Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 1992

Vol. 132 No. 15

Depletion of Ozone Layer: Motion.

Mr. Haughey

I move:

That Seanad Éireann recognises the efforts of the Irish Government during their Presidency of the EC in facilitating the London amendment of the Montreal Protocol, resulting in the agreement to phase out CFCs and recognising the danger to health caused by the depletion of the earth's stratospheric ozone layer, calls on the Government to continue their efforts through the EC to stabilise the earth's ozone loss.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, here this evening. I am sure the House is very grateful to her for coming to take this very important motion, particularly when you consider that the Earth Summit begins next week. I wish the Minister well in her deliberations at that conference.

The depletion of the earth's protective ozone layer poses one of the greatest threats to the health and well-being of the human race. Further depletion could have devastating long term effects on human life, for animal and natural life and for the environment generally. The threat is real and the threat is now.

New alarming reports from the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration suggest that not alone is there now a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole but a hole could soon appear over northern Europe, including Britain and Ireland, this year or during the next two years. The general public simply do not realise the seriousness of the situation now. It is a fact that future generations will no longer be able to enjoy the sun in the same way that we have and that is a shame. We have a responsibility to future generations.

The hole in the ozone layer was first discovered in 1985 by Dr. Joe Farman over Antarctica. New reports suggest that ozone depletion of up to 30 per cent to 40 per cent could occur in the northern hemisphere over the next two years.

The ozone layer as Members are aware, acts as a shield against the sun's ultra-violet rays and it is now being eaten away by man-made chemicals at an alarming rate. The situation is more tragic when you consider that we cannot repair the damage but merely stabilize it. There is evidence of a potential ozone loss of between 1 per cent and 2 per cent per day over northern Europe.

CFC gases remain in the atmosphere for decades after they are emitted and can remain in existence for more than 100 years. Already it has been estimated that up to 20 million metric tonnes have been dumped into the atmosphere. Were CFC production to cease it would take 100 years to return to natural levels.

CFCs are a basic part of modern industrial and commercial life. They are to be found in refrigerators and air conditioning systems and are used in the manufacture of cleaning solvents for example, and plastic foams. They are also an essential ingredient of the modern aerosol spray can. There are one billion refrigerators on the planet earth and there are hundreds of millions of air conditioning systems. CFCs therefore are fully intergraded into modern industrial production.

The rapid depletion of the ozone layer poses a threat to human health. This matter is becoming important here in Ireland now that the summer has arrived. Irish people are fair-skinned and have skin that is pink and white. We are, therefore, particularly vulnerable; 90 per cent of skin cancers are caused by overexposure to the sun.

A Dublin cancer specialist Dr. John Healy of St. Luke's Hospital has now suggested that for every I per cent reduction in ozone protection, there is a 3 per cent to 5 per cent increase in skin cancers and a 0.5 per cent increase in melanomas. In 1988 53 people died in Ireland from malignant melanoma. The instances of malignant melanomas have doubled in the past ten years. It has been suggested that Ireland could be facing a three fold increase in the instances of skin cancers and a 20 per cent increase in melanomas as a result of the ozone depletion.

Children in particular are most vulnerable. The attitude of Irish people to the sun will have to change dramatically in the years to come. In other countries health problems have already emerged and in Australia, for example, there has been a threefold increase in skin cancers. Ultra-violet rays cause cataracts and blindness. The World Health Organisation have produced statistics showing that 17 million people are now blind as a result of cataracts.

Ozone depletion affects the body's general ability to fight off disease. It also reduces yields of basic crops and kills plankton in our oceans. The continuation of this depletion also affects the earth's weather pattern, particularly temperatures and winds. Changed weather patterns have been detected and have already emerged over Antarctica. Firm evidence of all these effects has now been discovered. This is a serious situation.

How are governments throughout the world responding to this situation? Unfortunately, there has been a history of international government inaction and delay in this regard. Doubting Thomases queried whether ozone depletion was a fact and have left it very late in the day to tackle the problem.

The Bush Administration in the United States, for example, has not behaved well in this regard and has undertaken an exercise in back pedalling. I have no doubt that this issue will be raised in tomorrow's debate dealing with the Earth Summit and the attitude of the United States to the various issues on the agenda.

In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was agreed allowing for 50 per cent reduction in CFC production by 1999. These targets were amended three years later in the London agreement which called for a total phase-out by the year 2000. The EC has now committed itself to a total ban on CFC production by the end of 1995. I congratulate the efforts of the Irish Government during its Presidency of the EC in facilitating this London amendment of the Montreal Protocol resulting in the agreement to phase out CFCs. I congratulate Minister Harney on her efforts through the EC in bringing about the revised totals.

The phasing out of CFCs poses one of the biggest challenges to the governments of the world. The issue must be central to the deliberations in Rio next week. It will require technical ingenuity and extraordinary diplomatic skill. It will be necessary to find substitutes for CFC gases and, thankfully, a number of substitutes have already been discovered. There is, however, still a problem in relation to medical aerosols, fire fighting equipment and metal cleaning applications. It will be necessary to switch technology which will, in fact, be very costly for the industries of the world. This is a major challenge and is linked with the concept of sustainable development which will feature at the Rio conference next week.

Recycling is necessary, particularly in relation to fridges. At present fridges throughout the world are regularly and carelessly drained, dumped and damaged. New, imaginative measures are called for. Exports, for example, not meeting strict ozone friendly standards should face international sanctions. The challenges facing Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are particularly daunting and the developed countries will have to aid and assist these countries to tackle this major problem.

The consumers will also have to take a stand, I believe they are already doing so and are conveying the message to big industry. Consumers should boycott particular products, for example, the aerosol can. You will find that consumers more and more are taking this approach and are leading the way.

Governments throughout the world are engaged in a process of crisis management on this issue. The depletion of the ozone layer is a fact. In parts of Chile, for example, children are kept indoors between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. and sports events for children are no longer held during the day. The Australian Government now issue alerts when very high levels of ultra violet rays are expected. In New Zealand citizens are advised to wear hats and to eat their lunch in the shade. Ozone alert systems, for example, are common in Canada and Denmark. Ozone alerts will be a feature of modern life, particularly if the hole in the ozone layer occurs over the Northern Hemisphere. Warnings to wear sun-glasses and sun screens will be common. People will have to be advised to take the sun in moderation.

What should we do in Ireland? Most people here remain ignorant of the real scale of the danger they face. I would suggest that Ireland needs to take a stand in this regard. We should not necessarily always follow on the heels of the big players in Europe and the industrialised world. We should not merely follow our EC partners but lead the way and, if necessary, take action unilaterally, independent of our EC partners.

Recently the Irish Cancer Society launched a campaign known as "Skin and Sun". The Minister was present for that formal launch and was very much involved with it. I suggest that the Government should more actively promote health, education and public awareness on this issue.

In addition we must now put in place an ozone alert warning system given the potential dangers. According to the meteorological services, Ireland would be an ideal location for monitoring ozone depletion in the Northern Hemisphere. It is necessary for us now to put in place a sophisticated monitoring system and to secure the equipment needed in this regard.

Some Irish companies are leading the way on this issue. Murphy's Breweries for example, have introduced environmentally friendly beer coolers at a cost of £2.5 million. Team Aer Lingus have developed a way of recycling nearly 100 per cent of CFCs used in aircraft fire extinguisher systems.

As I said already, the Irish Government should lead the way. I call on the Government now to undertake studies to examine the possibility of declaring Ireland a CFC free zone. We do not manufacture CFC products in Ireland and, therefore, it would be easier for us to undertake this action. We would then be giving a moral lead as we have done throughout our history on other issues such as peace, justice and basic human rights.

Dublin City Council have already declared the capital a CFC free zone in principle and are now working on the practicalities of this decision. Small practical steps can be taken. For example, each local authority can set up a CFC extraction unit for the extraction of gas from old fridges and promote and educate people in relation to this matter of recycling.

The phasing out of CFC represents a major challenge for governments throughout the world. I call on the Irish Government to take the high moral ground in this issue and I wish the Taoiseach, Minister Harney and their party every success in their negotiations at the Earth Summit next week.

