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.