I welcome the Minister, Deputy Gormley, on his first visit to the Seanad as Minister and I congratulate him on his appointment. I wish him well. He has been efficient in the past and, hopefully, will be so in the future.
Climate Protection Bill 2007: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am delighted to welcome the Minister. I should first apologise to my Seanad colleagues for the clogging of their e-mail in-boxes with approximately 20,000 e-mails that have been sent by supporters of Friends of the Earth, the NGO with which I worked on this Bill, and supporters of other NGOs, seeking their support for the Bill. Some supporters are also present for the debate in the Seanad tonight and I welcome their support.
I have great pleasure in presenting this Bill to the House. Climate change is, without doubt, the biggest challenge facing humanity in the 21st century. There is no longer any doubt that it is happening and that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are its main cause. Everybody is in favour of doing something about it but the question is, what can be done? I have been working for some time with Friends of the Earth Ireland — I am a member of its board — to ensure practical steps are taken towards addressing this enormous challenge. A vital practical step is to ensure a strong legal framework to underpin the Government's stated commitment to tackling climate change.
Climate change has been the main priority for Friends of the Earth since the organisation was launched in Ireland in 2004. Last April, I and my colleagues drafted this Bill and since then, supported by other environmental and development NGOs, we have launched an Act for Climate campaign which seeks support for the principle that a law should be passed placing an enforceable duty on Government to make necessary cuts every year in greenhouse gas emissions. That is what this Bill seeks to do. It provides for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by setting both annual and long-term targets. It sets an ongoing statutory goal of reducing emissions by at least 3% per year from 2010 and a long-term goal of reducing emissions by at least 60% in 2050. These percentages relate to the baseline emissions figures measured in 1990 and are based on Ireland's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and within the EU.
Support for the campaign on this Bill has been widespread and cross-party. Grassroots lobbying of the last Dáil by supporters persuaded a majority of Deputies to sign a pledge that Ireland must do its fair share to prevent runaway climate change. Yesterday, the Stop Climate Chaos coalition, a broad based coalition of Ireland's main environmental and development charities, including Trócaire, Christian Aid and others, strongly stated its support for the Bill. In theory, there is consensus about the need to tackle climate change. There are also international obligations on Ireland to act. Under the UN Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in 1997 and is now ratified by more than 160 countries, industrialised countries committed themselves to reducing collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5% between 1990 and 2010. Ireland's commitment under Kyoto was to limit the growth of greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above its 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.
The EU has undertaken further commitments, agreeing to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, and is also committed to increasing the reduction to 30% in the context of comprehensive post-Kyoto agreements which are due to be discussed in Bali in December. These are ambitious targets and Ireland willingly signed up to them. The problem is that Ireland is nowhere near meeting any of the targets. Ireland is at present the fifth most climate polluting country per person in the OECD. The Environmental Protection Agency has calculated that in 2005, the last year for which it had detailed figures, our greenhouse gas emissions were already at 65.95 million tonnes, that is, 25% above the 1990 baseline figure. This makes it difficult, even for somebody as mathematically challenged as me, to see how we can reduce that figure to 13% above the baseline 1990 figure by 2012.
The EPA also noted that the most significant and sustained increase in emissions, measuring 160% between 1990 and 2005, was in the transport sector, due largely to increased road transportation. However, previous Governments continued to build roads and car ownership has increased, with a worrying trend towards purchases of gas guzzling SUVs at the expense of smaller, more fuel efficient and less polluting cars. Last April, in recognition of the problems faced in meeting the Kyoto targets, the outgoing Government published a detailed national climate change strategy to ensure compliance. There are many shortcomings with this strategy and it appears to be inadequate, relying largely on emissions trading schemes.
In fairness, the new Government has adopted a more radical strategy, committing itself to a reduction of 3% per year up to 2012, to a cross-party approach to emissions targets and mandating the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to publish an annual report setting out progress on meeting climate change targets. There is also a commitment to an outline carbon budget to be presented each year. This is in the programme for Government, which I welcome. In addition, the Minister, Deputy Gormley, made a speech last week reinforcing and emphasising the determination of the Government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The changed political climate is welcome.
This Bill is based upon a prevailing consensus and nothing in the Bill is not already Government policy. In some ways, the Bill is less radical than the commitments in the programme for Government, which is ironic given that the Bill was drafted last April. The Bill does not require 3% cuts in emissions from 2008, as Government policy does, but allows for a lead-in period between now and 2010 to set in place the strategies necessary to ensure ongoing reductions. There is nothing in the Bill with which the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and his colleagues in Government should be able to disagree in principle. It represents consensus about climate change.
It might be argued that legislation is unnecessary, that political commitments are sufficient and that what is required is national strategies, such as those launched in November 2000 and last April. My reply is that legislation is essential; the issue is far too important to leave to political commitments. We must ensure this and future Governments will be bound to follow emissions reduction strategies. That is probably the most important reason for enacting legislation, rather than leaving it to political promises.
Legislation is the best way to express all-party agreement. We know it is the best way to ensure we fulfil our international obligations under Kyoto and we know from unfortunate experience in other fields that political promises and national strategies are simply not enough in practice. Despite our commitments under Kyoto and previous national strategies, we have seen rises in our greenhouse gas emissions.
We saw political promises being broken by successive Governments on issues such as hospital waiting lists, which the previous Government promised to abolish and which we may consider rather bitterly now, school class size reductions and public transport initiatives. All of these were political promises and commitments made but not enshrined in legislation. All too often these promises are reduced to noble aspirations rather than to binding commitments. In this case, we cannot afford to let climate change and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall into the same trap of noble aspiration.
The Minister knows of the international awareness that political promises on climate change should be enshrined in a legal framework to give them teeth. Notably, California — a large economy — introduced into law a commitment of 80% reduction by 2050 with an interim target set for 2020. Other similar bills are proposed in the US Senate, including one co-sponsored by John McCain and Barack Obama. This shows the growing awareness across parties on the need for action on this issue, including in such polarised opposites as Republicans and Democrats in the US. Closer to home, the UK Government recently published a very comprehensive climate change bill. Senators who have seen it are aware it commits to five-year targets and carbon budgets. This recognises the need for legislation.
We know that Governments, caught in the five-year election cycle, have difficulties with long-term targets. We know we do not have a shortage of good ideas and proposals on how to reduce carbon emissions. Some of these are in the latest Government strategy and others were in the previous strategy. We need a guarantee that these strategies and others will be implemented and that commitments will be met. A law requiring year-by-year reductions as well as setting long-term targets will drive innovation in reducing emissions in public policy, private enterprise and all our personal behaviour.
A law is the best way to ensure we have a Government commitment across the Cabinet and that this is not a matter merely seen as the preserve of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. For all these reasons, I introduce this Bill to the House and I will briefly outline what it contains. It provides for definitions of greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction of those emissions by setting annual and long-term targets. It places duties on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure the achievement of these targets, it obliges the Minister to provide annual reports to both Houses of the Oireachtas and it specifies actions to be taken if targets are not met giving power to the Oireachtas to devise strategies to ensure they will be met. The Bill creates a new expert commission on climate change to oversee its provisions and to advise and assist the Minister.
The Climate Protection Bill provides us with an opportunity to put Ireland in the lead among other nations in tackling climate change. The adoption of this Bill will send a clear signal that Ireland is fully committed to doing its share to prevent climate chaos.