Mr. McKenna

In seconding the motion I welcome the opportunity to speak on an extremely important topic, one of the most important topics with which we will deal in the Seanad. All of us, not just the Government, have a responsibility and obligation to ensure that our environment and all that goes with it is safe. The enormous problems in keeping our environment safe must be highlighted. We have a tremendous responsibility, as Members of the Oireachtas and legislators, to ensure that that takes place. I am delighted that the Minister of State is here tonight because she is very involved in the whole area of the environment and environmental awareness. She spent a considerable time with us on the Environmental Protection Agency Bill.

We are not necessarily talking about our own situation in Ireland but about a worldwide phenomenon and the environmental development throughout the world. I said on the last occasion, that we have responsibility to get expert advice. Having got that advice we should inform the public of the consequences of the methods being used which pollute the atmosphere, with consequent effects on the world environment.

We must use every opportunity to highlight the tragic consequences of the abuse and destruction being waged on our environment. For some peculiar reason, this topic was very much on people's minds a couple of years ago but it seemed to wane in recent times and people felt it was of less importance. When we discussed this matter a few years ago in the Seanad everyone was talking about the consequences of global warming and matters of that nature but then there seemed to be a lull in people's concern. I am glad that the matter is now coming back on the agenda; I am sure the conference in Rio has something to do with it. It is not before time that the problem is again being highlighted.

I remember at that time congratulating the then Minister for the Environment on proposing a total ban on chlorofluorocarbons by the end of the nineties; this ban, if possible, should be implemented even before the end of the nineties. I urge the Government to try to ensure that there will be a total ban on CFCs before the end of the nineties.

The scale of modern-day development has reached a point where the cumulative effects on the environment are undermining the delicate, natural and physical equilibria of the entire planet. The damage will take years to repair, indeed the damage will take years to be seen, that is the difficulty. Experts say that the effects of the destruction taking place today will not be seen for at least 15 years. Even if we start to repair the damage today, it will be well into the next century before we see the fruits of our labours.

Many people maintain that some of the damage is irreparable but we should not be that pessimistic. We must be optimistic and believe that if we take decisions and action now positive results will follow. We cannot sacrifice man's future in the interest of short term financial gain. That is where the big problem arose at the start where there were huge vested interests in particular areas, which caused the deforestation of South America and other areas. The introduction of CFCs and carbon dioxide was in the interest of short term gain. Nobody was paying much attention to the environment and those who raised doubts or fears about what was happening a number of years ago were looked upon as people with a chip on their shoulders or as eccentric individuals who had nothing else to do except to complain about things that did not really matter. The truth is now beginning to dawn on everybody and we all realise that it is extremely important to take corrective action.

The difficulty is that the thermal balance of the earth's surface is governed by solar radiation and is highly sensitive to the concentration of certain lower level gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane which are referred to as the greenhouse gases. These gases occur naturally in the atmosphere but there concentrations have increased greatly because of man's activities. CFCs are exclusively man-made chemical products. They allow heat radiation from the sun to penetrate the earth's atmosphere as ultra-violet rays but they prevent the heat that the earth radiates from escaping back into space in the form of infra-red rays. This is the greenhouse effect to which Senator Haughey referred. The gases act as a type of one way thermal barrier by allowing ultra-violet heat from the sun into the atmosphere but prevent it from leaving. The result is a gradual warming of the earth's atmosphere, its land masses and the oceans in general. CFCs are virtually indestructible, they are man-made and they have the dubious distinction of not only contributing to the greenhouse effect but of destroying the ozone layer.

As Senator Haughey said, the ozone layer protects us from the harmful rays of the sun. The difficulty is that when you are talking technically about the ozone layer and all that type of thing the ordinary person in the street, to a very large extent, does not want to know. Unless the message is brought home in clear, specific and plain language of the consequences of depletion of the ozone layer, people will not take us seriously. Our educational system could help, I am not just talking in terms of people who are learning geography; civics classes, could be used to stress the consequences of the depletion of the ozone layer and pollution.

We have a great facility in our schools, primary and post-primary, to educate our young people because in a very short space of time they will be making decisions as to how things should be done. You cannot start early enough in ensuring that there is a definite policy and the easiest way of doing this is to encourage our young people to participate. A number of our schools, both primary and post-primary, have undertaken huge environmental projects to highlight the problem and to make young people aware of it. It should be Government policy that a programme of that type should be part and parcel of every single school.

The ozone layer is vital for the continued existence of all life on earth and, as Senator Haughey said, it protects us from the harmful rays of the sun which cause skin cancer, cataracts and other disorders. I am sure Senator Raftery will forgive me for mentioning a finding which said that if things continue in the same way in terms of global warming, the rising of the oceans and the warming and melting of icebergs, Cork will disappear by the middle of the next century. On a lighter note I express the hope that they will disappear from the hurling field next Sunday week.

To be serious, the effects of global warming will mean rising tides, huge droughts and land turning to desert, culminating in millions and millions of people being affected. We all know that the vast majority of our population live at sea level so the consequences of increasing global warming and the rising of the oceans will be catastrophic. We need every opportunity to highlight this issue.

Like Senator Haughey, I also take the opportunity to wish this major conference in Rio every success. It is the first time that all the major countries throughout the world have come together with a view not alone to look at environmental difficulties but at future developments. Environment must go hand-in-hand with development. You cannot have one group of people talking about the environment and another group going their own merry way in the development field. Unless both sides come together and agree a policy for the future then the world will be in serious difficulties in relation to this area.

I am delighted to welcome the Minister to the House and I am glad to have the opportunity to second this important motion.

Professor Raftery

I noted with interest Senator McKenna's comment about Cork. As a Tipperary man it may be some consolation to Senator McKenna that the first part of Cork to disappear, should this happen, would be Páirc Uí Chaoimh where the Cork hurlers train.

More seriously, I welcome the Minister. I have noted her continuing interest in this subject and in the environment in general. I am delighted about that. The world has a responsibility to generations yet unborn to ensure that we leave the environment in as good a state as we found it and possibly better. However, on all the evidence to date, I am afraid that will not be the case. The generation to which we belong have caused more damage than any previous generation, I hope we will be the last to do so. The major damage has been caused by the rich industrial nations and the major responsibility lies with them to take a lead, to clean up the mess we have created and to help to rectify it.

There are two problems involved here, particularly in regard to atmospheric pollution — the greenhouse effect which is caused by the depleted of the ozone layer and emissions of carbon dioxide. Taking the ozone depletion first, as Senator Haughey said, it is caused primarily by chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, as they are popularly known. The principal sources of the CFCs are refrigerators, air conditioning units and aerosol sprays which are in common use today. To replace chlorofluorocarbon would be an expensive process.

I am pleased the Community has decided to ban all CFCs in 1995. However, I am concerned about poorer countries, such as China, India, Pakistan and the African countries. Because of their climate, they depend on the use of cooling equipment to preserve their food, if not to improve their lifestyle, and they will find it exceedingly difficult and costly to use a substitute. In that regard there is a responsibility and a moral obligation on the wealthier countries to help them, and in doing so, to protect the environment for all. I have a lot of admiration for the United States, but I regret to say that in certain areas they are the main culprits because not only are they using more CFCs than any other country but they are also more reluctant to do anything about the problem.

With regard to the ozone depletion, it was first noted in the Antarctic region. Regrettably, there is evidence that it is stretching towards the northern hemisphere. The effects of it have already been documented. We should bear in mind that the Celts — the Irish people — have the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. This is evident in countries to which the Irish have emigrated. Figures from Australia, New Zealand, South America and North America all indicate that there is a higher incidence of cancer among the Irish because we have a greater susceptibility because of our very fair skin and, to some extent, blue eyes. I do not believe our population are adequately aware of this or, if they are, I am surprised they are not doing more about it. It is still very popular, particularly among the young ladies, to go and tan themselves in the sun.

Mr. Mooney

Not only the young ladies.

