This is really only at an early stage: in ten years' time the problem will be much greater.
It is important that the ordinary individual will understand the contribution he can make. I am not too sure if, knowing all that and knowing that all these packages, aerosols, etc, are part of the problem, somebody going into a shop and wanting to do a particular job or wanting to buy a hamburger will refuse to purchase it because it is wrapped up in that particular way. I am not too sure about that. From that point of view I feel that the Government have a responsibility to introduce legislation at the appropriate time that will be effective and that will not leave it up to the individual to make that choice. It is important. I have no doubt that everybody in this House is convinced that the Government are prepared to play their part. As I said, all the members elected to the European Parliament are playing their part, in as far as they can do so.
In conclusion, I want to say again that the Minister's speech was very detailed. I had notes with regard to some of the areas covered by him but there does not seem any point: not being knowledgeable in that regard, I do not want to go over the same ground again. There are Members who will be contributing and who are knowledgeable on the subject. I will leave it to them to go into some of the finer details. The Minister asked that the House be fully behind the Government's efforts and I think the Minister may rest assured in that regard.
I note that the names to the all-party motion do not include those from the Independent benches, but that does not mean we are not fully in favour of this motion.
Just to clarify that point. The motion was tabled with the addition of Senator Joe O'Toole's name representing the Independents, but he was suspended from the service of the House yesterday.
He has been erased from history.
He has been erased from history for today and this week anyway.
I suspected a Stalinist trend in the procedures in this House in recent times; but, no doubt, glasnost will come with the opening of the new Chamber.
Of course, we are all in favour of this motion. I think the Minister himself said in the opening speech that mankind's awareness of this peril is something quite new. Indeed, we were so preoccupied with the danger of nuclear annihilation for the last 40 years or more that this more recent danger has crept up on us unawares. I must say that, unlike Senator Fitzsimons, I found the Minister's speech extremely bland, but then I find all ministerial speeches extremely bland. The greatest shortcoming in the Minister's speech was its smugness and complacency. There is a section in it about Ireland playing its part in facing this problem. I do not believe that is so at all and I cannot understand Senator Fitzsimons' compliance in this complacency. I will come back to that in a moment.
Senator Fitzsimons mentioned acid rain. Although that is not specifically included in the motion, there is no doubt it is an integral part of the dangers which are now facing our environment. Here again we must ask ourselves what culpability have we in this matter of acid rain which, among its other damaging effects to the environment, is particularly destructive of trees. It is not always the country which pollutes the environment which suffers from its consequences. It may frequently be a neighbouring country.
In early March I was at a conference in Frederickton, New Brunswick, in the maritime provinces of Canada and there was widespread anger there at the damage done to Canadian trees from the acid rain which was generated by pollution in the industrial sector of the United States. There is nothing more symbolic of the damage we have done to ourselves as human beings than the way in which trees wither as a result of our greed and our thoughtlessness. The tree is the plant equivalent of the horse, it seems to me. The tree is the most noble plant. These people in Frederickton told me that their trees begin to wither now in mid-August, and indeed that Canadian forests are being kept alive only by artificial means in many respects. If the people of the maritime provinces of Canada feel aggrieved that the source of pollution is the United States, the people of Scandinavia can feel some sense of grievance that the United Kingdom has contributed to their acid rain problems.
Another appalling consequence of acid rain is the damage it causes to buildings. It has been pointed out that the Acropolis in Athens — perhaps the single most important physical monument of the origins of European civilisation — has suffered more damage in the past 25 years than in the previous 2,500 years of its existence. How do we figure in this matter of acid rain? Well, as we do really in other areas of pollution. If we are not too badly off, it is little credit to ourselves. It is purely our good fortune that we are a pre-industrial country; we still are to a large extent. We have escaped the worst ravages of the Industrial Revolution which is, of course, what we are talking about here. It is over the last 150 years that all this trouble has gradually built up. So we may attribute our relatively good position in this matter of environmental pollution simply to an accident of history, if you like. It certainly is not through any special precautions that we are taking ourselves.
We are fortunate in the matter of acid rain, for example, in that the prevailing winds are from the south-west. If it was the other way around, if the prevailing winds were east winds, then we could expect a lot more damage from the United Kingdom sources than is the case now. In fact, some xenophobes may take some secret pleasure from the fact that our winds blow away some of our pollution on to the island of Great Britain.
But what do we do about this? What are we doing in the matter of acid rain? It is true that in terms of the total emission of sulphur dioxide, which is the main cause of acid rain, Ireland is very much in the league of the innocents, as it were. It seems at first sight that in terms of total emission we seem to be pretty well bottom of the league but if you talk about that in terms of heads of population, the picture changes very interestingly, because in terms of per capita emission, as it were, we are quite well up in the dirty league. I suggest that in the whole area of environment we are by no means the innocents we would like to depict ourselves, particularly as we are always complaining about the damage done from Sellafield.
I would like to refer here to something which has not been mentioned so far, that is the whole question of Moneypoint, which could stand really as a metaphor of our position in this matter of environmental pollution. In 1983 a draft EC directive called for a reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 1995. Ireland opposed this draft directive because we were building Moneypoint at the time and we claimed that it would be too expensive to fit the necessary flue gas scrubbers to remove the noxious gases. The projections from Moneypoint and the amount of pollution it will cause by 1995 are very much at odds with the EC directive. Our objection to that was on the grounds of expense. Our objections were being made at the very time that we were clamouring for the closing of Sellafield. Therefore there is a contradiction in our attitudes there: we want to have our cake and eat it.
The 1983 directive has been modified with a somewhat softer directive which is being signed by the major polluting EC countries. But Ireland has negotiated successfully for derogations from that; so we will be allowed to increase our sulphur dioxide emissions up to the turn of the century. We are doing something about it with the retro-fitting of low nitrogen oxide burners, but the general history of our attitudes about Moneypoint illustrates our anomalous attitude towards the whole matter of pollution. Rather like the Third World tends to say to the First World, we tend to say to Europe: "Well, we really have not caused historically much pollution and you cannot blame us. We are entitled to do our own bit of pollution now; it does not matter all that much."
When we turn to the other areas here under discussion, the ozone layer particularly, again at first it seems that this is a global problem in which Ireland has little involvement apart from the use of aerosols and so on; but there is more than one kind of ozone problem. The most obvious one is the reduction of the ozone layer in the ozonesphere and the danger of a big increase in skin cancer. But there is also the problem of the concentration of ozone at ground levels, a matter which is not often adverted to, that a higher concentration of ozone at ground levels can lead to asthma attacks, can contribute again to the stunting of plants and trees and the corrosion of materials.
The principal culprit of this danger is the exhaust emission from cars. Up to quite recently we seemed to be rather indifferent to that source of pollution. The European Community as a whole lags behind in the matter of clean air from exhausts; it seems to be dragging its feet in legislation and certainly to be lagging behind Japan in this area. Here again is the conflict between the need for competition, the need to sell EC cars in Britain and Italy, and the environmental demands. Perhaps there is a basic ideological or philosophical reason why the European Community is not being very impressive about the whole matter of implementing its directives and having firmer directives on the environment, and that is that the overriding ethos of the European Community is the single market and the free movement of capital, labour and so on. In other words, the fundamental ethos is a gross capitalist one and everything else is ancillary to that, everything else must be fitted into that. The European Community, in short, is not primarily concerned with matters of the environment.
Finally, we turn to the other area mentioned in the motion and that is the greenhouse effect. Here we are very much involved; our role here is much more evident. We are all involved in the dire effects of what is going to happen if there is global warming and increased ocean levels. Was it Shylock who said, "The curse never fell upon my nation until now." I never felt it until now. It was when I heard that Cork was going to disappear by the year 2050 that my mind was fearfully concentrated on these global pollution problems. Senator Fitzsimons spoke about the need to bring home to the people the dimensions of the problem we are facing and to do this by way of the media. I think it is forceful illustrations like that that will make people realise the danger in which the human species now stands.