I am delighted to have the privilege of seconding the Bill. I congratulate my colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, for introducing this important legislation. I also congratulate her on breaking a long-standing rule of the Independent benches by finishing on time. I must explain to her that we do not do so.
It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, to the House. He knows it is heartfelt. He and I spent many years discussing, arguing and cogitating on these matters. Senator Bacik dealt closely with the business of the Bill and I will widen the debate. As the Minister is present, it is worthwhile examining what the strategies might include. An important aspect of the Bill is that it ties us in. It reminds me of the Minister's speech during the general election campaign when he discussed five stages and year-by-year benchmarks. I like benchmarks and benchmarking is my thing. I will support the Minister all the way on this.
Six months ago in this House I made three requests. I asked that every house built in this country would be required to have a solar panel or another renewable energy source. I asked that we get rid of the daft system invented by the Department for measuring insulation and heat loss and come to the international and only worthwhile standard of measuring the kilowatt hours of energy required to heat a cubic metre of a house for one year. Last Saturday week, the Minister made a statement in Wicklow which included those two matters. If I do nothing else in politics, I feel this is important.
The third request I made ties in with the issue. Senator Bacik's Bill goes through various types of emissions of which the first listed is carbon and the second is methane. It is important to recognise that methane is 20 times as virulent, dangerous and damaging as carbon. Nonetheless, every landfill in the country shoves methane into the atmosphere at an extraordinary pace. We must do something about this.
The Minister and I never agreed on the matter of chemically dealing with waste. I do not know the answer to what is the best way to deal with it. Recently, I met a group which established a research centre at the University of Limerick. It has a completely closed way of dealing with waste with no emissions, olfactory or otherwise. It also captures methane. I was agog when I met those people approximately two weeks ago. I told them they must meet the Minister and I hope they contacted him. They told me they could build a plant for €30 million which would deal with 300 million tonnes per year. I heard that figure with regard to another matter in the Minister's constituency. This is a much better idea.
I raise these issues because in terms of the society we want to create, any community which takes full responsibility for looking after all its waste and energy needs should get a tax break. I stated this to the Minister's predecessor and he pooh-poohed the idea. I was born in west Kerry and examined how much it would cost there. I examined the amount of energy used for electricity on the peninsula during the course of a year. New unseen wind generators which produce 1.5 MW could produce enough energy and feed it into the grid. The Minister speaks about creative and exciting ideas. This is an exciting idea through which we would all gain. It is a Chinese bargain and everyone is a winner. It is the only way to do it.
I am aware energy is only related to the issue and his colleague will deal with it. Given technological advances, it is now easy to create microenergy such as microhydro-electric energy. If a wind generator is established in Newry or if one creates slightly more energy than one requires in one's house and it goes back into the grid, the utility pays one for it. This does not happen in the South. This could be done in the morning. It is a matter of one regulation.
It will happen. Do not worry.
I thank the Minister and look forward to it. It is only pennies but this is about attitude.
The important aspect of Senator Bacik's Bill is that it is concerned with meeting our solemn commitments under Kyoto. Kyoto was not dreamt up when we sat around a table. We signed up to it. During the past month temperatures warmer than we have here today were recorded in the Arctic where it was 20°.
To those who state the climate change issue is a left-wing plot I ask them to remember their grannies saying not to waste. I ask them to do that even if they do not agree with us, but I know the Minister does. Let us not get involved in this argument. There are daft people who think this is not an issue. Let us not waste time with them, rather tell them to speak to their grannies and not waste time. That would be a good start.
I am slightly concerned about biomass. I am concerned that we have not made enough progress on ethanol and the various bio-fuels. It is interesting to note that this year, Irish farmers gained substantially because of the move towards alternative energy. Large chunks of the mid-west of Canada and the United States, instead of growing wheat, began to grow crops to produce bio-fuels and bioenergies, which resulted in a doubling of the price of wheat. The Minister should say that. He should tell the Irish farmer there is a gain to be made. This is a new industry and there is money in it for everybody. Irish farmers doubled their harvest tonnage this year and they do not know why. Somebody should tell them.
My colleague raised the issue of carbon emissions trading. I have a slightly connected interest in that area. I agree we cannot rely on that. While we will never have a negative carbon footprint, we need to have regulated carbon trading, but only as part of and at the end of a process. This industry is full of cowboys. Carbon emissions trading can only be done if certified and verified by the UN and if the audit on what is being done, whether dealing with a sink in India or something in Ireland, is carried out by auditors who are approved and recognised. What is happening at present is that people buy carbon credits on the Internet — what are called verified carbon credits. We need the same standards of auditing as for company auditing.
I hope the Minister will welcome and support Senator Bacik's Bill in the name of the Independent Senators. It would be a major step forward. Like the butterfly in the Amazon, it would send shockwaves throughout Europe.
I congratulate Deputy Gormley on his appointment as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and I have no doubt he will do a good job in that Department.
When we speak about climate change and greenhouse gases, it is imperative to realise that Ireland probably has had a greater increase owing to our economic development over the past ten to 15 years. This has probably contributed to the fact that we have had problems with greenhouse gas emissions.
There is a need for an across the board political approach to problems such as those identified in the Bill. We all want to see the environment and our climate protected. In recent years we have seen the climate change that has taken place. In that climate change our summers have become wetter and our winters much warmer. We no longer have the five or six weeks of frost some of us experienced in the 1960s. We have not had such frost for the past ten to 15 years, nor did we have one week of continual frost last winter. This proves there is climate change.
We can do either of two things. Like some people, such as the Americans and the Chinese, we can ignore it and say we will continue to play and let the others try to do the rectification. That is not the proper approach. This matter should be approached on a worldwide basis. I agree with Senator O'Toole who said it should be monitored by an independent body such as the United Nations or some other worldwide group.
When we speak about greenhouse gases, we must look at how to deal with our waste problems right across the board. Every sector in the country has a waste problem, from the ordinary householder to the largest industry. Fossil fuels and transport are two of the most significant polluters in the country. If we are to remain economically viable, we must have transport. Owing to the size of the country, public transport is not always the answer, especially when it comes to dealing with the haulage of commercial goods. Many in business will say it is much cheaper to load the container in the factory and send it directly to the port than to load it in the factory, send it to a rail head and have it unloaded again. This is because the costs are too high. Therefore, owing to our size we will always have to depend mainly on transport for industries and exports.
In the area of household waste, many are still not aware of what can or cannot be recycled. Occasionally we see the odd private fire, especially on a Saturday night or Sunday morning, when somebody decides he or she wants to get rid of waste. It is unacceptable that this should happen in modern times and nobody wants to see it because people are becoming much more responsible.
The cost of recycling frightens many people. We have seen the development of large waste management and waste recycling companies. Some of the largest companies have become very involved in it which means it must be a profitable venture. However, is it profitable at the expense of the State or the consumer? That is an issue that needs to be examined. We would all like that everything that can be recycled to be recycled, but in this case the costs are starting to outstrip the viability. If that happens, there will be serious problems in maintaining recycling programmes and projects. We all know there are a large number of alternatives to deal with some of these situations.