Professor Raftery

Principally the young ladies. If we could somehow make white skin popular we would have less of a problem. I sometimes wonder about young people and the risks they take. For instance, in my own college, I am alarmed at the huge increase — and I stress the word "increase"— in the number of young girls smoking, despite the evidence from all sources that smoking is harmful to one's health. I doubt if warnings about the risk of skin cancer from sunbathing will have very much effect. Nevertheless, we must continue to hammer home the message.

With regard to CFCs, there is no doubt that much of the emission of CFCs is from fridges, freezers and air conditioning units that are not operating properly. There is a need for proper servicing of these units while they are using CFCs and, more importantly, to have them drained of CFCs when they are out of use. The common practice, we have to admit, when discarding fridges and freezer units is to dump them. Consequently, when rust sets in, the CFCs escape into the atmosphere. Eventually, it is hoped that we will have a substitute material and the sooner the better, but in the meantime, we must ensure that there is the minimum amount of emission of CFCs from our fridges, freezers and air conditioning units and that there is a service for extracting the gas when they are being discarded.

Regarding the change in weather patterns, there is no doubt that the depletion of the ozone layer will cause problems as far as climate change is concerned. However, the effect of that in Ireland will be miniscule by comparison with the effect elsewhere. Consider a country such as Bangladesh, which is barely above water level at the moment with a population of 120 million people. One can imagine what a rise of 12 inches in sea level will do to that country, or even the state of Florida in the United States which is virtually at sea level. There are many densely populated areas, which will be seriously and adversely affected by rising seas if and when that comes about and we have an obligation to take steps to ensure that does not happen.

As far as climate changes are concerned, a more serious aspect is the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Before I discuss that, let me point out that CFCs are not the only gases that contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer. Petrol burning engines which do not have a three way catalytic convertor fitted emit materials, such as nitrious oxide, which also damage the ozone layer. In that regard we should promote greater use of diesel engines; we should also promote the use of catalytic converters, it will probably become compulsory soon anyway, and we should promote the use of smaller petrol engines where petrol engines are used. However, I regret to say that the last budget went in the opposite direction. The large reduction in the price of petrol with no reduction in the price of diesel discriminated unfairly in favour of petrol engines. As regards road tax, the flat upper rate of £800 per annum for any size of car over a certain level brought about a saving for the owner of a Rolls Royce of about £500 per annum, whereas for myself, it involved an increase of 20 per cent in my road tax. Although this may be only a small issue it is sending the wrong signal in relation to our concern about the environment.

I am very pleased to note that a Cork firm — Murphys Breweries — have given a lead by introducing coolers that do not contain CFCs. As I said initially, it is the responsibility of all of us to address this problem, and it is principally the responsibility of the wealtier countries, who have caused most of the damage to date, and who are in the best position to do something about it. In that regard I would again have to point the finger at the United States. With 5 per cent of the world population, they are consuming over 30 per cent of the world oil stock used internationally each year. The price of oil in the United States is too low and is they have consistently refused to increase the price.

With regard to the Community, the Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana, has proposed a carbon tax to discourage the use of carboniferous fuels. Unfortunately, the Community has so far failed to agree to implement this. Again, this is sending the wrong signal to the Rio de Janeiro conference and is offering the United States a way out, because I feel they are dragging their feet in tackling the issue of excessive consumption of carboniferous fuels. We in the Community must lead the way. We, in Ireland, can help to lead the way in the Community. We have played a reasonably good part in that but, regrettably, as I have already said, the last budget gave a wrong signal with regard to the price of petrol vis-a-vis the price of diesel, and with regard to road tax on the largest cars.

Mr. Mooney

I compliment my colleague, Senator Haughey, on taking the initiative on this matter at what is a relevant time in the context of the Rio de Janeiro summit. I am glad to have had the opportunity of hearing his views on this important matter, and those of Senator Raftery, who has on many occasions contributed in a very expert way to issues which perhaps we, as a community, do not consider as important as we should. This is one of those issues. I am particularly pleased that Senator Raftery vented his ire against the United States. I intend to follow much the same pattern because I believe they really are the culprits, apart from our own misdemeanours.

It leads me to ask at the outset, are we really serious as a country and as a member of the European Community, about this issue? It seems to me that whenever international symposia have been held on this issue over the past couple of years, the goalposts have shifted whenever a decision seems about to be made on the year in which CFCs should be eliminated. Consequently, at the last minute, the date is extended by yet another two, three or five years. In this context, the United States seem to be adopting the "live now, pay later" concept of playing poker with the future of our children, and that of our children's children, as it relates to the depletion of the ozone layer.

I cannot understand why the United States are dragging their feet on this issue because one must compliment them on having taken the initiative ahead of Europe in a number of areas. For example, unleaded petrol was widely available in the United States long before the concept became accepted in this part of the world. I remember the first occasion I visited the United States, I was driving a car and when I stopped at a petrol filling station, or a gas station as they call it, I was asked if I wanted leaded or unleaded petrol. I must confess I had no idea what the man was asking me. I did not know that there was a difference. That was only 15 or 16 years ago.

We have progressed quite a way in terms of our awareness of the environment and the potential for disaster from carboniferous fuels to which Senator Raftery referred. The US took the lead in that area and also in relation to the catalytic convertors. That was not initally a European concept, it was more an American concept. In the whole area of the use of car fuels, the Americans seem to have been wise to a degree. Therefore, I cannot understand why they have been dragging their feet in the area of CFCs, as Senator Raftery correctly says, and why they had to be pulled, kicking and screaming to the conference, and to agree on a timescale for the eventual elimination of CFCs from the atmosphere. The forthcoming Rio de Janeiro conference may be an ideal opportunity for much of the developed world, and particularly the European Community who now seem to have adopted a multilateral view on this, to reach an agreement on when we should phase out the CFCs. Perhaps pressure can be brought to bear on our American friends at Rio de Janeiro to concur with this view.

I agree that there is a lackadaisical attitude bordering on apathy here and in developed Europe towards the sun and the dangers from its effects. When one lives in a temperate climate where there are more grey days than sunny days, human nature being what it is, it is inevitable that we should want to holiday in a sunnier climate for two weeks and come back with a sun tan. I have been trying to establish when it became fashionable to have a tan. It seems to have originated, like many of our modern tastes, in Victorian England. The term "redneck", which is still in use in America in a pejorative sense originated from the peasant or farming stock who were working constantly in the sun and hence they developed red necks and were forever branded as being peasant stock. Today, one would never refer to somebody sporting a continental tan as being a redneck but essentially the result is the same. Apparently it became fashionable in the middle of the 19th Century to spend some days in the sun and develop a tan, because it gave an impression of life and vitality and was also used as a cure for various complaints and diseases.

There is no doubt that the energy produced by the sun has positive effects. I was reading recently an article which was anti-sun tanning but which said that certainly the first few days of sunshine after months of grey, dull weather would clear up a few pimples and make a person look a little better, but that ultimately if one stays out in it too long, the pimples could develop into melanoma, as Senator Haughey correctly pointed out.

There are a number of "dos" and "don'ts" that I feel it is important to highlight. Perhaps the media present for this debate might pick up on some of the more relevant ones. First, one should not remain in the sun between the hours of 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. The old song, "Mad Dogs and Englishmen Go Out in the MidDay Sun" was written by a continental European who knew what was best for him by staying inside and having a siesta between the hours of 11a.m. and 3 p.m. Obviously the only people who went out between these hours were mad dogs and Englishmen, or Englishwomen. Unfortunately, Irishmen and Irishwomen do the same when they go abroad, and even when they are at home, if the last few days are anything to go by.

Second, it is vital that Irish people, and northern Europeans generally, wear a sun block cream because of their fair skin. I wonder how many of our young people, not necessarily those going off to sunnier climates, who have taken advantage over the last week of the wonderful sunshine we have been experiencing, have considered even for a moment the possibility of using a sun block. I would say that the vast majority of them have not, on the basis that "a couple of hours sun will not do any harm, it will only do you good". If you are a fellow you will come out with a tan and the women will think you are great, and if you are a woman you will have a wonderful tan and you will be able to wear a bikini on the beach in the summer and the fellows will think you are great. It is a question of fashion rather than health. If one does decide, having bought a sun block and avoided the period between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., to go out in the sun, it is vital that one should only stay out for about an hour. If one decides to stay longer, you can end up looking pink all over rather than brown, and it is strongly advised that one should cover up the following day and keep out of the sun completely.