The answer to the general problem of the greenhouse effect is to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide — not quite to stop burning fossil fuels but partly to burn them in a more efficient way, to burn them in a way that will extract energy more efficiently from fossil fuels. That is one answer. Research there is all-important. Another is the development of energy conservation, as Senator Fitzsimons so well pointed out; and, finally, a switch to alternative energy, or a mix of all three perhaps. We must be aware in all this argument of taking up an unrealistic position and of attempting to revert to some kind of primitive form of existence. We have to combine modern living with protection of the environment. It is in a mix of these — more efficient energy extraction, development of alternative energy, principles of conservation — that our salvation lies.
Here is where I have the greatest fault to find with the lack of a national energy policy in this country. The Electricity Supply Board, for example, is the dominant energy body here. When the ordinary person thinks of energy, fuel, light and heat, he or she thinks of the ESB. What does the ESB tell us mostly? What policy does the ESB enjoin on us? It is to use more energy, because the ESB are in the business of selling energy. The ESB should be subordinate to a general national energy policy instead of shaping our energy policy. We should have a national policy of renewable energy.
Senator Fitzsimons mentioned the matter of energy generated by wind and recalled the days of the windchargers and so on. He is aware that the very mention of wind, and the kind of metaphorical associations it has, raises the suspicion that this is an area for cranks and eccentrics and that it is not to be taken really seriously as an energy problem. But I am informed by the experts that this is not so at all, that you can buy windchargers today and run them economically and that, whatever uncertainties were present back in the 1940s, better research has now enormously improved wind as a source of power and the installation of a wind charge system on Cape Clear is a very good illustration of that. I think I am right in saying that the ESB were rather reluctant to co-operate in that measure.
Senator Fitzsimons spoke about other methods as well — wave power, for example. I think that the Government are simply not doing enough in this area to encourage research and development, having what I might call a characteristically Irish policy towards all this. Of course, we want modern living standards, but we also want to preserve what we are fortunate enough to have inherited through historical accident — our marvellous environment. Senator Fitzsimons again mentioned things like insulation, double glazing and so on. Is there not also an area which is known as the heat and power system, a combined heat and power system whereby you use energy that would otherwise be wasted, in the generation of power? For example, you use it to heat buildings and apartment blocks and so on. I am not aware that we have developed that very much.
There is also a new area — and I would like to know whether again the relevant Government Departments are investigating this — the area of passive heat where you have translucent material outside a building helping enormously with the insulation effect. All these areas remain to be investigated. In other words, we do not look at energy from a social point of view as much as we should and I suggest that, more than any other western European country, Ireland has a need to be concerned with this matter because in the end it may be our environment that we will have to rely on economically.
God only knows what is going to happen to us after 1993. I have no great confidence that somehow we will find new sources of economic genius and inspiration to make us a first-rate commercial power overnight. My view is that the future of this country lies in what one might call its cultural-tourist aspects. It is absolutely vital for us, more than any other country in western Europe, that we preserve our environment, as Senator Fitzsimons says, not only through the education of individual citizens, not only through a publicity policy, but through the investigation of the alternative sources of energy and in particular what I would call an Irish mix of energy sources which does not seem to me to be evident at the moment.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this all-party motion. I will take up the last comments of Senator Murphy, and I join with him in agreeing that we have a tremendous obligation to ensure that our environment is safe but, at the same time, I would have to disagree with him and say I do not accept that the Minister's speech was bland by any means. In fact, the Minister's speech highlighted in no uncertain terms the difficulties and the problems we have and that face the environment.
Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas have a duty and responsibility to inform themselves and to get expert advice on the consequences to our environment of the manner in which we treat it at the moment. Having got that expert opinion we have a further and more important obligation to inform the general public of the possible effects and the tragic consequences of the abuse and destruction which is being constantly waged by man up to the present time. Indeed, I am dismayed by and amazed at the attitudes of some sectors who are trying to convince people that things are not as bad as the forecasts that environmentalists and the "green" people make for our future if something is not done. In fact, many of them would advocate that it is already too late and tremendous damage has already been done, but even if we accept the views of those who say that things are not as bad as others make them out to be, we have a duty and a responsibility to try and change the trend.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for the Environment on proposing and having accepted a total ban on chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the nineties at a recent environmental conference as he mentioned in his speech earlier today. The scale and the pace of modern-day development now, as we speak today, has reached a point where the cumulative effects on our environment are undermining the delicate natural and geophysical equilibria of the entire planet. We are not talking about something that might happen if we continue in the present vein. We are talking about what is actually happening at present and the enormous damage being done, which will take years to repair even if we were to stop this minute. I wonder what hope there is of that happening in the near future? Will irreparable damage have been done by the time we recognise our mistakes and take action to correct them?
We cannot and we must not sacrifice man's future in the interest of short-term financial gain. The thermal balance of the earth's surface is governed by solar radiation. I am probably repeating myself and repeating what other people have said in relation to his matter, but the whole issue is so important that it bears repetition and we must continue to highlight those problems at length to get the message across. I agree with Senator Fitzsimons that we must have some method of getting the message across to the general public because the biggest difficulty and problem we have is the apathy and indifference of the general public. Their attitude seems to be: "What can I do? As an individual there is very little I can do about this. That is for somebody else to do." We have to get the message across that everybody can play a part in solving this huge problem.
The thermal balance of the earth's balance is highly sensitive to the concentrations of certain lower level gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane which are referred to as the green gases or the greenhouse gases. These gases occur naturally in the atmosphere but, as a result of man's activities, their concentrations have increased greatly. As already mentioned, the chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs as they are referred to, are exclusively man-made chemical products. They allow the heat radiating from the sun to penetrate the earth's atmosphere in the form of ultraviolet rays, but they prevent the heat that the earth radiates from escaping back to space in the form of infra-red rays. This is what is euphemistically known as the greenhouse effect. In other words, these gases act as a kind of one-way thermal barrier by allowing heat from the sun to enter the atmosphere but preventing it from leaving. The result is a gradual warming of the earth's atmosphere, of its land masses and of the oceans in general. The experts maintain — and who am I to question what the experts say? — as a result of continual examination, investigation and surveying they have been carrying out over a period of time, that previous changes in the world's climate have closely been linked to the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. We all know that carbon dioxide is essential for life on earth but any destruction of its natural cycle or level of concentration results in serious consequences. The huge increase in carbon dioxide resulting from the use of fossil fuels and deforestation has already been mentioned and the deforestation of large areas should be of major concern to us all. I know that it is of major concern to the Government.
The present rise in the nitrous oxide level is the result also of the burning of fossil fuels and the massive increase in the use of nitrate as fertiliers. Methane is produced partly by fermentation, particularly in the wet lands, but the current increase in methane can safely be blamed on the use of oil and gas and also on the development of rice cultivation and intensive animal farming.
The CFCs are exclusively man-made chemical products. They are virtually indestructible and have the rather dubious distinction of not only actively contributing to the greenhouse effect but also of destroying the ozone layer in the stratosphere. The ozone layer as we all know, or all should know, protects us from harmful rays from the sun. This is where we have a difficulty in getting the message across. If you ask the ordinary man in the street to explain exactly what his views of the ozone layer are, I doubt if very many would be too interested in it. We have that duty notwithstanding the difficulty of getting the message across to the public generally. Anything that can be done to ensure that everybody is at least aware of what the problems are is well worthwhile.