We all accept there should be further incentives for alternative energy sources. The proof that the public accept it is that the recent allocation for energy projects for houses was taken up so quickly that the Minister has to announce a new programme either this week or next week. That shows that people are becoming very aware of climate change and their need to make a contribution to prevent it. There is not much sense in our making every effort when President Bush appears to be opposed to signing up to the worldwide climate change programme, as are the Chinese and a number of the major industrial players in the world. We should start to apply pressure on these groups to get them involved on a continual basis with a view to reducing greenhouse gases.
There are a number of other areas where we could improve our environmental record. Bio-digesters will have a major role to play so far as agriculture is concerned. There is no doubt that agriculture is a major contributor but we must ensure it is allowed to continue to prosper. Let nobody be under any illusions, whoever is in this House in 15 or 20 years' time will be speaking about food and food shortage. That is happening already. I heard the Minister for Agriculture and Food answer questions in the Dáil today on the cost of energy projects that are taking wheat and other crops off the market. That is evident in the agriculture sector where the increase in feed prices has been of the order of 60% or 70% during the past 12 months. We examine all the elements.
I hope the House can have a full debate on this subject in the coming months. While the Bill will probably satisfy some people, we must have a full approach and ensure we do everything possible to make our contribution. However, there is not much sense in making our contribution while some of the largest players turn what we do on its head.
I welcome the opportunity to address the House as the new Fine Gael spokesperson on the environment, health and local government. I compliment the Independent Senators on introducing into the House this very worthy Bill, which Fine Gael will support. The Bill sets clearly defined targets and requires systemic reporting systems and a legal framework for the delivery of those targets.
We all realise that climate change is the most pressing issue facing the world and the facts speak for themselves. According to the UN, 11 of the past 12 years rank among the warmest years in global surface temperatures since 1850. The average rate of warming over the past 50 years is nearly twice that of the previous 100 years. Carbon dioxide is the dominant contributor to current climate change and its atmospheric concentration has increased by more than one third since the Industrial Revolution. The rate of observed sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century and the total 20th century rise is estimated to be almost one fifth of a metre. Geological observations indicate that the sea level rise over the previous 2,000 years was considerably less. Approximately 20% to 30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5° to 2.5°. Those are stark facts and the alarm bells are ringing.
Fine Gael is very proud of its environmental policies and plans to make a number of proposals to help us reach our international targets. For examples bio-fuels have the potential to provide huge benefit to farmers, the environment and the economy. Most European states have begun the process of kick-starting the bio-fuel industry by using set-aside land for the growth of bio-fuel crops. Ireland needs to act now if we are to reach European standards.
To kick-start the bio-fuel industry, we call for a number of steps to be taken and Fine Gael commits to taking them. All excise duty should be removed from bio-fuels produced from renewable energy crops, which would drive down costs and entice more players into the market. We urgently need the establishment of grants for producer groups to cover 50% of the costs of establishing such a group subject to a maximum of €300,000 per group. A public competition should be held for the establishment and operation of a number of bio-fuel processing plants strategically located in a selected number of locations. Capital start-up grants for these processing plants would initially be given to enable them to become established and begin viable processing operations. Greater links between international bio-fuel processors and fuel suppliers and the relevant Departments, especially the Departments of Transport and the Marine and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to facilitate the promotion of the bio-fuel industry are vital.
Production cannot flourish, however, without a market for what is produced. At the moment, the growth of bio-fuels is hampered by the absence of any serious outlets where they can be sold, which is crazy. Bio-fuels are indigenous, reliable and increasingly more economical, which is why Fine Gael proposes to legislate for all motor fuels to include a blend of fuels from renewable sources. All petrol sold at filling stations should include a 5% bioethanol mix and all diesel should include a 2% biodiesel mix. This would not necessitate the conversion of standard motor engines and would represent a good start in reducing vehicle emissions — all very tangible and practical proposals.
I wish to highlight other areas that need attention if we are to achieve our targets. We need to do more to incentivise the use of renewable energies, especially in the domestic market. I acknowledge the work of Sustainable Energy Ireland in this field already. It is doing its best with limited resources to raise awareness in the community of new ways to use renewable energies. We also need to introduce programmes to grant aid the insulation of private dwellings over a certain age. We are burning thousands of gallons of oil trying to heat houses that are not energy efficient.
We also need to consider incentives for businesses to reduce emissions and help them utilise renewable energy. Some of them are already using combined heat processing, CHP, plants that capture, recycle and reuse energy. We should be doing more of that. The Government needs to start with public buildings and institutions which need to be audited for their carbon footprint with a view to controlling waste and improving energy efficiencies. Areas of waste such as fuel, paper and heat need to be addressed. It would be worth considering starting here in Leinster House.
Education will be important in trying to achieve our targets. The green school scheme is working quite well. While they have a high level of participation, we need to step it up to the next level. We need to educate our citizens, small and medium enterprises, and industry. We need to consider public and private transport systems. They need to be audited on their energy use and their proposals to improve on waste and efficiencies in fuel use and journeys taken, which are areas with huge potential for us to increase our efficiencies.
We need to build into the future development programmes of all Government agencies a clearly defined policy that is properly resourced and identifies areas to implement our target programmes. We need to work together to achieve this target and we in Fine Gael will certainly do all in our power in this regard. I again compliment the Independents on introducing the Bill and we look forward to working with all parties across the House to achieve our targets.
I also thank the Independent group and, in particular, Senator Bacik for introducing this legislation. As a Member of the other House I introduced approximately half a dozen Bills with varying degrees of success — in fact none. I well know the difficulties in drafting a Bill to ensure it complies with the very strict rules that apply in respect of ensuring there are no cost implications for the State. It is very difficult for an Opposition Member to produce satisfactory legislation.
As part of an ongoing process of Oireachtas reform, however, the Green Party would like to facilitate Members of both Houses to contribute more to the legislative process. There are obvious areas that are the concern of the Government, including the day-to-day running of the country, the economy, defence, security and foreign affairs. However, responsibility for the making of legislation should be shared for both Houses of the Oireachtas and all Members. We all need to tackle the inequality in how legislation is produced to make us better legislators. On those grounds this is a fine Bill to produce, especially as it comes on only the fourth sitting day of the 23rd Seanad.
In general, my party can support the Bill because it covers precisely the matters we have been saying and repeats many of the commitments we have secured in the programme for Government. It is our hope that everything contained in this Bill will come to pass. However, a significant proviso needs to be added. I say this following the contribution of the main Opposition party. The wording in the programme for Government calls for cross-party agreement. We do not believe that party politics can be played with the issue of climate change and global warming. We need a type of Tallaght strategy for the environment, which might be particularly uncomfortable for the party opposite because it means collectively——
It might be also uncomfortable for the Green Party's Government partners.
We are perfectly comfortable — perhaps too comfortable with the heating in here.
We will wait and see.
The need for a type of Tallaght strategy on climate change means that all public representatives need to be involved in a process of education and change. All of us in this country and through whatever role we can play internationally are aware, because of the nature of the environmental challenges facing us, that we must change the way we live and work and the way we travel. Without such changes, anything we might say in a debate such as this merely represents platitudes. If we do not address the core issue of how we came to this situation, we will not go any closer to solving the central problems.