I wonder if manufacturers of sun creams, conditioners, after-sun creams and all the various accoutrements of a modern-day sun holday are somehow neglecting their responsibilities. It is not enough to create new products and market them as being something wonderful. I believe manufacturers now have a responsibility to their consumers and I hope that the Minister, when replying to this debate, will comment on the role of manufacturers generally, and whether she feels they have a responsibility when marketing their products to make it quite clear — as cigarette manufacturers were legally obliged to do — that sun tanning, without taking effective precautions, also damages one's health. If they will not voluntarily produce information for their consumers, they should be legally obliged to do so.

I have discovered that the recent spell of good weather has absolutely nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer so we can sleep safely in our beds. According to an item on last night's "News at Ten" on ITV, it seems that the weather goes through cyclical patterns, known as weather irregularities but meteorologists have not yet been able to establish any firm pattern. Some of you will remember the last time we had an early summer, which was in May 1976, and it lasted for a couple of weeks. That was a long time ago, but as we have not had much good weather since I am sure many of you will remember it. It is similar to the only time that Leitrim won the Connacht Final in 1927, and we are still talking about it.

We can rest assured the ozone layer is not being depleted to any great extent as a result of the recent good weather but the comments and arguments I have made about adopting a more responsible attitude among our citizens in sunny conditions is still valid nonetheless. Is the Minister aware that since this issue arose, countries and manufacturers were of the opinion that because fridges were causing this serious difficulty, it was necessary to remove the CFCs and replace them with material more environmentally friendly? I read somewhere recently that the alternative is now proving doubtful and perhaps we are all getting confused about the ozone problem at this stage. I only make the point in passing but, because of the number of fridges being used in the developed world and, as Senator Raftery pointed out, the dumping of old-style fridges on the Third World markets, it is a very serious problem and is central to the whole issue of CFCs.

I am curious to know what steps the Government are taking to alert the public to these problems and the potential danger to our planet if the ozone layer is reduced. I support the stance taken by the Government, and the enlightened decision to create a Minister of State with responsibility for environmental matters. I compliment them on the moves that they are making but I wonder what specific steps the Government are taking to alert, inform and educate people about the dangers of too much sun on the one hand which leads to all sorts of medical problems and, on the other hand, the steps they are taking towards encouraging manufacturers to be responsible in marketing their products and what steps they are taking to educate people not to use sprays containing CFCs.

I would like to reiterate my congratulations — I think that is the correct word to use in the circumstances — to Senator Haughey for taking the initiative in introducing this motion and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Mrs. Hederman

I would like to join with others in complimenting Senator Haughey on putting this motion down. He presented the case very clearly and emphasised the urgency of the problem. The debate has been helpful. I am genuinely pleased to see so many speakers on the Government side enthusiastic about this motion and showing concern for the environment. We know the Minister has done more than anybody else in her concern for the environment by the very practical steps she has taken. Rather than looking at other countries and what they are or are not doing — there has been a lot of criticism of the United States which I agree with, and we have heard about the problems in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere — I would like to examine in more detail what we are doing here and what the problem is here without in any way disregarding the global problem.

I always feel that in approaching environmental issues — I have said this in other debates here — it is through the accumulation of a great number of small efforts, whether it is recycling in Ireland or whatever that the global problem will be resolved if every country looks after its own environment. That is not for one moment to say I do not approve of what is being done in Montreal, London and all the other places and what I hope will happen in Rio de Janeiro, but I feel that what we should do here is to concentrate on the environmental work we may or may not be doing here.

In that context it would be very helpful to make it clear that we are not without blame in this regard. The Protection of the Ozone Layer— a very good document brought out by the Department of the Environment — states that the Central Statistics Office indicates we are importing 1,400 tonnes of CVCs and they suspect that the current usage is probably as high as 2,500 tonnes per annum. I think we can assume that the Department of the Environment would not have been exaggerating the situation and I presume everybody will agree that they are the facts. I feel we have quite a long way to go and there is much we can and should be doing in this area. I realise we are talking globally but I was really staggered by a figure of 100 million tonnes of halons in CFCs per annum to be phased out. That is a major challenge which I hope the conference in Rio will take action on and indicate its concern.

I remember when the former Minister, Deputy Flynn, published an Environment Action Programme in 1990, which was the year of our "Green" Presidency. At that time I noticed that there were many vague aspirations contained in it. I refer to the section on the protection of the ozone layer:

During the Presidency Ireland will play an active role in the international debate on the issue of ozone depletion and will press for more effective action at international level to eliminate the production and use of ozone depleting substances.

It is very easy for us I suppose to take the international stage and request the elimination of the production of ozones when we do not produce any ourselves. That next two paragraphs state:

The provision and recovery of recycling facilities for CFCs, especially those used as coolants, etc., will be promoted and £50,000 will be made available in 1990.

My colleagues will agree that was not a very generous figure in the context of the problem, and indeed was a very pathetic gesture if that was all that was being offered. However, a sense of urgency appears to have crept into the situation.

It also states in the booklet that local authorities will be asked for their views. Senator Haughey mentioned that the Dublin City Council has unanimously passed a motion to make Dublin a CFC-free zone. I ask the Minister, or the Minister of State, to sign the order confirming that because, we cannot do anything, not even ban smoking in our Chamber, without the Minister's consent. I would like to know if we will be given an undertaking here this evening that the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, or the Minister, Deputy Smith, will sign such an order.

It is important to consider what action should be taken. There is a general feeling in the Seanad that we need to infuse a greater sense of urgency into the whole question of the control and elimination of CFCs and, obviously, we cannot do that if the problem and its solution is not more publicly highlighted. In that context I would like to compliment the Department of the Environment on this booklet. It states the position clearly and it is very helpful. On page 20 of the booklet it says that we should ban imports of CFCs and halons. I am somewhat disappointed to see, according to what I read, that a total ban does not seem possible at this stage. As we do not produce CFCs here we need to ban the sale of all ozone depleting substances as quickly as possible.

It states at the bottom of that paragraph that "a total ban does not seem possible at this stage the reason being that it would prevent the importation of products with essential uses". I would ask the Minister why they cannot be exempted, as this has been done in other places. In Germany they banned the use of CFCs for solvents and cleaning agents but they allowed limited exceptions. Is there any reason the same course cannot be followed here? I accept there may be some areas where they cannot be banned but can they not be exempted in the legislation?

Does the Minister intend to ban the importation of CFCs? Why should we wait for the EC to act or why should we only do as little as we can? As Senator Haughey said, let us show an example in this situation and let us take the lead. We are always priding ourselves on our actions in environmental matters.

On page 16 of this booklet the question is asked: "what is Ireland doing about ozone depletion?". We note from this that Ireland is playing its part in international action through participation in conventions, etc. That is all very good and I am not denigrating it in any way but when it comes to the practical reality of what is happening in this country, we continue to allow the use of CFCs. Other Senators have made this very clear, and I am sure the Minister feels a great sense of urgency about it. As far as I am concerned a total ban on the use of CFCs tomorow would be too late. We have all accepted that too little has been done too late because people did not realise how serious the problem was.

Senator Haughey also refered to the need for ozone alerts. I fully support him. We need to have a national network of ultra violet B monitoring and we need that equipment hooked into an ozone alert system. I understand — the Minister probably knows more about this than I do — that such equipment is relatively inexpensive. I understand that Trinity College is producing monitoring equipment which costs as little as £500, whereas prior to that I think the US equipment was costing in the region of $400. How many of these monitors are needed and where they will be put I do not know, but I think we should have ozone alerts like we have pollen counts. There are a great number of countries where this has already been done.

One other suggestion I would like to make — I think Senator Mooney referred to it — is that the Minister might give information about blocking creams. If you go out to buy a fridge how can you know if you are buying an ozone friendly fridge? Is there any assistance on that? What about monitoring the labelling of products which say there are no CFCs in them? Can we believe that? I was going to mention briefly what other countries are doing. There is a great deal being done in other places.