The ozone layer which surrounds the earth at high altitude is vital for the continued existence of all life on earth. It protects mankind against extremely harmful radiation that reaches earth from space. This radiation can seriously damage human health causing skin cancers, cataracts and other disorders. It also affects wildlife and plant life in general. The outbreak of cancers in areas of the world exposed to prolonged and intense sunlight show that there is real cause for concern. Recent investigations showed that damage to the ozone layer is much more serious and taking place much more rapidly than at first thought.
Energy consumption worldwide has now reached ten billion tonnes of coal equivalent per year. To put that into perspective: in 1900 it was 800,000 tonnes of coal equivalent and that means that since 1900 we have increased the consumption of energy 13 times. That is a frightening figure. Over 80 per cent of the energy is generated by burning fossil fuels and that releases 20 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The overwhelming magnitude of this figure provides some measure of the size of the problem. All other sources of energy account for a mere 19 per cent. Rapid deforestation and desertification of large tracts of land have also contributed to the build-up of the carbon dioxide. This happens when a forest is destroyed and when the timber is transformed into carbon dioxide, either by burning or through biological decomposition.
The effects of this transformation are adding to the fact that the clearing of the forests simultaneously eliminates a huge reservoir in which carbon dioxide is absorbed through photosynthesis. Deforestation and desertification are closely linked. The surface area of the tropical rain forests has shrunk alarmingly over the past few decades as a result of pressure for farmland, firewood and lumber. Once a forest has disappeared rainfall diminishes, the soil deteriorates and dries out and the climate in the region gradually becomes more arid and the vicious circle continues.
The implication of this gradual warming for hundreds of millions of people is catastrophic, with rapid rises in sea levels — we have already mentioned the fact that Cork will be disappearing towards the middle of the next century. It is a very serious development that will take place. There will be excessive droughts and a general upheaval in the earth's climate. The sea level is estimated by the experts to be at present rising at a rate of two millimetres a year and this is as a result of the warming of the oceans. This rise leads to coastal erosion at a rapid rate which has already reached worrying proportions in many parts of the world. They say that the polar ice caps are beginning to melt adding further to the rise in the ocean levels. Scientists predict a half to two metres rise in sea levels by the end of the next century. All those predictions are dependent on the proviso that the enormous coastal ice shells in Antarctica remain unaffected. Since the world's most densely populated areas and most urban communities are at sea level, the implications of this rapid rise in sea level can easily be imagined.
According to recent reports the size and number of icebergs breaking off from the ice sheets in Antarctica seem to be increasing. Another cause for concern is the recent changes in the pattern of ocean currents. The main ocean currents have a major impact on weather and the changes would have serious consequences. One would have to pose the question: what would happen to Europe if the Gulf Stream changed its course? This would be an absolutely terrible and frightening prospect that does not bear thinking about. I do not have to tell you the importance of the Gulf Stream to our climate in this part of the world.
In the last decade or so major droughts have become more frequent in many areas of the world. This cannot be a coincidence but a sign that changes have already taken place in the world's climate. The consequences of major droughts are even in themselves enormous. The solution to these problems is very difficult and calls for nations to make extraordinary efforts over a long period. The elimination of CFCs is essential. Large-scale reafforestation is required everywhere to bring about a massive and permanent increase in the earth's capacity to deal with carbon dioxide.
Corrective action will also have to be taken to try to counter the adverse effects of these phenomena. On a practical level, the pollution of ground water from the intensive use of chemical fertilisers and from animal manure can be detected in many areas, necessitating expensive biological and mechanical filtering before it can be used as drinking water. I was somewhat taken aback to read in a book that was published recently where drinking water in some of the more developed areas of the world is now recycled ten times and that the flow in some of the rivers in these developed areas in actual fact is mainly based on the effluent that is allowed into the river. Essentially what we are saying is that if the effluent was not allowed into the river, because the climate has changed drastically, the levels of those rivers would have gone down enormously. That is an absolutely frightening thing, to say that we are depending on effluent at the moment in a lot of the major rivers throughout Europe, particularly to keep the flow of those rivers operating. The threat would increase rapidly as high fertiliser inputs of recent years leak through to the ground water. That is another problem. The difficulty we have is that even if we stop now the damage that has been done and the results of the fertilising and the leaking through will continue over the next ten, 15 and 20 years. There is very little one can do about remedying the situation in relation to what has been done already.
Pollution from pesticides can also be detected in surface waters and subsequently in drinking water and in food residues. I am glad to see Senator de Buitléar here because he has a very special interest in plant life and wildlife and in the whole environmental area. I read recently that many plant and animal species have already become extinct. In Germany, for example, in the area of Lower Saxony where crops are farmed intensively only 14 species of plant were known to have disappeared in the 80 years between 1870 and 1950 but in the years to 1978 more than 130 species of plant life have vanished. God only knows how many have gone in the decade since that. It is absolutely frightening that in 28 years, 130 different species of plant life have disappeared completely.
It is clear that the resolution of complex economic political, technical and institutional problems will take time and money. Awkward questions must be asked. I think the money can be provided but what we have very little of is time. That precious commodity is in short supply and major steps must begin to be taken immediately. To know exactly how much more the environment can take is a huge problem. The question of what we can do about solving the problem remains. As I said at the start we do have the duty and responsibility to highlight the difficulties and the enormous results of the actions of modern day developments. I also think that as individuals we can play an important part and I am glad to see that, beginning in the consumer sector and the market-place a move has been taken place where different shops now are advertising ozone-friendly aerosols and other types of products that are friendly to the atmosphere. The more of that we can encourage the better. There is a difficulty in relation to some of those products, in that people who are environmentally conscious and go looking for them find that to a very great extent they are much dearer than the other type of products. That is an area to which we should give some consideration and try to encourage people to buy the new products because it is the old story that the more of those products that is bought the less is the unit cost of them, which means that they become cheaper to buy. We do have that responsibility to encourage people as far as possible to use ozone-friendly products.
Another means that we should use is our schools. I would ask the Government to undertake a major advertising programme through our schools. Advertising programmes through the schools have been very successful in other respects and I would advocate that a special project should be taken in hand to get the message through to all schools first, second and third level, because in the final analysis the present pupils and the generations that come after them are the ones that are really going to suffer if we do not take this problem in hand and do it now.
I would also ask the Minister to make a special effort in relation to the local councils. This problem should become an item on the agenda for every council, county, urban and municipal. It should be discussed because all of those discussions will be highlighted in the local newspapers and as a result of that people will become more aware of exactly what the problems are. Time is in very short supply in relation to this problem.
I support the Minister when he says in the last paragraph of his speech that Ireland is a small player in an international arena. It was a very small player who was the outstanding individual on the team against Spain for Ireland yesterday and he made a wonderful contribution and I think we can do exactly the same. We recognise the fact that we are a small player but I think, as we have proved in the past, we can still make an outstanding contribution and we can lead the way in trying to solve this huge problem that has become one of the burning issues of today.
Níor mhiste crosbhóthar a thabhairt ar an ré seo ina mairimíd, na blianta deiridh den bhfichiú haois. Cén treo a ghabhfaimíd? Tá a bhfuil i ndán don chine daonna, pé acu bás nó beatha é, ag brath ar an rogha a dhéanfaimídne. "Ní glúnta ach blianta atá fágtha againn chun iarracht a dhéanamh ar dhul ar mhalairt chúrsa." Sin é an rabhadh a thug Lester Brown dúinn, an té atá ina uachtarán ar an Worldwatch Institute in Washington. Tá sé riachtanach go gcuirfear in iúl do gach aon duine a shoghontacht, ní hea ach a inscriostacht, atá an chruinne agus a phráinní atá sé go gcaomhnóimís í. Aon iarracht a déanfar chun an timpeallacht a chosaint, ní fiú tada é mara bhfuil na gnáthdhaoine sásta athmhachnamh a dhéanamh ar an gcaoi a gcaitheann siad a saol, bíodh siad ina mná tí i gCalifornia, ina bhfeirmeoirí beaga i dTiobraid Árann nó ina n-oibrithe monarchan sa Rúis. Caithfimíd éirí feasta as bheith diomailteach faillíoch. Caithfimid a thuilleadh den athúsáid a chleachtadh, bheith níos coinsiasaí i mbun pleanáil clainne, dul i dtaithí ar shoilsí a mhúchadh, úsáid a bhaint as na córais phoiblí taistil agus malairt slí a chleachtadh ar mhíle eile bealach. Ní ar mhaithe linn féin amháin agus lenár bpáistí a chaithfimíd sin a dhéanamh ach ar mhaithe leis na glúnta a thiocfaidh in oidhreacht na cruinne ar ball.