Certain people have been frivolous in their contributions in suggesting, for example, that a little global warming might be good for Ireland and might result in having grapevines in County Wexford. However, I point Members to the iconic picture a few years ago of the Taoiseach in his wellingtons when the River Tolka flooded. With the scale of climate change it is not beyond the scope of possibility that a similar picture in a number of years' time will see a Head of Government wearing a wetsuit in a similar situation and perhaps we will have a real flood tribunal then. The effects of climate change, even in a country like Ireland, will mean rapidly changing climatic conditions which will worsen owing to other environmental effects such as coastal erosion and possibly even the diversion of the Gulf Stream, which gives us a slightly warmer climate than we are entitled to. Ireland is on the same latitude as Newfoundland. Our winters should be similar to those experienced in Moscow. The climate change that could occur if we do not get our act together could result in many unfortunate people becoming more unfortunate because of their inability to adapt.
By getting our act together environmentally, we will do ourselves a huge favour economically. Ireland is 80% dependent on fossil fuels and 90% dependent on foreign fuel sources. Alternative technologies to produce renewable energy should be developed so that Ireland would be at a great advantage economically as it faces new challenges. However, we have delayed too long and prevaricated while opportunities have been taken by other countries. For instance, Denmark is similar in size to Ireland with a population of 5 million and it meets 25% of its energy needs through wind energy. Ireland has greater capacity and it could build turbines to produce energy and create jobs. This would result in the State paying less to oil rich states in the Middle East and other countries from whom we purchase energy resources.
Members cannot wind back the clock and say the failures of previous Governments have not been addressed. We must start here and move forward collectively. This is why I hope the debate will continue beyond this session. An important international gathering will take place in Bali in early December and, while the Minister will contribute later in the debate, I hope that rather than completing Second Stage tonight, the debate will be adjourned and resumed following the discussion at international level when Ireland's role will be examined, and I would like the Government to introduce necessary changes in the meantime. Members can comment on my proposal later.
We largely agree with the Bill. Distinctions are made regarding targeting. For instance, annual targeting is not referred to directly in the programme for Government. A 3% average over the lifetime of the Government is mentioned because it is difficult to achieve annual targets. To date, a slowdown in the rate of increase in greenhouse gases is all that has been achieved. It is likely that last year's level will be repeated this year or there might by a slight increase. It could be 18 months or two years into the life of the Government before reductions are achieved. Many of the changes we are making might not take that long to take effect. That is the danger of annual limits. Despite it being a difficult target to achieve, I am confident we can aspire to 3% but only if that is done collectively. If there is political dissension on this issue, I would despair that we could even come close to achieving that target, as business would continue as usual.
The Bill provides for a mechanism whereby a vote of no confidence in the Minister would automatically take place if he or she did not fulfil his or her responsibilities in meeting particular targets. That is interesting and——
It is too little.
——I am confident it will never be applied to my party colleague. However, one cannot see into the future regarding the competencies of future Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and I will not start regarding the competencies of previous Ministers. The issue should be debated on Committee Stage. However, this is an important Bill and it should be debated in the context of future international gatherings. I hope my proposal to resume Second Stage during Government time at a future date is taken on board.
I welcome the legislation and I also welcome the opportunity for the Government and its partners to demonstrate their commitment to and sincerity about the protection of our environment and a reduction in climate change. In the past few days I have received hundreds of e-mails from people asking me to support the Bill. That demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue and proves the wind is behind us. My party and I will be happy to support the Bill.
Our nation and our planet need to act now to control climate change and to ensure our environment is properly protected. There is no alternative, as we have run out of time and we cannot relax into a false sense of security. We cannot introduce a reactive policy of taxing polluters and paying no heed to the damage done nor can we listen to the false prophets or the flat earthers who say this is nothing to do with climate change because the world is undergoing natural cyclical changes that take place over centuries. Pollution cannot be dealt with on a case by case basis. Wholesale reductions in greenhouse gases should be considered on a year by year compound basis. That is the best way to preserve the planet. When every scientific expert in the world agrees we have a problem, it is up to us, as politicians, to show leadership and to act.
The Bill seeks to deal with the increasing rate of greenhouse gasses and seeks to limit Ireland to 70 million tonnes of emissions by 2010 followed by a 3% decrease annually until 2050, which provides for a compound decrease of 60% over our lifetime. That is laudable and it is worth passing on to the children of our nation. As a nation, we need to take a firm grip on what is happening. During the final two decades of the 20th century, we experienced more hot years than in the preceding 400 years and 11 of the past 12 years have been among the warmest since 1850. If the Government does not act now, that trend will continue.
The Independent Senators have introduced a bold and ambitious Bill and we support it. In a spirit of co-operation, we will recommend that more work is done to give the legislation more teeth. It states if the rate of emission exceeds by 5% the target set down, an assessment of the reasons for this must be carried out, which must be discussed by an Oireachtas committee, while if the target is exceeded by 10%, a motion of confidence in the Minister should be tabled. I cannot imagine a Minister quaking in his or her boots on the basis of this provision. As we witnessed last week, any Government, regardless of what is being discussed, can muster sufficient votes to defeat a motion of no confidence. Tougher penalties should be introduced to make sure the targets are not exceeded. Even a Minister as motivated as Deputy Gormley would be able to hide behind an Oireachtas committee on this issue and he ultimately would be protected by the Government. The Labour Party has received advice, which suggests a constitutional issue may arise if the Seanad passes a Bill that contains a provision for a motion for no confidence to be tabled in the Dáil.
The issue of penalties and rewards needs to be teased out. Carrots must be offered but it also must be ensured a big enough stick is found with which to hit people if they exceed the targets set down. The Bill makes no reference to the role of local authorities, which could, potentially, play a significant role. For instance, they could be required to introduce stipulations in their county development plans regarding emissions resulting from rezoning decisions. The Bill also makes no provision for monitoring the effectiveness of architects appointed by developers to make sure builders are certified to the level required by law. Consideration should be given to how emissions from buildings can be monitored. However, all these issues can be addressed later in the debate. We would like the Bill to proceed and work done on it at a later stage. It is worthy and we will lend our support. It is vital that an attempt is made to address climate change before it is too late.
I congratulate the Cathaoirleach on his appointment and I wish him all the best in the next five years.
I welcome the opportunity to debate climate change, which is a serious issue that deserves a serious, co-ordinated response at international, European Union and national level. In urging a co-ordinated response, it behoves us to develop such a response locally and at home, with action built around a comprehensive national climate change strategy published earlier this year.
This strategy, taken with the White Paper on energy and bioenergy, presents an ambitious but realistic pathway to enable Ireland to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol by 2012. It also places us in the position to play our part fully in any reduction regime adopted by the EU and, I hope, on a global level post-2012.
The ambitious measures set out in this strategy, including ensuring a third of electricity consumed in Ireland comes from renewable resources by 2020, are also consistent with Ireland remaining a high-growth and high-employment society. As the recent report by Sir Nicholas Stern has pointed out, the world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development. Changes in energy technologies and in the structure of economies have created opportunities to decouple growth from greenhouse gas emissions.
Ireland has been very successfully decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions. In the past 15 years our economy has grown by more than 150%, with greenhouse gas emissions rising by only 25%. As a result, for every unit of GDP we now produce emissions at 48% of their 1990 levels compared with an EU 15 average of 78%.
This is a result of old and low value — but high emission — plant in the industrial sector being replaced with modern, high-value jobs. To use current jargon, these have a much smaller carbon footprint. These jobs are in both high-value manufacturing and, increasingly, in internationally traded service activities.