Perhaps the Minister would comment on the question of HCFCs. Will they be dealt with, are they being dealt with and can we expect them to be included in the ban in the near future? I hope the Minister will act in the decisive and courageous way that she has done in the past, that we will lead in this area by example and that we will get our own house in order first.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Miss Harney)

I would like to thank the Senators for raising this issue tonight. I would like to thank Senator Haughey in particular for proposing this motion and to acknowledge the support he is giving to the Government's efforts in this regard.

Ozone layer depletion is an issue which has brought home to Governments and peoples across the world the collective responsibility of humanity for the sustainable development of our planet. International co-operation has been successfully mobilised in face of the dangers involved. Indeed, the mechanisms for international co-operation developed for the elimination of ozone damaging substances have set an important precedent for the more recent global action on climate change and biodiversity.

Today's debate, as the Seanad has acknowledged, is particularly opportune coming as it does just a week before the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) opens in Rio de Janeiro. I know the Minister for the Environment will be addressing this House on UNCED tomorrow. The scheduling of these two important motions in the Seanad this week reflects the widespread concern which now exists for the environmental consequences of all our actions.

The ozone layer acts as a vital shield for the earth's eco-system, filtering and controlling the penetration of ultra-violet radiation. Excesses of this radiation threaten human and animal health, particularly in relation to skin cancers and eye diseases, and in addition will lead to various forms of crop damage. The protection of the ozone layer has attracted particular attention this year with reports of a more rapid than anticipated depletion in the northern hemisphere.

The European Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Experiment, known by its acronym EASOE, began in mid-November 1990 and completed its main measurement phase at the end of March 1992. The research was prompted by the decline in northern hemisphere ozone values during the last decade and the need to understand the role of the halocarbons in this decline. Measurements were made over a wide area of Central Europe, across the North Atlantic to Greenland and the European Arctic region, including Russia. They comprised regular ground-based and ozone sonde measurements for more than 20 sites, observations within the ozone layer by experiments on 41 large balloons and nearly 100 flights of three research aircraft. A large amount of data has been collected and analysis will continue for several months.

Preliminary results indicate that the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere was highly perturbed this winter. This was due to man-made chlorine and also large amounts of aerosols following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo; total ozone amounts in the European Arctic and middle latitudes were anomalously low and were less than expected from simple extrapolations of ground-based and satellite ozone measurements. The low ozone amounts can be partly explained by the unusual tropospheric weather patterns this winter; while rates of ozone loss were large at times during January and February in many of the air parcels studied, the subsequent rise in temperatures which led to a decrease in the levels of reactive chlorine compounds precluded a major ozone loss or "ozone hole"; and the measurements this winter indicated the potential of the chlorine already in the stratosphere to cause large ozone loss. With the inevitability of increased chlorine loading during the rest of this decade and the possibility in other years of lower temperatures later in the winter, this potential for ozone destruction could be realised in the future.

It is worth recalling in this context that concern about depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer is of quite recent origin. A paper in 1974 by two American scientists, Rowland and Molina, postulated on a theoretical basis the likely connection between certain chlorine and bromine emissions and damage to the stratospheric ozone layer. Chlorofluorocarbons, the so-called CFCs, and halons are potent sources of these chlorine and bromine emissions respectively. While these chemicals are stable at ground level, they release chlorine or bromine atoms when exposed to ultra-violet radiation in the stratosphere. These atoms break down the ozone molecule in the ozone layer and change it into ordinary oxygen; the chlorine or bromine atoms remain available to do further damage over a long period of time.

As we know, use of CFCs increased greatly since the early 1970s. They were adopted for use as cooling agents in fridges and air conditioning systems, as propellants in aerosol cans, as solvents in the electronics industry and in other activities, and to blow foam for furniture, packaging and insulation. Halons are used mainly in fire extinguishers.

The theory of Rowland and Molina found empirical verification with the researches of scientists into the Antarctic stratosphere. The so-called "hole" which was identified in the Antarctic ozone layer confirmed the fear that breakdown of the layer might be occurring. Meteorological processes, in addition to chemical processes, play a role in determining ozone distribution. The EASOE experiments are, therefore, a significant contribution towards a better understanding of the process of the ozone layer depletion.

International co-operation in this area began in 1985 with the conclusion of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme. This was a framework convention and was intended to be complemented by more specific Protocols. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was agreed in September 1987. That Protocol introduced controls on the production, consumption, import and export of five CFCs and three halons implicated in ozone depletion. Each party to the Protocol was required to ensure that its level of consumption of CFCs was halved by 1998 compared to 1986 levels; consumption of halons was to be stabilised at 1986 levels in 1992.

While the Montreal Protocol was a landmark decision it quickly became apparent that its controls were not sufficiently stringent to halt ozone layer depletion. In 1989 scientists reported that, while there was no ozone hole over the Arctic comparable to the one which had emerged in Antarctica, the Arctic stratosphere had nonetheless been observed to be perturbed with significant amounts of active chlorine present. There was, therefore, potential for ozone loss in the region. Scientists also reported that even with a complete phase-out of CFCs and other ozone-depleting chemicals, it would be decades or even centuries before chlorine levels dropped to the level of the early seventies because of the long time that these substances remain in the atmosphere.

The EC led the campaign to revise or strengthen the Montreal Protocol. The European Council at is meeting in Dublin in June 1990 adopted a Declaration on the Environment.

Substantial adjustments and amendments were subsequently agreed in London in June 1990: first, CFCs and halons already controlled by the 1987 Protocol were to be subjected to an accelerated phase-out programme so as to eliminate their production and consumption by the year 2000, with intermediate targets of a 50 per cent cut by 1995 and an 85 per cent cut by 1997. Second, new substances were identified for control namely, other fully-halongenated CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, which is used mainly to produce CFCs, and methyl chloroform, which is used as a solvent. A phase-out date for the production and consumption of these other CFCs and for carbon tetrachloride was also set for the year 2000 and for the year 2005 for methyl chloroform. Third, a financial mechanism was established to ensure the widest possible participation by countries in the Protocol. This recognised the burden which compliance with the new provisions would place on developing countries. The London Amendment accordingly provides for arrangements relating to financial assistance and technical co-operation, including technology transfers, for developing countries. The mechanism is intended to meet all the agreed incremental costs to these countries of compliance with the Protocol. Pending the formal establishment of the financial mechanism, an interim mechanism is operating in the period 1991-93 with total funding amounting to US$200 million.

The London Amendment is a valuable achievement as it marked a further advance in our efforts to protect the ozone layer. It is due to come into force on 10 August 1992 as the necessary number of instruments of ratification have now been lodged. Ireland, together with other European countries ratified the amendment in December 1991.

I will readily admit, however, that at the London meeting Ireland pressed for and would like to have seen agreement on earlier phase-out dates. However, not all countries were able to support this, but in recognition of the threat to the ozone layer the member states of the European Communities decided in March 1991 that CFCs and carbon tetrachloride should be phased out earlier within the EC: dates of 1 July 1997 were fixed for CFCs and 1 January 1998 for carbon tetrachloride, two and a half years and two years, respectively, ahead of the London deadlines. As regards implementation, the control provisions of the original and the amended Montreal Protocol are being implemented jointly by the EC member states and this has proved an effective arrangement.

The latest scientific findings from EASOE show the need for even more stringent measures and the EC has responded quickly to the situation. In March this year the Environment Council adopted a position in favour of the elimination of the production and consumption of CFCs and related substances by end 1995 and a reduction of 85 per cent by end 1993. This advanced timetable is a major step forward and Ireland fully supports the measures.

The Community will press for the adoption of similar timetables at the review of the Montreal Protocol to be concluded in Copenhagen next November. The EC are also looking for the institution of a system of controls on the so-called "transitional substances" which are being developed to allow the phase-out of CFCs but which also have an, albeit lower, ozone-depleting potential.