I was very interested to hear Senator John A. Murphy refer to seas coming up around him in Cork and swamping him eventually in years to come. It is not a surprising attitude because the message of the environment has always been difficult to get through. It was nothing for me indeed to be stopped on the road years ago and to be asked if I was "the bird man". Everybody talking about anything to do with nature in those years was seen to be a bit "cracked". I suppose one has to be a little bit cracked anyway to be dealing with nature all the time.
Or politics.
Or politics, indeed. It is always difficult to get the message through until it relates directly to either our health or our pocket, and that is exactly what Professor Murphy was saying too when he said that it really came home to him when Cork was mentioned because very often it is only when we see what is coming out of the tap that suddenly the message gets through to us that really our lives are in danger. The mistake through the years has been that we have been regarding the environment as something for the animals and not for ourselves, that we are in here and they are out there and we are not all that much a part of it. Of course what is wrong with us in this modern age is that we do not really know how to live in our own habitat. It is something that ancient tribes and indeed tribes that still live today know, or seem to know much better than we do in various parts of the world.
Getting back to this motion, the ozone hole, the greenhouse effect, acid rain are all topics much featured in the news in recent months. All are man-made phenomena brought about by interference with the natural balance of the earth's atmosphere. Of particular concern is ozone depletion, as its causes are relatively well-known, it consequences particularly drastic for man and the environment and its prevention relatively easy to bring about if the will exists and some clear action is taken.
Principal among the causes of ozone depletion and the development of the so-called ozone hole are the CFCs, best known as the gas widely used in aerosols. When they were first discovered, CFC compounds were seen as a major step forward. They are not toxic, they do not burn, and although they are quite persistent, lasting up to one hundred years in the atmosphere, they are extremely stable under normal conditions. They are not only used in aerosols but as propellants for the manufacture of many extruded plastic and foam material such as egg boxes, hamburger cartons, supermarket food trays and the insulating foam used in cavity walls. Another major area of use is as cooling agents in refrigerators and air conditioning systems.
In recent years, scientists and environmentalists have become increasingly concerned by the modification of the ozone content of the atmosphere. The ozone in the earth's atmosphere performs a very vital function. It shields the planet from the sun's dangerous ultra-violet rays. Without this protection, life as we know it could not flourish on earth. Even a slight increase in the UV light reaching the earth's surface would cause major problems. UV radiation is a powerful carcinogenic and mutangenic agent. It causes skin and other forms of cancer, damages the eyes and weakens the delicately balanced immune systems of the body, which protect us from disease. More UV rays striking the earth would interfere with plant growth, causing a lowering of agricultural yields. Also, the productivity of oceans would decrease because photosynthesis in the sea occurs mainly in the upper 50 centimetres which is particularly badly affected by UV radiation.
Our relationship with ozone is a complicated one, and the way in which CFCs and other air pollutants affect it varies, depending on the height in the atmosphere. In the lower 10 to 15 kilometres of the atmosphere, the troposphere, the ozone content is increasing as a result of CFCs, nitrigen oxides and CO 2 emissions. The build-up of these gases acts like the glass in a greenhouse, trapping the infra-red long wave rays, reflected back from the earth's surface and thereby raising the earth's temperature, the greenhouse effect, which is having an increasingly negative effect on human health and the environment. But in the stratosphere, the problem is one of depletion of the protective ozone shield, making the earth's atmosphere more and more penetrable for harmful ultra-violet radiation. The stratosphere contains by far the majority of the atmospheric ozone — eight-ninths to be precise.
This threat of the depletion of the atmospheric ozone content was based initially on a theoretical consideration; although CFCs are very resistant compounds in the troposphere, when they reach the stratosphere years later they are broken down under the influence of the stronger UV radiation. Chlorine is released which works as a catalyst for the destruction of the ozone molecules. A single chlorine can bring about the destruction of up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules. Undisputed evidence of this man-made phenomenon has been confirmed in a report reviewed by the international scientific community and published in March, 1988 —Ozone Trends Panel Report.
CFCs have contributed to a general thinning of the ozone layer, detectable for over the past 20 years and, in particular, there is now the notorious hole in the ozone over Antarctica which forms each spring and is gradually getting larger before breaking up and reappearing a year later. Recently during the break-up of the hole, very low levels of atmospheric ozone have been detected over Australia and a similar hole is thought to exist in the Arctic. From a practical point of view the increased amount of UV radiation reaching the earth's surface will undoubtedly result in an increase in the risk of skin cancer as well as a lowering in agricultural yields and productivity of the oceans.
Under pressure of the two threats to the environment, the greenhouse effect and the ozone depletion, a number of governments decided to make a joint effort to limit the production and use of CFCs. The result was the Vienna Agreement negotiated by UNEP — the United Nations Environment Programme — followed by the Montreal Protocol signed in September 1987. The Protocol provides a freeze on the consumption of CFCs, which have the greatest potential for ozone depletion, by 1992 at the 1986 level, a 20 per cent decrease from 1994 and a 50 per cent decrease from 1999.
Although the Montreal Protocol is a necessary and, indeed a creditable start, it is not enough to take complete control over the threat. Most European and Irish environmental organisations and scientists consider an 85 per cent reduction in CFC production within five years, with a total ban by the year 2000, to be the only solution. Indeed, many are calling for an immediate and total ban on the release of CFC gases to the atmosphere. For all uses of CFCs, substitutes or alternative techniques are, or will soon be, available. Long transitory periods encourage hesitant measures and inhibit innovation.
Because the largest amount of CFCs are produced in the European Community the Montreal Protocol has particular significance to the Community. In Denmark, there has been a ban since 1 January 1987 on the use of CFCs as a propellant in spray cans. In the Netherlands the obligation to label products in order to warn consumers before buying a particular product endangering the ozone layer has subsequently led to a 90 per cent substitution of CFCs. In the Federal Republic of Germany and also in Belgium aerosol users have committed themselves to replacing CFCs by 1989, with the exception of a few essential uses. In the United Kingdom, the eight most important users have also committed themselves to take similar action.
Following a major campaign by environmental organisations, many of the big names in the fast food business, for example, are switching to ozone-friendly packaging. A complete ban of CFCs in aerosols was already introduced ten years ago in the US and in some Nordic companies. Now, although we have signed the Protocol, we along with Spain held it up for some considerable time; I often wonder why we in Europe seem very often to be the last to respond to environmental issues.
The European Commission has formulated a proposal, which fortunately is designed as a Community regulation, intending to monitor the limitation on production and consumption. The Commission proposal parallels the Protocol but, unfortunately, does not enable countries wishing to reduce production even further, to do so without threat of losing their share of the market to producers in the other EC member states. The Council of Ministers arrived at an agreement on the three sections of the Madrid Protocol on 16 June. This is only a first step, however it opens the way to further negotiations.