These new jobs, which are more environmentally friendly, were largely created in the entrepreneurial private sector, both indigenous and foreign. It is only by maintaining an outward looking, confident and development-oriented society which continues to attract such investment that we can successfully meet the challenge of global warming. Growth-oriented, enterprise-friendly economies have been always more successful in meeting environmental challenges than stagnant societies. Thus, the challenges of global warming will serve neither to justify a return to failed command and control nor act as a cover for anti-growth and anti-development ideologies.
The strategy sets out a series of co-ordinated measures across the energy sector, taking in industry, agriculture, transport and housing. This will ensure Ireland plays a full part in tackling global warming. These measures will also enhance our energy security and provide new opportunities for enterprises and employment. For example, increased supports for the production of biomass and bio-fuel will reduce CO2 emissions, increase security of supply and provide opportunities for our farmers to develop new cash crops. They will also provide opportunities for the development of new green industries.
The Government strategy also provides for information campaigns and incentives to help individual householders conserve energy. This is one of the most cost-effective ways in which we can all contribute individually to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
There is also provision for the purchase of carbon credits. In the past this approach has been mischaracterised as some form of delinquency but this is not the case. Such schemes, properly implemented, can reduce carbon emissions in developing countries while promoting employment opportunities for their people. The simple fact is a tonne of carbon saved is beneficial whether it is done in eastern Europe, Africa, Asia or Ireland. The Kyoto Protocol specifically recognises this and has encouraged countries to use carbon trading and other measures to bring about specified reduction at the lowest cost.
I emphasise that meeting the targets set out in the strategy will require a major national effort. I wish to see this House, and the Oireachtas in general, immediately begin to focus on how we will meet these challenges. The joint programme for Government already commits to agreeing an all-party approach on climate change targets. In advance of agreeing such targets, the Government will set a target for this Administration of a reduction of 3% per year, on average, in our greenhouse gas emissions. It will mandate the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to publish an annual report setting out progress on meeting climate change targets and seek to establish a high-level commission on climate change to oversee implementation of the strategy. It commits the Government to mandating the Minister for Finance to present an outline carbon report, or carbon budget, in conjunction with the annual financial budget. This is to be followed immediately by a report from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government outlining our use of energy in the preceding year, the progress made in reduction targets and Government plans to meet targets in the following year.
I understand all these commitments are now being implemented. With regard to an all-party approach, it will take two — or in this case three or more — to tango. I have no problem accepting the provisions of most of this Bill as a statutory underpinning of the programme for Government or for any actions emerging from all-party agreement on climate change. I wish to see the Bill examined in that context.
I welcome the Bill, which seeks to give legal underpinning to some of the climate protection aims set out in the programme for Government and the national climate change strategy.
Nobody now doubts the importance of promoting a culture of responsibility where climate change is concerned. It would be wrong, however, to see legislation as the only or even main way to promote this culture of responsibility nationally and worldwide. It is at the level of people's attitudes where this problem will ultimately be solved, as all of us take responsibility for assuring the future happiness and prosperity of people on Earth.
It is also important that we continue to debate in an open and fair way all the issues relating to climate change, not least the question of whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon or if it is down to climatic changes beyond our control. A consensus appears to have emerged that global warming is due to increased emissions of greenhouse gases caused by industry worldwide. Even if there were not such a consensus, it would be the responsibility of the human race to take action to minimise the extent to which we contribute to negative climatic change.
It could be stated that if worldwide emissions are responsible for increasing temperatures, fixing this should not so much be our national priority but a priority for China, the world's greatest polluter, and America, which comes a close second. Even Britain's emissions make up only a fiftieth of the total. As Richard Waghorne wrote recently in the Irish Daily Mail, arranging Irish emissions on an imaginary 24-hour clock would leave our contribution as the last seven seconds before midnight. That, however, is not an excuse for us not to take the lead. We are part of a wider European Union effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and so on. It appears that the greater contribution for Ireland to make would be in the promotion of alternative, cleaner and greener sources of energy. The country should promote a culture of solidarity with those countries and people most affected by such climate change as is inevitable.
We must increase the use of renewables. Ireland has the best wind resources in the EU, along with significant potential for tidal and wave power. We should ease planning and grid connection for renewables and micro-renewables, such as domestic solar panels and micro-turbines. There have been recent positive developments announced in that regard. We should raise building standards to ensure maximum energy efficiency in new builds. The inclusion of mandatory solar water heating in all new houses, increased investment in public transport and the restructuring of vehicle tax and VRT to incentivise the purchase of low-emission vehicles all form part of the solution. Perhaps some of these issues should be included in any forthcoming legislation for climate protection.
Regardless of our efforts to control our emissions, we must prepare for the impact of climate change on ourselves and others. A co-ordinated and cross-Government approach is required. Particular vulnerabilities will include increased flooding and tidal inundation, drought and water stress, along with coastal erosion through sea level rises. Current planning must take future vulnerabilities into account. These include migration control and our vulnerability to global shocks in the world economy, which will need to be addressed. Climate change is likely to lead to more frequent catastrophes, such as mass population shifts, resource conflicts, water wars and so on. The world's poorest countries and populations will need increased assistance to deal with climate change, as they are the most vulnerable and least resilient to adverse effects.
Turning to some of the specifics of the Bill, I would question the provisions of section 3(1), which sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions for 2010 specifically. The figure in the national climate change strategy is a projection based on adoption of certain measures, rather than a target. It is an annual average for 2008 to 2012 rather than a specific year. I am also concerned about provisions making the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government responsible for meeting the above targets. I would question if this will ensure the necessary buy-in from all Departments, specifically the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Transport. Would it be better if the Taoiseach held responsibility in this regard?
The provision in section 5(3) is odd and I have difficulty with the idea that a Minister would face a motion of no confidence before the Oireachtas in the event that emissions exceeded the national annual target figure by 10% in a particular year. This is a matter for the hurly-burly of parliamentary life and legislative provision should not be made in respect of it. I am struck by the odd fact that a majority party in Government might be happy to have a Minister representing one of its minority partners take the flak.
Surely not.
I accept such a scenario is difficult to imagine. The provision in the equivalent British legislation to the effect that the relevant Minister should be subject to judicial review is more sensible.
I compliment Senator Bacik on drafting this Bill and bringing it before the Seanad. The effort to enshrine in legislation our commitment to taking a lead is very laudable, even if our contribution to solving this global problem is minuscule. This is, however, an example of the law acting as an educator. In the past we have often been informed that the law is a blunt instrument when it comes to solving problems which have an extra-territorial dimension and which are, therefore, beyond the power of our law to change. I commend Senator Bacik on the approach she has taken. The basis of her approach is to ensure that although our laws can do little enough to change a global problem, they can be used to set a powerful moral lead it is to be hoped will be followed by other countries.
I wish the new Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, well for his term of office. I worked with the Minister on Dublin City Council and found him to be a very practical and amenable individual.
I thank Senator Bacik for introducing this important Bill on climate change. The Seanad has a great tradition of publishing Bills and bringing them forward into law. I hope this is the first of many Bills that will be initiated in the House.
As stated by previous speakers, public concern in respect of this issue is very high. Proof of this came to my attention this week with the raft of e-mails I received. These kept my secretary quite busy but I have since calmed her down.