Ireland has consistently adopted an advanced position on measures to protect the ozone layer. We are a party to the Vienna Convention and have ratified the Montreal Protocol and were among the first EC countries to ratify the London Amendment. In August 1990 a document entitled "Protecting the Ozone Layer" was published by my Department. It outlines in non-scientific terms the problem of ozone depletion and action being taken to counter it. The document was widely distributed free of charge and is available from ENFO. The Irish Presidency of the EC worked for the adoption of the London Amendment of the Montreal Protocol. Ireland is contributing to the multilateral fund established under the amended Montreal Protocol. A quarter of a million pounds will be made available by Ireland to the fund in the period 1991-93.

None of the controlled substances is manufactured in Ireland and our overall use of them is relatively small: the latest figures available to my Department show annual national usage of the main CFCs of the order of 2,500 tonne per annum. Direct contact has been made with the industry. Significant suppliers and users of CFCs in Ireland were asked to develop individual company programmes to reduce and eliminate the use of these substances as quickly as possible. I am pleased to report that all of the companies expressed awareness of the requirements involved and responded in positive terms. I will continue to encourage a total phase-out of these substances in Ireland as rapidly as possible. I accept the suggestions made in that regard by Senator Hederman. Although there are no substitutes for some medical equipment — for example, inhalers for asthmatics — we will explore the possibility of an earlier phase-out where there are alternatives.

I would like to respond to some of the specific points made by Senators. Senators Raftery, McKenna, Hederman and Haughey referred to the need for monitoring. I am pleased to tell the House that my Department have started discussion with the Meteorological Service with regard to having ultra-violet radiation monitoring in this country. We believe that a sufficient number of sites should be found where this monitoring could take place.

Senator Raftery and a number of other Senators were very critical of the United States and I think there is a misconception here. While the United States have been slow in relation to climate change, they have been progressive in relation to CFCs. They too have a 1995 phase-out date. In relation to the fund that was established under the amended Montreal Protocol, the United States pay 25 per cent of that fund, which is by any stretch of the imagination a substantial amount. To be fair, they have been good in relation to CFCs.

Senator Haughey referred to the efforts made by Team Aer Lingus in dealing with halons during the maintenance of aircraft. I would pay tribute to the efforts made by Team Aer Lingus. They were one of the winners this year of the Good Environment Awards for Industry for that particular effort. I compliment them and I would like to encourage Irish industry to continue to explore environmentally friendly options.

Many Senators referred to the sun and Senator Raftery spoke about younger women wanting to get a sun tan. I think not so young women and indeed men want sun tans too. In fact, in the 18th century people spent a lot of money putting toxic chemicals on their face to make it whiter and it is probably only a matter of time before it becomes fashionable again to be pale skinned. As Senator Haughey said, I launched the Irish Cancer Society's sun and skin campaign last week. They have a very appropriate slogan; fry now and pay later. It is very apt. It never ceases to amuse me how much concern there is in Ireland about the depletion of the ozone layer and yet how quick people are to run off and bake themselves in the sun. They do not seem to see the connection. Some people who have highlighted the difficulties and dangers have equally been the people most vociferous in trying to find their way to sun-packed holidays.

In relation to recycling, the safe storage of CFCs and fridges, my Department have made grants available to local authorities in line with the environmental action plan. Twenty-four local authorities now have facilities and we are having discussions with two further local authorities. That is a welcome development.

A number of Senators referred to the need for a public health warning and my Department are having discussions with the Department of Health in that regard. It is essentially a matter for the Department of Health as to what issues they decide to give public health warnings on. I know discussions are under way in relation to that issue.

Senator Mooney referred to the need for proper labelling of products and I share his concern. The Environmental Protection Agency Act, which is now in force, provides a system for the establishment here of eco-labelling and that will give a correct and authoritative guidance to consumers. Only those companies, manufacturers and products that have been submitted and approved for the label will be able to carry the label in future.

I would like to thank the Seanad for giving us the opportunity of discussing this issue and for showing such a high level of interest in environmental matters generally. I have been to this House on numerous occasions in the past couple of years and it indicates to me that among the representative of the people there is a high level of interest. I compliment Senator Haughey and the Fianna Fáil Party for putting this motion down this evening for Private Members' time. I thank them for their good wishes in relation to the Rio Conference. I hope it begins the process of the world being able to deal in a realistic way with the problems of economic growth and environmental protection and that we can begin to plan ahead on the basis of sustainable development.

Professor Conroy

I also join in welcoming Senator Haughey's motion and I welcome the Minister's very detailed and comprehensive response. As the Minister said in her final comments, we have this at times very difficult balance between economic development and the maintenance of the environment. It signifies a tremendous change worldwide, but particularly in our attitude to the environment.

During the course of this Seanad we have had many practical references, Bills, discussions and debates on the environment. It is only a short time ago since the Minister herself was with us for prolonged and detailed debates on the Environment Protection Agency Bill. It is very much to the credit of his country that for the first time the environment was made the primary concern of the European Community during our Presidency. We have contributed as much as we can to international recognition of the problem. It is perhaps particularly appropriate that we should be doing so in relation to what is very much an Antarctic discovery. It was, after all, an Irishman, Shackleton, who was so pre-eminent at the turn of this century in Antarctic research and really set the foundations for the work which so many years later was to lead to American and other observations in relation to the ozone layer. Let us not forget that at one time the Antarctic explorers and researchers were ridiculed. The time and money spent and the danger in which they put themselves were often criticised and in post-war years it was quite difficult to find funds for the Polar Institute, for various other Antarctic research institutions and research expeditions and for research bases in the Antarctic.

This brings home a general lesson that it is very easy at times to condemn what seems like almost irrelevant research, pure research. What relevance is it to us here in Ireland that people are spending a winter in the Antarctic looking at the penguins, measuring the depths of snow and taking these very abstruse measurements of such things as the ozone layer? It is only in the past four or five years perhaps that we have realised it could be of enormous significance.

I am glad the proposer of the motion, his seconder, the Minister and indeed all the speakers have emphasised the health aspect. I am sure the Acting Chairman, coming from County Limerick, from a rural background, will remember from the talk of old folk that in years back it was regarded, rightly, as a very serious sign if someone became deeply tanned all over their body. It was fine if you got tanned on the face or if men working in the field got tanned on the chest; but if someone had the overall tan that so many people strive for today, it was regarded with great seriousness because it was a manifestation of a particular form of tuberculosis affecting one of the hormone glands of the body. As the Minister has suggested, the fashion in those days was to be as white as possible. The jet setters of the times painted themselves; indeed I think there were lead paints involved which probably did not do them all that much good, even if they produced a temporary pallor of the face and cheeks.

Now we have gone right round to the opposite side. People are looking for this tan and until very recently were doing so with very little regard or concern for, or perhaps even knowledge of, the fact that they could be running quite a serious risk of skin cancer and other forms of cancer, particularly if they do not use creams which cut down and reduce the ultraviolet rays. The Minister has taken up the suggestion made here that manufacturers should point out — and in this case it would be something very much to the benefit of their sales — the usefulness, and indeed necessity, of having some indication of the tremendous importance of using a cream which will cut down the ultra-violet rays.

This is particularly important for Irish people. We are, it so happens, the most liable to skin cancer of any race or group of people in the world. We have many advantages, but this is one of the physical disadvantages we have. Someone mentioned the rednecks. To this day in Barbados, to which once upon a time Irish people were rather involuntarily removed, there is a group of people, sometimes called the Irishers, sometimes called the rednecks. This is related to the very severe effects of the sun on their skin.

Again, there is a lot of fashion in this. A few years ago people laughed at the idea of the old sun helmet; you would have a laugh straight away on television or in the theatre if someone came along wearing a sun hat or helmet but there was a very good reason for it in its day. Perhaps not with the explorer's toupee, but it is useful to cover the old head with something if you are out in the midday sun. Certainly, for many Irish people going to Spain or the Canaries or wherever else to get sun it is very foolish to rush out to try to get as much sun as possible in the first two or three days, particularly during the heat of the first two or three days. Quite apart from the pain and discomfort, there can be rather more lasting and more serious effects.

I would like to come towards a conclusion by referring to CFCs and DDT. It is not all that long ago when in this country we thought DDT was the best thing going. Farmers were being advised to spray their crops with DDT, housewives were using it to get rid of flies and so on. It took two decades before we realised the enormous damage that was being done by the use of DDT. Unfortunately, in many countries of the world it is still being used and there is still the accumulation of damage caused.