European and Irish environmentalists, make the following suggestions and these we endorse. The Montreal Protocol should be ratified and implemented at national level as soon as possible because these national procedures condition the introduction of EC regulations. It is suggested that in future, the CFCs regulated under the Protocol should be heavily taxed within Ireland and the EC in order, at least, to regulate their use. Ireland should work towards a European voluntary agreement on the ban of CFCs and aerosols in the future and I was very glad to note the Minister's decision to meet with the industry in this matter. Steps should be taken to ensure the recovery, re-use or safe disposal of CFCs wherever they must still be in use in industrial processes, and by that I mean the re-use of CFCs found in fridges and in air conditioners because they are just dumped and left there. They could be, I am sure, bled-off. A national information campaign should be established to develop public awareness of the situation and the measures which can be taken. Again I am glad to hear that the Minister refers to this in his speech.
All products containing damaging CFCs or which require the use of CFCs in their production, should be provided with a warning label as they are in The Netherlands, and that is also mentioned by the Minister. The manufacturers who use a substitute, however, should also label their products accordingly with an approved ozone-friendly label.
In the meantime there only remains the possibility for environmentally conscious people to boycott articles containing CFCs, mentioned in the Protocol, or which require the use of CFCs in their production and not to invest in companies which produce or use these CFCs.
I thank the Minister for bringing the motion here before us and I certainly give it my full support.
In a brief contribution on this subject, I would like to draw to your attention that it is modern industrial civilization that has contributed so enormously to the damage of our natural environment. In the traditional sense we saw this damage in terms of water and soil pollution, and while that kind of damage to the ecology continues, the emphasis of the debate has shifted sharply in recent years from damage and destruction of the land and water mass to the damage of the atmosphere above us, i.e., the damage to the ozone layer. This was first seriously noticed in 1985 when man-made gases called chlorofluorocarbons — our chemists and scientists call them CFCs — were studied, CFC 11 and CFC 12 are the damaging ones according to scientists. These substances are used in fridges, in propellants and in aerosols, etc., but there is a ubiquitous supply of them in the world today. It is only in the last decade that we have become aware of the potential serious damage that CFCs cause when the gases are released into the atmosphere.
I find myself repeating much of what Senator de Buitléar and Senator McKenna said earlier, and indeed some of the things the Minister has said, but they bear repeating. Of course, many of us would have been looking at similar sources of information.
The ozone layer has been spoken of and explained almost ad nauseam. We have explained the role of the ozone layer in the continued existence of life on this earth, and how it protects this planet from deadly ultraviolet shortwave radiation which bombards the earth from the sun and from space. By protecting the surface of the earth from these rays, the human population is protected from serious diseases, as have been mentioned, melanoma, serious and usually deadly skin cancers and eye diseases and indeed many others.
This phenomenon, the interaction of the CFCs with the ozone layer, contributes also to the greenhouse effect, which means the warming up of the earth's surface. It is not, as is often mistakenly thought, the major contributor to the greenhouse effect. The major contributor to the greenhouse effect is the release of carbons, particularly carbon dioxide, or in scientific shorthand CO 2 into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. Energy consumption generated from the burning of fossil fuels has increased enormously worldwide in recent years. Recently the OECD published a report to show that energy consumption in the world has now reached 10 billion tonnes of coal equivalent per year. Senator McKenna referred to this. In 1900, the energy consumption worldwide amounted only to 800 million tonnes of coal equivalent as against 10 billion tonnes of coal equivalent today.
The combined effect of this colossal burning of 10 billion tonnes of coal equivalent by the consumption of oil, coal itself, gas and biomass — dumps something of the order of 20 billion tonnes of CO 2 into the atmosphere per year. The overwhelming problem created by burning fossil fuels for energy creation is put in context when we consider that only 2 per cent of the world's energy is generated from hydroelectricity, which has no harmful emissions and a further 2 per cent is generated by nuclear power, which should have no harmful emissions, but nuclear energy and its generation, as we all know, carries the potential of catastrophe. Basically when these carbon gases rise in the atmosphere, they create a protective layer which retards the escape of heat from the earth's surface back into space. That is a natural process. In other words you have a one-way thermal barrier which allows heat from the sun penetrate the atmosphere to the surface of our planet but does not allow the natural balancing action of allowing heat and other energies generated on the face of the earth to return to space in sufficient measure. That is the natural balance.
Scientists predict that in 50 years from now, at present levels of emissions, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be double what it was in 1950. The developed industrial parts of the world, such as western Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union and the United States of America account for almost three-quarters of all carbon emissions into the atmosphere. We should remember these figures when we often rather self-righteously lecture Third World countries about the destruction of the rain forest which, of course, is another out of control contributor to the increase in atmospheric carbons.
In the past 50 years, over 40 per cent of the world's forests have been destroyed, mostly in the tropical zone. The role of forest foliage is of critical, indeed of pivotal, importance in the control of harmful carbon gases in our environment. Forests absorb about 100 tonnes of carbon per acre per year. The effect of deforestation means that this planet has now lost the capacity to remove from its atmosphere 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon annually. Let us remember that deforestation in the world is proceeding ten times faster than replanting or reafforestation. The sad result of deforestation, usually to make way for more farmland, is that very often the cleared land is not suitable for conventional agriculture or quickly becomes unsuitable for agriculture as a result of soil degradation because of inappropriate use and, of course, arising from soil erosion and the loss of any fertile topsoil. In such cases, which are all too common, the ground will no longer regain its capacity to grow anything, even the forest it has lost.
Scientists are now saying that if global warming continues at its present rate over the next half to three-quarters of a century, the world will be hotter by as much as 8ºF on average by the year 2050 to the year 2075. That prospect holds for the world a potential catastrophe — a reverse of the last Ice Age, 18,000 years ago, when global temperatures on average were 9ºF colder than they are today.
It is also estimated that current warming trends are raising sea levels by about two millimetres per year and the Minister referred to this in his speech. This is caused by two phenomena, the melting of the polar ice caps, particularly in the Antarctic, and the thermal expansion of water. Water expands as it warms. We are warned that in 50 years mean sea levels worldwide will be almost two metres higher than they are today, if present trends are not arrested. We can but imagine the calamity a rising sea level of that magnitude would hold for countless millions of people who live in lowlying fertile areas of south-east Asia, in poor countries like Bangladesh, millions of poor people who live along the Nile delta and the prospect for the millions of people who live in the lowlands of western Europe, like the Low Countries of Holland and Belgium and indeed the fens on the east coast of the United Kingdom. It is generally agreed that thermal expansion and higher sea water levels would change various ocean currents — Senator McKenna referred also to this — and would have a profound effect and impact on land climates of many countries like Ireland. It has been seriously argued that one of the effects would be the downward or more southerly direction of the Gulf Stream, which gives this country, and most of coastal northern and western Europe, a mild, moist, oceanic climate, and is above all responsible for "our green and pleasant land" as the famous song says, and our excellent plant growth.
Can Members imagine the calamity if we lost the effect of the Gulf Stream on our weather — even with all our complaints about the weather and our high rainfall? Ironically for us, the effects of global warming would be that this island and all of northern Europe, which has the most advanced and productive agricultural industry in the world, would get much colder, resulting in enormous economic and social dislocation. There is little or no evidence yet that the Gulf Stream is losing its intensity or changing its direction but the El Niño current in the Pacific has changed its pattern. Scientists say this was the cause of droughts in Latin American countries which were, until very recently, quite unknown.
There is no doubt that continued desertification and droughts in the Sahel region of northern Africa, Ethiopia and Sudan and even noticeable on the great plains of the United States of America, is directly related to climatic change caused by the concentration of carbons in the atmosphere. Wealthy countries like the United States of America have at their disposal the technical and economic wherewithal to deal with these problems, at least at their present level but in poor countries droughts on floods — the products of climatic change — rule food production and whole national economies. They bring on famine, enforced migration of hundreds of thousands of unfortunate, very often wretched people, the destablisation of political systems and internal disorder and conflict.