Support for combating climate change undoubtedly exists among both members of the public and the parties in Government. The previous Seanad and Dáil engaged in many interesting debates on energy supply. I look forward to hearing more about this matter and many previous speakers made interesting comments in respect of it.
We are all aware of the imminent and challenging threat posed by climate change. Everyone agrees we need to continue with our concerted efforts to tackle this problem. Scientists have informed us the world must change and that countries must introduce major changes in terms of how they produce and use energy if man-made greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced and if the potentially disastrous consequences of climate change are to be avoided. While natural variations in climate are normal over time, humans are contributing to climate change through the emission of substantial amounts of greenhouse gases.
Like other Members, I read newspaper reports to the effect that water levels in lakes throughout Europe are falling. For example, the lowest ever level of water — it has dropped by something of the order of two metres — was recorded in Lake Garda in Italy recently. This highlights the problems associated with climate change.
Senator Ellis referred to waste. The latter is created by the manner in which some goods are packaged. Some products in the food industry, for example, are covered in so many layers of plastic that one would need to use a chainsaw to open them. The position in the drinks industry is similar. Many beverages now come in plastic bottles but I am of the view that we should return to using glass bottles because these could be recycled and reused. A great deal of waste is created as a result of the way in which manufacturers in the hardware, electrical industries, etc., package the goods they produce. Much of the packaging to which I refer is unnecessary.
In our industrial and modern society, it is necessary to continue using energy in order that we might continue to live to the standards to which we have become accustomed. However, practical alternatives must be made available. Such alternatives are beginning to come into mainstream use. We should, under Transport 21, encourage transport companies to use natural gas in lieu of petrol or diesel. Approximately 80% of the fleet of the public transport company in Italy uses natural gas. There is no reason we could not encourage the Defence Forces, An Post, Eircom and our public transport company to do likewise.
As a developed country and a member state of the EU, Ireland has a responsibility towards the wider international community. We just cannot state it is someone else's problem and has nothing to do with us. Ireland must play its part in meeting these targets and in dealing with the most important environmental issue the world faces.
To meet our obligations to future generations, there is a requirement on all sectors to play their part. It is our responsibility, in conjunction with the international community, to take increased action and play our part by meeting our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. The programme for Government contains many objectives designed to prevent possible environmental problems. Each of these outlines clear objectives the Government must and will undoubtedly, under the guidance of the Minister, Deputy Gormley, aim to achieve. Combating climate change is one of the main priorities set out in the programme which aims to dramatically accelerate the growth of renewable energy sources in the electricity, heat and transport sectors.
The Government has already taken action on these issues. Earlier today, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, announced a commitment to achieving energy efficiency savings of 20% by 2020. In addition, he set a target of 30% for the public sector. Leading by example in the public sector is another clear objective of the plan announced today. For example, all public bodies will purchase energy-efficient lighting by the end of this year. All street and traffic lights will also be energy efficient.
There are also plans in the programme to create new opportunities for farmers by moving agriculture to a new dual system of food and power production. Farmers have worked very hard via the REP scheme over the years and they will undoubtedly facilitate the establishment of a new bio-fuel industry, a matter to which Senator O'Toole referred.
Another associated aspect of this matter is that concerning pollution. We should examine the level of fines relating to pollution. Such fines are a pittance. Some people continue to pollute rivers and lakes because the fines involved are so low that they make no difference.
Previous Governments had clear objectives and commitments in respect of tackling these issues. I concur with the idea of all-party support in this area. I hope the Opposition will give the Minister and the Government its support in tackling the problem of climate change. As Senator Boyle stated, this represents the only way forward. There is no scope for messing about or time wasting.
I wish to share time with Senator Healy Eames.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am proud that today I was appointed by my party's leader, Deputy Kenny, as Seanad spokesperson on communications, energy and natural resources. It is in that context that I contribute to this debate.
I echo the general congratulations extended to Senator Bacik on introducing the legislation. She has done the House a major service. I congratulate her on her great initiative in bringing forward this timely and good legislation.
Before proceeding further, I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by Senator Boyle. I did not appreciate the Senator's attitude, nor did I appreciate his implication that in some way Fine Gael might prove difficult or less than patriotic in dealing with this matter.
I am afraid that we have seen the evidence.
Senator Boyle may rest assured that when it comes to patriotism, reason and putting the best interests of the people first, my party has a record that is second to none. I take great exception to his patronising attitude.
Obviously, there are many elements involved in the substantive matter of reducing CO2 emissions but the element I wish to address briefly is the provision of rail services. Rather than lecturing Fine Gael, it would suit Senator Boyle to remind his Ministers in Government of the critical importance of promptly developing the rail network again. It beggars belief that we produced plans for the proposed M3 motorway without a parallel railway. The fact that this has happened is a horror and the greatest indictment of contemporary politics. Everybody stands indicted on this count. I wonder if tolling and big money interests had an input into the fact that this proposed motorway will not run parallel with a railway. I do not say this carelessly. The obvious thing was to do it at planning stage. It was only a matter of putting it alongside the motorway. It was a bizarre decision.
The development of a railway line to Navan and the provision of park and ride facilities at Navan are of critical importance, as is the extension of the railway from Navan to Kingscourt in my constituency. That is critically important to the socioeconomic development of and quality of life in east Cavan. It throws up huge issues in terms of this debate. Not only is this railway worthy of development, the entire national rail network must be put back in place.
Parallel with the provision of railways, an effort must be made through the use of vehicle registration tax to produce fewer emissions and incentivise the use of smaller cars. I believe Senator Mullen spoke about culture and cultural attitude. We all have a role to play in our own different ways. We must contribute to a situation where people wish to share cars when going to work and to use public transport.
I agree with all that was said in respect of bio-fuels. I am in favour of the recent regulations proposed by the Minister relating to solar panels and insulation for houses. While I fully agree with and applaud that necessary and correct initiative, we must take on board the fact that first-time buyers must be incentivised in some way. A cost-effective grant system should be put in place. It would help to achieve the objectives of this Bill if incentivisation or a grant structure for first-time buyers were put in place to encourage alternative energy and homes that are satisfactory from this perspective.
It is horrific that in recent weeks, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, announced a reduction in the grants for geothermal pumps and wood pellet burners. I put it to the Minister that rather than reducing these grants, we should be increasing them and using them as incentives. I welcome this Minister to the House. I served with him in the House in the past and I ask him, when he is summing up, to commit himself publicly to these grants. These grants should be increasing rather than decreasing. That went under the radar and was not noticed by many people but it did happen.
I congratulate Senator Bacik and the Independent group for their courage and initiative in bringing forward this Climate Protection Bill. It is a Bill that one might expect from the Government rather than the Independent group, but there we go. The initiative is coming from this side of the House. There is now a real opportunity for the Government to show that it is serious about tackling global warming.
It is clear the entire international community needs to take key strategic decisions in climate policy over the next years if dangerous climate changes are to be prevented. In this context, we in Ireland need to play our part. I welcome this Bill as a first step in that direction. Dangerous climate change can only be prevented if climate protection targets are set and reached. There is a strong body of evidence on global warming and its effects. For example, in the course of the last century, there have been higher temperatures — in the order of one to one and a half degrees. Closer to home, we have noticed changes in weather patterns and water. Global warming is already altering precipitation patterns, affecting our water supply and agriculture. For example, in Galway this year, this led to much local speculation about the presence of cryptosporidium in our drinking water.