Thank goodness, with CFCs there is a more rapid appreciation of the damage they can cause. Sometimes I wonder in view of the very stringent regulations we rightly apply now before a new drug can be introduced and given to people, whether similar regulations should not in some way be applied to industry before substances such as CFCs go into widespread use. Closely related to this we have furniture with foam in it, containing similar, and in many cases the same substances, which have been responsible for so many deaths because of the rapidity with which such substances not only take fire but produce noxious fumes.

It is a very good step forward to see that a motion such as this, which would have been almost unthinkable ten years ago, or regarded as irrelevant or trivial, is now recognised as being one of the more important private motions that have been put forward in this session.

Mr. McDonald

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of contributing to this debate. It is extremely difficult to enthuse the ordinary person when you talk about something as abstract as the ozone layer and explain to him the danger of depletion, but nevertheless most people have recognised that there is a change in our weather patterns over the past number of years.

I listened with great interest to the Minister's speech. I have been following the Minister's work in her Department as it relates to the environment and to energy. I would have preferred if the Minister could have been more explicit on the practical steps we could take in this country to do our part to ensure that an improvement can take place. I know we have not got a manufacturing industry which produces CFCs here. It is true that some of these products are used in aerosols of one kind or another, but I understand that on many of those aerosols you now see "Environmentally friendly" marked on them. We shall be looking closely at this structure because of skin cancers in the next number of years people will have difficulty getting treatment because of the shortage of hospital beds and there is no indication that the situation is improving. It is important that people should take whatever steps are necessary to prevent skin cancers.

The sources of the greenhouse effect and the contribution of greenhouse gases, if expressed as a percentage indicate that energy accounts for 49 per cent, deforestation 14 per cent and agriculture 13 per cent. I will deal briefly with agriculture and ask the Minister to seriously consider some of my suggestions.

As I said, agriculture contributes 13 per cent to the greenhouse effect. I would ask the Department, in an effort to make some contribution, provide a special grant-in-aid to either EOLAS or Teagasc to develop a non-farm gas digester that would convert methane gas so that it could be bottled and used for heating purposes and so on? As people drive through the country they express dissatisfaction at the obnoxious smells from the slurry spreading. If the methane gas is extracted from the slurry the residue will not have any smell. That type of inhouse industry would not only provide greater efficiency to the agriculture industry, but would probably save on the importation of fossil fuels which, we are told, will be depleted by the year 2018.

Energy accounts for 49 per cent of greenhouse gases. Here again the Department of the Environment could encourage practical steps to be taken in this direction. For instance, newly developed solar panels are available that do not need direct sunlight to provide a substitute heat source, whether it is for water heating or other energy requirements. This too would save on the importation of fossil fuels. The Government — whether it is the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Energy or the Department of the Environment — should encourage greater use of bio-energy and the introduction of bio-diesel. A great deal of work has been done in these areas in France, Germany and Austria.

Last week during a debate on a section of the Finance Bill dealing with a Community directive of 15 February last, the Minister told us that the Commissioner had introduced a directive, which will be compulsory in member states from 1 January 1993 and will reduce by 90 per cent the duty on bio-energy, whether it is ethanol-based petrol or vegetable oil-based diesel; a diester. This would make the fuel very competitive. To my horror the Minister and his officials said they never heard of it. How an EC directive announced by way of a press release on 15 February 1992 can escape the attention of our gurus in the Department of Finance beats me. Anything that will cost the Exchequer even a few pounds will not see the light of day, and that makes me apprehensive. Not only can we, as a small economy, make a worth-while contribution to the conservation of the ozone layer, but we can provide the opportunity for new industries and job creation.

The latest figures for C02 emissions by fuel are peat 20 per cent, coal 26 per cent, gas 10 per cent and oil 44 per cent. The emissions by sector, which is a very important consideration are, transport 19 per cent — we can do something about that by changing over to more environmentally friendly fuel — industry 18 per cent, utilities 35 per cent, commercial 7 per cent and residential 21 per cent. The transport and residential areas could make a considerable contribution to a reduction in the emissions of C02 by more efficient use of solar energy and the introduction and promotion of environmentally friendly fuels, either through vegetable oils, whether rape seed or linseed, or any of the ethanol or alcohol based fuels which can be made from many of the farm crops we grow.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I hope our delegation to the conference in Rio de Janeiro next month will come back with positive views and ideas on how to make a practical contribution to the type of environment we should all like to conserve.

If I read the new Common Agriculture Policy amendments correctly, there is an opportunity of creating in the region of 12,000 or 14,000 additional jobs. If we grow the same acreage of rape seed oil as we do best, the number of jobs in Greencore could be doubled. Those opportunities are there for all to see; they are not a figment of somebody's imagination. However, the big problem for the farming community is that they do not have the contracts to put additional acreage under the plough.

Mr. Norris

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important debate, even though its importance may not be immediately recognised. The Minister spoke about the public interest in certain impacts of ozone depletion, such as the ultra violet radiation that can cause certain kinds of skin cancer and so on, that has a certain public face to it, but there are other more remote areas in which we should have considerable concern and where this Government, and particularly this Minister with her sensitivity to issues like this, can and will play a significant role.

I would like to take up a couple of technical arguments because they may not be fully understood. It may well be that the Minister has contemplated these arguments and has rejected them. While I welcome her speech in general, I am a little concerned at the paragraph where she refers to new substances having been identified for control, namely, other fully-halogenated CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, and so on and the phase-out date for the production and consumption of CFCs and carbon tetrachloride also set for the year 2000 and the year 2005 for metal chloroform. I am concerned because I do not believe that these so-called HCFCs are quite the adequate remedy they appear to be. The reason for this is technical, because the mechanism of measuring their impact on the ozone layer is deficient. Civil servants use a measure called the ozone depletion potential in order to evaluate the impact of substances on the ozone layer. For a variety of reasons, which I hope to have the opportunity to place on the record, this is an inadequate method of measuring this impact. In fact, I will put on the record of the House two clear examples of why and how this is so.

It under-estimates the short and medium term impacts, particularly of halogenated CFCs, which the Minister referred to and appeared to be satisfied with in her speech. In fact, the United Kingdom's scientists have described the use of ozone depletion potential as being a completely unreliable indicator in this case. We ought to bear that in mind. Because HCFCs release their chlorine much more quickly than CFCs, they will have the most serious impact within the next few decades, at a time when the ozone layer faces its maximum exposure to chlorine pollution from CFCs already in the air. This will increase the amount of ultraviolet light penetrating the ozone layer during the period of maximum risk. This is precisely what the Minister is concerned about.

The Environmental Commissioner of the European Community, Carlo Ripa di Meana, stated at the beginning of this year that:

HCFCs also contain chlorine and can therefore destroy ozone. They have approximately only 5% of the ozone depletion potential of CFCs. Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance that HCFCs are controlled under the Montreal Protocol and that the system of control is complied with globally. To this end, I will propose to the Commission that a quantitative limit — to be known as a cap — should be placed on the amount of transitional substances consumed globally.

The exact level of a cap will still have to be discussed in the framework of our consultations with industry, but I see the figure of 5% of a total ozone-depleting potential as only a starting point and would feel happier with a lower figure.

The problem with that is that the Commissioner has accepted this form of measurement, he has accepted this instrument to measure. However, he is suggesting that it will have a 5 per cent impact. In other words, because there is a 5 per cent register by this indicator, the ozone depletion potential, it will, therefore, merely have a 5 per cent impact on the ozone layer. This is incorrect if more sensitive methods of measurement are applied. I will give two examples.

The ozone depletion potential of HCFC 22, calculated over 200 to 500 years is 5 per cent of that CFC 11, but the chlorine loading potential of HCFC 22, which is a better method of assessing the impact, is 15.2 per cent of CFC 11, greater than that of methyl chloroform which stands at 11.4 per cent and which is a recognised major ozone depleter. In other words by using another method of calculation, you arrive at a position that these halogenated CFCs are, in fact, more dangerous in certain aspects of their impact than chemicals that are already recognised as being seriously toxic.