The debate must address what we should do to avert a global environmental calamity. Quite correctly, the Minister states that the response in tackling it must be worldwide and organised internationally. Extraordinary efforts will be called for. The manufacture of CFCs must be banned. We must welcome the ratification of the Montreal Protocol by this country — and at present by at least, 70 countries in the international community. Let us hope — but we must press — that all nations in the international community will sign it. We recognise the difficulty of poor Third World countries in this regard. In their effort to improve living conditions for their people, the manufacture and supply of cheap refrigerators is important. Fridges are important for food hygiene and preservation, but such household fridges are main users of CFCs. I read recently that China plans to produce something like 200 million such fridges over the next five years, all containing CFC insulation material.
This, no doubt, is why there is a reluctance and a recalcitrance on the part of some poor countries to ratify the Montreal Protocol which let us remember, is but a framework, which will hold ozone attacking or ozone depleting substances at 1986 levels. A high level of internationally organised persuasion is called for. I suggest that this country must play a leading role in this programme of international persuasion, the purpose of which should be to convince all nations to sign this and other Protocols and treaties and their succeeding frameworks and schedules to protect life on this earth.
Third World countries resent — and rightly so — the often lecturing pressure of the developed world to stop the cutting down of tropical forests, the earth's leading absorbers of harmful carbons which have their source emissions in the developed world. We, in effect, are lecturing poor countries such as Brazil to stop the destruction of the rain forests because they are absorbing the harmful emissions that, by and large, originate in this part of the world. We must face up to the fact that the industrialised world do more to create the greenhouse effect than the other kind of damage caused by deforestation in the underdeveloped world.
Energy consumption by combustion of fossil fuels is enormously concentrated in the industrial, so-called First World. Earlier on we gave some figures; three-quarters of combustions took place in western Europe, the United States, Japan and the Soviet Union. The US is particularly profligate in energy consumption. For instance, the average American uses two and a half times more energy than his average western European counterpart. I read somewhere recently that the average European uses the equivalent of 11 barrels of oil each year, whereas the average American consumes 26 barrels of oil per annum. The conservation measures that became imperative after the oil shortage of the seventies are now largely forgotten and the splurge of oil and gas consumption increases nowadays with every passing year, while the development of energy efficient technology is not as popular as it used to be.
The irony of the conservation of oil and gas supplies was the resultant switch to burning coal for energy generation. Coal has a far greater emission of carbons into the atmosphere on combustion than has equivalent values of oil, gas or biomass. While the EC countries reduced oil consumption in response to the oil shortage of the seventies by 21.5 per cent in the years between 1978-83, this was a displacement economy since the consumption and burning of coal went up dramatically within the EC. That, of course, had all the consequential environmental damage I talked about earlier.
In conclusion, an internationally agreed global convention on the protection of the delicately balanced atmosphere must somehow be arrived at and must be put in place. That will not be easy, with conflicting politics and interests. The rich nations must control their carbon emissions, the result of intensive industrialisation and agriculture. That will not be easy but unless the carbon emissions are contained, controlled, and brought down by the year 2005, there may not be a planet by the year 3005. Forest destruction must be halted, especially in the tropical regions. The destruction of forests outstrips forestry planting ten times over in the world today. This forest destruction takes place especially in the tropical regions. By definition when we talk about those regions we are talking about poor countries, where lumber is an important economic resource, not to mention their need and sometimes greed to create more farming land.
The consumption of fossil fuels must be controlled. There must be a fall of 10 per cent in fossil fuel consumption by the year 2005. This has to be done through greater efficiency measures. That is the minimum the world could achieve by simple efficiencies and economies. In saying this I am allowing for greater demand for electricity. If we do not control this by the year 2005 we might not have a planet by the year 3005.
Mankind can be heartened, if some scientific developments we are hearing about today, turn out to be true. I am never quite sure about the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, not being a scientist and not having studied the subject. We read recently of the scientific developments in the United States of America. It would appear that using a relatively small amount of sea water could give the world a cheap safe supply of nuclear energy. There is no need to have those very dangerous nuclear plants of the Chernobyl type where there would be a disaster if there was a nuclear accident. The scientists tell us the potential is there to create this new revolutionary cheap safe source of energy. We wish them luck. If Ireland has anything to contribute to that research in terms of money or encouragement, I suggest it should be done urgently. If it is as good as some scientists say it would be an answer to the world's global problem created by our demand for energy which has the knock-on effect of damaging our atmosphere.
I do not intend to delay the House because many of the points I wished to make have already been made. One of the environmental problems which is exciting political interest at present is the destruction of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere which shields the earth from harmful solar radiation. While Governments have a responsibility to protect the ozone layer there is also a duty on the public at large to do so. Individuals should start by not buying aerosols that contain CFC gas which is doing so much damage to the ozone layer. Some aerosols carry little symbols declaring their friendship for the ozone layer. Surely we must all be ozone friendly now. Sadly that is not the case.
The industries and consumers of the developed and developing worlds have a growing need for industrial gases known as chlorofluorocarbons, more than one million tonnes of which are manufactured in a dozen plants around the world each year. The British leading company, ICI, one of the major producers of these gases, are now involved in research to find an alternative. Once in the atmosphere the one time dream product, nontoxic, non-corrosive and fireproof endure for years slowly accumulating in the atmosphere where as sunlight degrades them, produce the chlorine which attacks the ozone.
The US Environmental Protection Agency say that even if all countries phased out CFCs by 1990, it would take until the year 2050 for the level of chlorine in the atmosphere to return to the 1985 levels. Chlorine concentrates would continue to rise until 2010 before gradually beginning to drop. No one is talking about a complete phase out in a year. The Montreal Protocol, which I am glad to note we have signed calls for a 50 per cent reduction in the consumption of CFC gases by the end of the century. Several nations, which are likely to become major producers of these gases, have not signed the protocol, so the problem is far from under control. Much more rapid reduction in consumption and wider international support are needed.
Several nations, notably the US, banned the use of CFCs in aerosols some years ago. The UK aerosol industry is now catching up and by the end of the year, 90 per cent of CFCs in aerosols should have been replaced. Only about one-third of the two most common CFCs, — CFC 11 and 12 — are used in aerosols. The rest go into refrigeration and air conditioning systems and the foam gas bubble filled plastics used in insulation, packaging and foam filled furniture. Large reductions in the non-consumption of CFCs could be achieved by using them more carefully, by eliminating wastage and leakage and by recycling them wherever possible. The most obvious way of tackling the problem is now being addressed.
There are CFCs which are not regulated by the Protocol because they do much less damage to the ozone layer, such as HCF, C 22, to which many commercial refrigerator operators are now switching. The refrigerator in the domestic kitchen represents a two-fold threat. It uses the compression and expansion of a few ounces of circulating CFC 11 and CFC 12 to keep the interior cool and the walls are lined with insulation foam full of CFC bubbles. Greater danger to the environment is caused when the refrigerator is scrapped and the CFCs are allowed to escape. The larger refrigerators in factories, warehouses and supermarkets are a far more serious threat because they contain much larger quantities which leak and need mopping up or replacement as they become contaminated. In the US, car air conditioning systems are a large part of the problem.
Recently the Minister for the Environment attended a special conference in London dealing with the problem, to demonstrate Ireland's determination to come to terms with this problem. It also has to be noted that countries who are members of the EC have agreed to completely outlaw the use of 11 named CFCs by the end of the century to achieve an 85 per cent reduction as far as possible.