At a global level, we have also seen the effect of the spread of disease, where many species, such as mosquitoes and rodents, are now altering their ranges in response to the changing climate. Warmer climates allow these animals to move further north and at higher elevations. They can bring tropical diseases with them, such as malaria and other fevers.
We have very good reason to act. This will mean considerable change to current practices but it can also mean exciting opportunities for us as a nation. Therefore, there is a job of education to be done by the Minister because change can mean fear. To bring about this culture of change, I ask the Minister to be practical in his advice and guidelines in helping the consumer, manufacturer, farmer and homeowner to own this change.
If we are serious, it is time to set up and resource energy offices at local government level to provide for climate protection proofing locally and, as Senator O'Toole noted, to build in incentives for good practice, such as tax breaks, for any organisation that reduces emissions beyond required targets. These incentives would mean a win-win scenario for the economy and the environment and for farmers whereby they could gain revenue from selling greenhouse gas reduction credits. For example, farmers and foresters could grow these credits by shifting to conservation tillage, planting trees and growing bio-fuel crops to produce low carbon alternative fuels instead of fossil fuels to power our homes and vehicles. These incentives would encourage car manufacturers to switch to very fuel-efficient cars. At a financial level, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, along with his Government colleagues, should consider lower vehicle registration tax for environmentally friendly cars. People will act when there are genuine incentives to do so. As Senator Bacik noted, transport plays a huge role in high emissions.
The approach I am recommending is one of incentives. While we certainly need to be stringent in our penalties if we are not reaching our targets, when we are talking about the ordinary citizen and business, we need to provide incentives. Ultimately, the aim of climate protection legislation should be to make it easier for the citizen, farmer and industry to be good for the environment and planet Earth, thus enabling us to hand on an environment we have cared for to the next generation.
I welcome this Bill and the opportunity to discuss it. As a member of a political party that has taken the lead in pushing for real action on climate change, it is encouraging to see the issue being raised as a priority in the early weeks of the 23rd Seanad.
I commend Senator Bacik on proposing the Bill. I welcome that the provisions in the legislation closely mirror the ambitious commitments on climate change secured by the Green Party in the programme for Government.
The agreement reached in the programme for Government of an average 3% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions each year over the next five years is one that will require skilful political planning and execution. Essentially, it will begin the challenging process of decarbonising the economy. If we are serious about addressing the growing threat of climate change and Ireland's contribution to this global problem, we have no choice but to begin to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.
Unfortunately, at an international level many governments are still at the stage of engaging in impressive rhetoric about the challenge of addressing climate change but doing little in practice. This is because the process of decarbonising an economy requires changes across every policy area including energy, transport, planning, housing, industry, etc.
The process will require co-operation and buy-in from all sectors and support for a range of policy measures that will call for an often difficult process of adaptation and change. Political leadership will be essential. I acknowledge the leadership shown to date by the Green Party's Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, who recently introduced building regulations within months of taking office. I also acknowledge the ongoing initiatives of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, within the scope of his Department.
Ireland has a headstart on many other countries, including EU member states, in tackling climate change as we have moved beyond rhetoric with the substantial commitment to reducing our emissions in the programme for Government. The programme must be implemented. Within four months of the formation of the new Government, a high-powered Cabinet sub-committee dealing with climate change was established and has already met. It will agree policy measures that will be necessary in order to achieve the 3% annual targets that have been set.
However, in countries such as Sweden, which have set serious and ambitious targets for tackling climate change and decarbonising their economies, it has been shown that a vital political precondition for reaching these targets has been cross-party support for implementing the necessary policy measures. Climate change is too serious an issue to be cynically played with by Opposition parties. It is too easy to demand action on climate change from the safe benches of Opposition and then to refuse to support the policy measures necessary to tackle it.
It was disappointing that a Private Member's motion proposed by the Green Party in 2005 seeking an all-party approach to dealing with the issue of climate change was voted down by the Labour Party and Fine Gael. Their commitment to tackling climate change does not appear to have progressed beyond the politically superficial level of calling for change but failing to give their support to concrete policy measures necessary to bring about this change.
I call on the Fine Gael and Labour parties to come off the fence and to stop playing political football with this important issue. I invite them to join a new all-party commission on climate change which will agree the objectives and policy measures that will allow this country to meet the annual targets of 3% reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. Let them show real political leadership and join the Green Party and the Government in helping this country to be in the vanguard, giving example to the rest of the world in tackling climate change. Are they capable of this kind of political leadership? I hope the answer is "Yes".
I hope there is courage not just on these benches but also on the Government benches to tackle this important matter. I congratulate Senator Bacik on producing this Bill. I am delighted she has been elected a Member. She has justified my hopes in her by hitting the ground running, speaking on the Order of Business at the first sitting, putting a Bill down and speaking on the Adjournment.
I also greatly welcome Senator Boyle's elevation to the House. He said there is the possibility of some arrangement in taking this Bill. I hope it will not be amended, voted down or laid to rest on the Order Paper. Will the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government give a firm commitment by indicating dates for the Bill's passage? Can we have this before Christmas? It is good all sides of the House are prepared to accept legislation. That is good democratic co-operative Government for which this House was intended. I have spoken to Senator Bacik and the primus inter pares, Senator O’Toole, and we will be putting down legislation on domestic partnership drafted by myself and Senator Bacik before she was elected. I hope it will be met with an equal welcome.
I congratulate Senator Bacik on the Climate Control Bill because of its simplicity, clarity and directness. It provides the definitions by what is meant by particular gasses, sets targets and establishes a strategy. It also sets out the action to be taken in case these targets are not met, proposing a commission to examine the reasons. It is not just a knee-jerk reaction; it addresses these issues to ensure such a transgression will not recur.
Climate change is the single most significant event on this planet. The planet is like an aircraft on which we are all passengers, all with an equal investment and interest in it arriving at its destination safely. However, there is a clear and present danger that it might not. On board this aircraft there are lunatic hijackers who want to take it over for their own reasons. They are the corporations and governments, such as the US President Bush, and the German Government, that will not acknowledge the problem of climate change. I was appalled that Chinese-made environmentally friendly and low-energy consuming lightbulbs were prevented from being imported into the EU by the German Government in order to protect its domestic industry. That selfish attitude is a disgrace to the EU and should be stopped.
On our aircraft there is also the equivalent of those afflicted by air rage, the climate-change deniers. They are lunatics. Last summer, I took the trouble to accept an invitation — unfinanced — from the Norwegian foreign ministry to visit the Arctic to see the effects of climate change. It is very frightening. In the past year, an area of permanent sea ice the size of the state of Texas has disappeared from the Arctic forever. Today's weather is very humid. I am 63 years of age and we have never had humidity like this before in Ireland. We must recognise our climate is changing.
I put down a motion on the Order Paper which was gazumped by the viper in my bosom, Senator Bacik, who brilliantly got her Bill taken. My motion called on Seanad Éireann to take note of the Environmental Protection Agency's report, Key Meteorological Indicators of Climate Change in Ireland. The report stated a stronger warming trend was apparent in Ireland and globally in the 1930s and 1940s.