In 1990 the SORG — the Stratospheric Ozone Review Group — in the United Kingdom — a group of scientists who are looking into this area — stated that:

the use of ODP is limited by the failure of models to predict ozone depletion correctly and by the fact that it refers to steady state conditions which precludes predictions of changes over the next few decades.

A year later, the 1991 SORG report reinforced this point. It observed that:

Although ODPs purport to give a true basis for comparison between halocarbons, the models of atmospheric chemistry by which they are calculated cannot reproduce measured ozone depletion.

There is a serious worry expressed by responsible senior British civil servants employed as scientists by the British Government with regard to the efficiency and appropriateness of using this method of calculation. Here it will give my second example.

The relative impact, in terms of chlorine loading, of an emission of HCFC 141b after ten years would be over half that of a similar emission of CFC 11, yet its steady state ODP is only 8 per cent. In other words, if you measure the impact of this particular chemical using the ozone depletion potential as your indicator, you come up with an 8 per cent impact, whereas if you use the other method it is 50 per cent. That is a very serious discrepancy and something that ought to be looked into.

The study commissioned for the United Kingdom Government by Coopers and Lybrand into this question of HCFCs indicated that not only is there a problem here but there is going to be an increase in the use of HCFCs over the next decade or so. They predicted growth in demand for HCFCs of more than 10 per cent per year. The study states that suppliers anticipated growth at up to 10 per cent per annum in 1996 with a decline after 2006. This implies that demand could double. There are no official United Kingdom Government figures for HCFC production or use but ICI at present have production capacity for 30,000 tonnes of HCFC 22 a year at their plant in Runcorn, Cheshire.

I put this on the record because the Minister indicated that we are not the guilty parties, that we are not producing any of these chemicals here. However, ICI in England are producing very considerable quantities. This raises the question of why material is presented in certain ways; why particular indicators are chosen. I would suggest to the Minister that there is more than a possibility that this is done for commercial reasons as a result of a considerable lobby by the chemical industry in Great Britain, particularly in view of the fact that the United Kingdom Government's scientists, the Stratospheric Ozone Review Group, recommend using chlorine loading potential which are not based on models of long-term chemicals as ODPs are, but on more straightforward calculations and observations of how much pollution actually gets into the lower and upper atmosphere in the short to medium term.

Why are we having the plugging of these particular chemicals, a trap into which I feel the Minister may have fallen, although she may possess information I do not have, particularly when you look at the fact that there are in existence chemicals and substances which do not have this problem. ICI have lobbied about this. They claim that the new chemicals they generate are cost effective, yet this is clearly wrong. HCFCs are a significant threat to the ozone layer, while ICI's product HFC 134a, with which the company are keen to capture a significant part of the former CFC market, is a greenhouse gas 3,200 times stronger than carbon dioxide. The main concern of these companies in producing CFCs and HCFCs may be to deny market to truly alternative systems which may not offer the same profit but which will do the same job.

I will conclude by referring to one paragraph from a report I have in front of me. In reality these halogenated CFCs that the Minister was waxing lyrical about are not essential substances for society, only for HCFC manufacturers and commercial users who want to avoid investing in new less harmful equipment. The Coopers and Lybrand report states that "there are no current or potential applications of HCFCs in the sectors examined for which no other technically feasible alternatives exist or are likely to be available in the short to medium term". In other words, there is an option and I would hope that in the light of the discrepancies I have indicated this evening in the different forms of measurement for ozone depletion, the Minister will lobby along the lines I have suggested that, instead of accepting the easy notion that halogenated CFCs are an alternative, she will realise they are not as acceptable an alternative as she appears to believe.

Mr. Haughey

I thank the Minister of State for coming here this evening and answering so well the various queries put to her on this important subject. I also thank all the Senators who contributed to this motion. We have had a wideranging debate and it is appropriate that we should discuss the depletion of the ozone layer this week in advance of the Earth Summit in Rio.

The Minister and some Senators mentioned that the Seanad seems to be playing a particular role as regards environmental issues. That is very important. The Seanad has to carve out a role for itself and I suggest that cultural and environmental affairs are suitable for this House.

I congratulate the Minister on her scientific grasp of all the issues involved. Ozone depletion is a technical issue and the Minister put that forward in scientific terms. I am delighted to hear from the Minister that Ireland is to the forefront on this issue. She also mentioned that discussions are taking place regarding the monitoring of the depletion of the earth's ozone layer. That is a major advance and I know the Meteorological Service will fulfil their obligations in that regard.

I am delighted to hear that 24 local authorities have put in facilities to deal with the recycling of fridges. The Minister mentioned that discussions are taking place with the Department of Health regarding public health warnings. There is no doubt that ozone alert warning systems will be a feature of modern life, particularly in the northern hemisphere; they already exist in many other countries, especially in Latin America.

A number of Senators spoke about the greenhouse effect. In my view the ozone layer is separate from the greenhouse effect, although obviously both are environmental issues. No doubt we will be able to discuss in greater detail the whole question of the greenhouse effect and how to deal with it in tomorrow's debate.

Senator McKenna suggested that ordinary people are not aware of the problem and that education is needed in that regard. I suggested that too, but young people in our schools are aware of the problem. I understand that over the past few weeks children have been coming home from school, having learned all about the Earth Summit, and asking their parents what they are doing about the environment. That is a healthy sign. Our children are being educated about the environment; the children are teaching their parents with regard to the protection of the environment.

Many Senators mentioned the USA and how they seem to be dragging their heels. However, the Minister clarified that and said that they are not necessarily dragging their heels on the CFC question. The role of the USA at the Earth Summit will be watched closely. America is a great country, but its basic philosophy is consumption, cheap gas, etc., and the American dream is very much linked into that industrial development. It will be very difficult for the United States to deal with these issues.

Senators mentioned how fashionable it is to have a sun tan, but that was not always the case, to have very white skin was fashionable at one time and, no doubt, that will be the case again.

An interesting situation has developed in the local authority in Dublin. It has been brought to my attention that when the local authority are carrying out junk collections, fridges are often left out and the men involved do not always appreciate how environmentally sensitive fridges are. I believe this could be true and, while we have the extraction unit at Hammond Lane, the public and the people involved with the collection of fridges need to be further educated in that regard.

I appeal to the Minister to consider the possibility of examining whether Ireland could be declared a CFC free zone. The following motion is on Dublin County Council's agenda today:

That following the unanimous agreement at City Council that Dublin be declared a CFC free zone, this committee proposes that the Dublin city area be declared a special control area under section 39 of the Air Pollution Act, 1987, with a view to eliminating CFCs from Dublin city.

I ask the Minister to consider that motion seriously when its terms are conveyed to her. No doubt there are a number of legal implications, but it would be great to see local authorities taking a lead and to see Ireland take the high moral ground and declare the country a CFC free zone.

Several Senators mentioned health warnings and how Irish people do not seem to be concerned about sun bathing and so on. We need to consider that matter carefully.

I thank the Minister for her contribution. She seems to be tackling the various issues involved. No doubt, all those issues will be high on the agenda of the Earth Summit in Rio. I hope that all countries will co-operate in that process and make a meaningful effort to tackle the various environmental issues confronting us. The summit has been described as the last chance to save the earth. I know that Ireland will lead the way and that we will take a lead through the EC process and bring that view to the Earth Summit in Rio.

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. We dealt with all the issues in great detail. There is no doubt the matter is serious. The evidence the Minister presented is indeed, scientific and technical. At the end of the day all that information confirms that a hole could possible appear in the northern hemisphere over the next two years and that is a very dangerous situation. We need to take all possible steps to tackle the problem and reduce the emission of CFC gases into the atmosphere.

I am delighted to hear that monitoring of the depletion of the ozone layer is underway. I am delighted that discussions are taking place with the Department of Health regarding ozone alert warnings and that Ireland is taking a lead in the EC. In conclusion, I ask the Minister to consider seriously the possibility of declaring Ireland a CFC free zone given that we do not manufacture CFCs in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Wright

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.