CFCs not only damage the ozone layer which shields us from harmful radiation but they are also very efficient greenhouse gases, which is another very serious problem. Many third world countries have not agreed to restrictions in the use of CFCs. They believe the developing world would feel the pinch first. Three Third World countries, at present very low consumers of CFCs, would cancel out the international effort to save the ozone layer. China, India and Brazil have increasing populations which already account for two-fifths of the population of the world. If those countries were to embark on extensive CFC production and use as they well might, then the benefit of the restrictions now being imposed on chemicals in the industrial world would be completely wiped out.
As Senator Connor has just stated the Chinese, for example plan refrigerators for 15 per cent of their population by the end of the century which would mean anything up to 200 million refrigerators, each loaded with two CFCs which would attack the ozone layer and the C11 and C12 would be released in the atmosphere when the appliances are scrapped.
It is important that every effort be made to reduce this problem by taking preventative action now to give humanity a better a chance of survival. Countries that have not yet agreed to the two international treaties governing CFCs, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol, should do so as soon as possible. Third World countries should realise that many would not find it easy to forego the use of CFCs in their present quest for industrialisation. The world, especially the industrial nations, must help the other countries to have their priorities put in a proper place. Every nation must play its part in eliminating pollutants which threaten the further existence of the ozone layer which screens out the potentially lethal rays of the sun.
I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Farrell, for yielding his place in the rota to me so that I can speak at this time. I would like to commence by complimenting the Minister on his very fine speech and on the record of achievement that it contains. I will return to a number of points that were made and address myself particularly to them and then to some material that I think probably has not been dealt with with in either the Minister's speech or contributions of other Senators.
I welcome the Minister's speech because it is clear he has been active in this area. It is a record of achievement for a small country to have been prominent in achieving agreement on matters such as the Montreal Protocol. I am proud of that. I am also pleased with the sense of realism that is contained in the Minister's speech because he acknowledges that the situation is advancing so dramatically and catching up with the efforts of the international community to deal with the problem at such a rate that even measures such as the Montreal Protocol have actually already been overtaken. The Minister said:
While I believe that the Montreal Protocol was an important step forward in bringing countries together to agree on a 50 per cent reduction in CFC use by 1998, it is now quite clear on the basis of the scientific evidence that it does not go far enough. That is unusual frankness. I believe it sounds a warning note.
We are living at the end of the 20th century in times that are very different in certain respects from the times that have preceded them. I have a cousin in a part of the country not far removed from the Minister's own constituency who, when approached about the condition of his house, used to remark nonchalantly, "Ah well, sure it will last my time." This has been the attitude of many people with regard to the environment.
The environment is regarded as an inexhaustible resource. At the end of the 20th century the sophistication and increasing complexity of industrial processes and the capacity to transport materials very rapidly and efficiently across the globe means that for the first time mankind is having an enormous and immediate effect upon the environment. We are learning in a real sense what it means to live in a global village. We are all interdependent upon this small planet.
It was very interesting to listen to the contribution, for example, of Senator Connor when he pointed that out that it is not sufficient for us to chide the so-called Third World countries about the destruction of the rain forests because we must also take into account our own massive use of fossil fuels and the resultant escape into the atmosphere of gases. It is a very complicated process. We are all involved in it together.
I wish to come back to this question of the destruction of rain forests and enter some new evidence. I believe the Minister will be sympathetic to this because he stated very accurately in his speech that the most relevant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, CO 2 which is mainly produced by fossil fuel burning and by deforestation particularly in the tropical regions. That is vitally important because it is not just a question of the burning of the fossil fuel creating these gases, which have an impact on the ozone layer, but also by virtue of the fact that there is a chain reaction. There is a kind of chain in the ecosystem under which it is essential that we have the continued existence of green plants and trees in order to absorb this damaging gaseous material.
Of course, I accept it is a luxury, it is an indulgence on our part in some respects to wish that the Amazonian rain forests, for example, should be maintained just as a kind of sponge, a blotting paper to mop up the excess waste products of western civilisation but, at the same time, it has to be stated that a large proportion of this material emanates from the very destruction of those rain forests.
I am not a scientist. I cannot really speak with authority on the technical aspects of this matter. It would be tedious of me to attempt to do so, particularly when we have such distinguished Members as Senator Éamon de Buitléar who is in a position to speak authoritatively on this matter. As an ordinary citizen of this country who takes an intelligent interest, I cannot be unaware of satellite photographs which show the rate of destruction of rain forests throughout the tropical belt and also the enormous plumes of smoke that are plainly visible for miles up into the earth's atmosphere as a consequence of this destruction.
The Minister is perfectly right when he says that the problems of ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are global problems requiring international co-operation. He addressed himself very appropriately to the question of what this small island can do. There are certain things we can do because we can look at the sources of this problem and see how we can have even a small impact upon them. The Minister, I am sure, will know what I am referring to if I mention the word "hamburgers". I am not sure, because I was not able to be here for the whole debate, whether this aspect has already been dealt with. I believe it is something we can take seriously. One of the international developments which nobody can be unaware of because it is a phenomenon which has spread throughout the world is the development of hamburger joints in every city of every country throughout the world. They are in Moscow, they are in China, they are in Hong Kong, they are in Japan, they are in Dublin, they are on the Champs Elysées. I was unaware until recently that many of these hamburger networks are, in fact, not particularly environmentally friendly because they are implicated, particularly in countries like Brazil, in massive clearance of forest so that for one year they can graze cattle on the cleared land and there is a cheap return. They can produce cheap beef. That then in the following years leaves a situation where the resources of the soil are so depleted that there is massive soil erosion and a quick transfer of an area that is rich in natural resources, rich in afforestation into something approximating to desert conditions.
I believe we can ask these people whether the hamburger chains that are involved in this country are engaged in this practice. I would like the Minister to ask McDonalds, Burger King and all the other companies that are in this area of commerce whether they are involved in deforestation and get precise information. I believe we should only license those fast food chains that are not involved in this extremely serious and massive spoliation of the world resources. I hope that the Minister will take on board this suggestion. It is something which this country can do and it is something which other countries might be prepared to forward.
I believe that we could in that way indicate to countries like Brazil that we will not allow the importation of materials or processes that depend on circumstances that have disastrous environmental consequences. I am quite sure that if we do that, they will take note of it. I, of course, have sympathy with these countries. They are burdened with massive debts incurred very often not by the people of those countries but by administrations that are not always above suspicion or corruption. There has to be a quid pro quo. There has to be some relief of the world debt. That is a global aspect because we cannot expect people to neglect what they see as an enormous material resource on their doorsteps while we are simultaneously pressing them for the repayment of debt.
There has got to be an adjustment. Somebody has got to pay. There is no such thing as a free lunch, even if it consists of hamburgers. Somebody will have to pick up the bill. If we want to arrest the development of the ozone hole, then we have got to be prepared to face the consequences even if those consequences have a certain financial monetary aspect. I urge the Minister to take this matter up, which may appear to be small because it deals with such a humble item, the hamburger, but which I am assured has a massive impact.
I would like to turn to another area of the world, the other side of the globe, and place on record something that has recently come to my attention which is of very considerable seriousness, that is the situation in Tibet. I would like to give this as an example. A number of Members of this House and of the other House will be aware of the situation because yesterday we had a briefing by a representative of the Dalai Lama on the situation in Tibet. One of the aspects that was raised in a non-aggressive manner was the question of deforestation in Tibet. With my ear cocked for any material that would be useful and not repetitious in this debate, I pressed his Excellency, Lhodi Gyari, on the matter of the deforestation of Tibet and asked was there in fact an environmental consequence of this that would have relevance to the ozone layer, its depletion and the consequent global warming. I understand that in fact there is a very serious aspect to this. It is a pity that this distinguished visitor was not warmly welcomed officially and allowed to make his views clear to us on this matter which we are debating today. I am happy to place on the record of the House what has been happening so that we may also be aware of this.
Over the last 30 years, 10 million cubic metres of forest have been destroyed per year in Tibet. That is not something we often hear about. We are aware of the situation in Brazil. We are much less aware of the situation in Tibet. Tibet is a humid country. That actually makes it very important from the point of view of the global climate. Furthermore the average level of Tibet is 13,000 to 14,000 feet above sea level and yet, at this level, there are very considerable areas of deforestation. The Irish people can have an innate sympathy with the massive programme of deforestation in Tibet. After all I remember the poem that I learned in school, "Cad a dheanfaimid feasta gan adhmad?" which reflected what was happening precisely in an analagous colonial situation where our forest resources were being depleted by a strong neighbouring country.
We ought to have some recollection of that. The result of this in Tibet is that the topsoil is being eroded and draining into valleys. If I look at a map of Tibet I see, first of all, the vast size of it and the fact that Ireland would fit into it about a dozen times, so we are talking about an appreciable area of the globe. I then look at the geography of the country and I notice that a number of the world's most important rivers drain out of it, rivers like the Yangste which flows into China, like the Mekong, like the Salween and the Brahmaputra. The impact of this deforestation programme means that there is down the road a pattern of flooding, so that there is a clear and important environmental consequence in addition to this programme of deforestation.
It also affects China: 1.5 million square kilometres of arable land has been lost already in western China and turned into desert. This, I have no doubt, has a further consequence for the Chinese people's Republic. Grass yields are down by 50 per cent. The weight of livestock is getting lighter all the time and we are having the creation of deserts. There are changes of temperature, seasonal and wind patterns as a result of the deforestation programme. This also has a consequence with regard to the question of the ozone layer because wind patterns also have an impact upon this matter.
I do not wish to be tedious. I do not wish to repeat elements from the contributions of other distinguished Members of the House. A case has been made very effectively in response to the Minister's very important speech, so I would like to sum up by again asking the Minister to give his attention to these two principal points I have made. Number 1 is that the Government should take some action with regard to investigating whether the fast food chains in this country are involved in the creation of this problem and, if so, whether it would be possible to institute a licensing system under which we require them to be environmentally friendly to us and to the countries which they appear to be currently exploiting.
I hate to suggest further realms of bureaucracy but it seems to me that really we ought also to be monitoring the situation with regard to fridges. If fridges are being thrown out and dumped, particularly massive commercial fridges, there should be some control over the process by which these things are dumped and where they are dumped because they appear to be very dangerous.
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to be aware, as I am sure that he is, that it is not simply a question of the massive depletion of the Amazonial rain forests. I understand that it is now on such a scale that an area the size of a rugby pitch disappears every minute in the Amazon region. That could not but have an impact. Also, he may remember that it is not just now in highly publicised areas of the world but also in areas that, lamentably, we hear little about for political reasons, areas such as Tibet where we may have an impact because we have friendly relations with the people's Republic of China and, as a friend of China, as the country that sponsored the membership of the people's Republic of China in the United Nations, we should be in a position, if we are really serious about this, to make representations to the leaders of that great country, to cease the deforestation programme in Tibet, to commence a reafforestation programme, although the effect of that would be many years down the line; also, humbly, because we must do so in the light of our own mistakes in the West, to alert them to what we now, almost too late, see as the dangers of the exploitation of home appliances that appearded so innocuous only a few years ago, such as refrigerators.
I have to say I listened with great interest to what Senator Connor said about what the impact on the world of previously less developed countries like India and China with their enormous population, engaged in a programme of production of these instruments without regard to the impact they have on the environment generally. I end by complimenting the Minister on the work he is doing and say that I hope — I am satisfied this will be the case — that the impact of the debate will be to reconfirm his active stance in this very important matter.
I, too, should like to thank the Minister for being here for this all-party motion. It is a very important motion in that it concerns an issue which can have very serious consequences not only for the people of Ireland but of the whole world. The Minister indicated that he is doing mighty work in ensuring that this country plays a leading role in putting a stop to the damage that is being done to the ozone layer. I believe that this generation will go down in history as being one of the generations that did most to damage the world environment. It seems that for the last 25 years damage has been caused to the earth by various types of pollution. Now it is known that there is damage to the ozone layer. Various people from time to time have sounded warnings about the dangers of what we were doing in the pursuit of progress. We got away from organic farming and from all the traditional methods of doing things. Who encouraged us to do all that? The various professionals and experts were the people who planned, encouraged and made possible all this modernisation. Now we are trying to get back to where we started from because ours is not a better world as a result of all the labour-saving and time-saving gadgets we invented.
The gospel tells us that the world was flooded once. If we do not get a grip on the situation we now could be suffocated before the year 2000 as a result of the various gases we are releasing into the atmosphere.
Many of the gases causing this trouble today have been around for a long time but they were never put into use; they were neutralised and dormant. Now we use them and do not seem to be able to control them. I believe the only way we can control all of this, and I welcome the Minister's assurance that the use of CFCs in filling aerosols in Ireland has already been reduced to negligible proportions and that he has invited industrial representatives to begin discussions with his Department with a view to achieving as quickly as possible reductions in the use of CFCs for other purposes. I particularly welcome the fact that he expects the first meeting with industry in this context to take place in the next fortnight or so. The question of developing labelling systems which will assist consumers in choosing ozone-friendly products will also be raised. I would say that the matter should not only be raised but if necessary we should bring in a labelling system which would clearly indicate that those substances are dangerous. If Greenpeace and Earth Watch and the many other groups who are worried about our environment are to be taken seriously, there are some things we must do. Only very few, if any, of the products that are causing the damage could be regarded as necessities. If we could discourage the purchase of these products Ireland would be playing a leading role in showing to the world that we are serious in our way of protecting our environment and protecting the ozone layer.
People purchase commodities without knowing of the danger involved. Such items as hair lacquers, hair sprays, aerosols for touching up your car and so on are all contained with a dangerous gas that has to be released. Those gases are imported so if people stopped using the items in question, there would be no such gases in the country. If we could slow down their sale by way of emphasising the dangers involved, by insisting on warnings on the labels and so on, the manufacturers would be forced into selling their products in some way other than with the aid of those dangerous gases. A foam insulation material introduced some time ago was emitting a dangerous gas but that is not widely used now. There is also a danger that when this gas solidifies it may still be dangerous. One can only hope that it is safe in so far as the houses in which it was used are concerned. There is lots of non-toxic insulation and we should discourage the use of that type of product.
Old-style fridges had a compressor that pumped a gas. While they were somewhat noisy I do not think they contained this dangerous gas. Now we have the modern idea where just a little heat keeps the gas circulating and it is a silent operation. One wonders if the adage, "silence is golden", is apt in this regard. Perhaps we could revert to some type of system that would not be emitting anything dangerous or anything that would be damaging to the ozone layer. If those gases are damaging the ozone layer so far away, do we know what damage they are doing to vegetation or to the human race while they are circulating in our midst before soaring into the atmosphere? Have we done any research in that regard?
Do we realise the problems we may be causing by the many sprays we use for agriculture or horticulture or by many of the manures used for agriculture? I notice that many of the spring wells that for generations supplied townlands with water are now being tested by local authorities who are saying that such sources of water may not be fit for human consumption. Is there any explanation for this contamination? What is important now is that we take steps to discourage the use of those products that are causing the problems. Just like small snowflakes, when they begin to fall, they present no problem but after a couple of hours they tend to slow-up traffic and close airports so that everything comes to a standstill. Everybody could well decide from this day forth not to purchase aerosols or any other commodity emitting dangerous gases, dangerous not alone to the atmosphere, but to the ozone layer and our environment generally. We can do without them. Were that done we would all play an important role in eradicating many of these dangerous substances.