The 1990s has been the warmest decade in the Irish instrumental record. This is consistent with experience in the UK. I have mentioned the hot days, humidity and so on. A hot day actually has a scientific meaning. It is defined as one where the mean daily temperature exceeds 14° centigrade, where a "cold day" has a mean below 0° centigrade. A clear indication of a trend exists in both these parameters as established by scientific facts.
In midland locations such as Birr and Kilkenny, the number of cold days has halved over the past five decades while the number of hot days has roughly doubled. This is Ireland, which brings matters home to roost. Our own small island is noticeably and directly affected. My colleague and friend, Senator Joe O'Toole, referred humorously to the butterflies in the Amazon. That struck a little echo in my mind because butterflies are very important. There is something in this report I want to draw to the Minister's attention because it might, perhaps, be done without enormous investment. We need a comprehensive butterfly survey because we are on the margin of the population probably for a very considerable number of butterflies. They have become a very sensitive indicator that we can use to gauge the extent of climate. We need not denigrate the humble butterfly.
I mentioned the second major cause. Perhaps not everyone in the Chamber will agree, but I believe this is the elephant in the room, namely, the world population explosion. Since I did my leaving certificate and entered Trinity College, the population on this planet has doubled. This cannot happen without serious consequences. This factor lies behind not only a significant proportion of the global warming effects but also behind the resource wars, the tensions between nations and the destruction of the Amazon rain forest. Let us at some stage have a really serious debate on population change. There is not a world leader with the moral courage to raise this issue, especially in the religious sphere. Recently the Pope was lecturing the Austrians for not having enough children. Every time I hear of a decline in a European country's population I get down on my knees and thank Almighty God because we do more damage to the environment than the unfortunate Chinese, Indians and all the rest.
It has already been mentioned that Ireland is the fifth most polluting country in the European Union, where "business as usual" has been raised as a phrase. Seven years ago, a Government Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said "business as usual" was not an option for Ireland, and that is true.
I shall end on a practical point. I have passed a letter to the Minister which came into my possession via a very interesting friend in Cyprus. She is a distinguished international doctor. Her partner is a distinguished scientist and businessman and they have come up with something in which I believe the Government should take an interest. It is an ignition system that uses high-frequency technology in combination with rail injection systems. It can be applied to high pressure ignition, combustive, diesel and gasoline engines. It is a remarkable invention which does not suit all the big industrial conglomerates and therefore needs some degree of Government sponsorship and assistance.
I ask the Minister to examine the letter to see whether there is something in it that might benefit this country if he went into partnership with the people who are now developing it, namely, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. I am not suggesting the Government goes into business but rather saying if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions through the internal combustion engine, let us look at this technology. The international combines are very nervous of it because it might put some of them out of business, but it might also substantially reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles. I remind the Minister of this because he has admitted to me that he is almost as scatty-minded as I am and he might forget. I will drop him anote and I request him to take a look at this proposal.
I am delighted to be here in the Seanad and to have been given the opportunity to discuss this very important issue. I have dispensed with the ministerial speech because I am so interested in what has been said, and I want to respond to the speakers.
I congratulate Senator Ivana Bacik on her initiative, as well as her Independent colleagues. I also congratulate Mr. Oisín Coughlan of Friends of the Earth who helped in drafting the legislation. I genuinely hope that this is not just a debate in the Chamber today, but the beginning of a dialogue through which we can move forward in a spirit of consensus. That, above all else, is important when debating the issue of climate change, and I shall say a little about that later on.
Numerous speakers have stated that this is an urgent issue. Indeed, it is the biggest issue humanity has ever faced. This is not an exaggeration. The science is now incontrovertible. The fourth IPCC report shows very clearly that the debate is over. Human beings are causing the warming of planet Earth. Not only that, we have a window of opportunity of only ten years to avert the worst consequences of climate change by stabilising our CO2 emissions. We have ten years to act decisively and that is it. There is no more to debate; we shall have to do it. It will not be just a small party such as the Green Party but rather everyone in this Chamber acting together. We all have a role to play. That is why I said earlier that it is important we act together.
Senator Norris was saying that we just have this planet. The late Petra Kelly used to say, "We have one planet and there are no emergency exits." That is the bottom line, so we can forget about the science fiction of dumping planet Earth and going elsewhere.
At the request of the Taoiseach I recently attended the biggest Heads of State meeting in the UN on climate change. It was a great occasion to be sitting there with everyone, from Mr. Qazi Mohammad Amin Waqad from Afghanistan to Dr. Condoleezza Rice and Chancellor Angela Merkel, all concerned about this issue. During the lunch break, Al Gore gave a talk. As we know, the science on this is being updated all the time. Senator Norris mentioned the ice pack up in the north. Al Gore told us that only last week, the evidence was coming clearly from Boulder, Colorado which stated that if we do not stabilise the CO2 emissions now, the ice in the North Pole will be gone within 23 years. One can imagine the consequences of that. It will affect our climate enormously.
Senator Norris is quite right in saying that the climate has already changed. Even if we stabilise, we are still going to be dealing with the consequences of climate change. Our climate has already changed. I issued an Environmental Protection Agency report quite recently which stated clearly that in some parts of the country we are already experiencing 20% more rainfall than previously, and the temperatures have changed. Anecdotally, one can see that we now have mosquitoes in this country, something we did not have before. People are putting the bluetongue outbreak down to climate change because we have midges we did not have before, so it will affect us in ways that are quite unimaginable.
There was an enormous missed opportunity at Rio. I remember the great sense of hope all of us in the environmental movement had then — those of us who had been talking about climate change for a long time before that. I recall going on the Gay Byrne show a long time ago, back in 1990. Rio presented a fantastic opportunity and it was felt that now we could talk about the dangers of runaway climate change. The key point is that looking at the history of our earth's climate, planet Earth does not do climate change slowly. It has always done so unimaginably fast. That is why we are so concerned about the issue. There are those who claim that while the situation may be changing, we can wait because it may be 100 years down the road. It will not be like that. All the evidence indicates otherwise.
I said at the UN that I am proud of its role, notwithstanding the vested interests of the Germans and others. I have seen the Germans in action at the Council of Ministers with regard the German car industry. On one occasion I had to berate my colleague, Joschka Fischer, about his defence of the German car industry because we could have been down two car emissions of about 130g. That is the route we should go, but vested interests exist.
Many years ago when I was Lord Mayor of Dublin, I visited an exhibition of electric cars in California and met the Governor, Pete Wilson. I congratulated him and said it was fantastic that the state would go down the route of ZEVs — zero emissions vehicles. He said that was not the future, rather reformulated gasoline. Of course, ZEVs did not happen and the concept of the electric car was killed. One can now see a video, perhaps on the YouTube website, called "Who killed the electric car?" Clearly therefore, those vested interests can act decisively, and I hope they will act now in the best interests of the planet.
The EU has played a very constructive role. It has set targets, as have we, of a 20% reduction by 2020. We hope to have a 30% reduction if we can get a comprehensive agreement at the Bali meeting, which I hope will not be another Rio and instead will be the turning point at which we take climate change seriously. I get the feeling from meetings in New York that a breakthrough is possible and that the US may be on board. Arnold Schwarzenegger made a speech at the UN to the effect that California is to go ahead with its plans, but changes in lifestyle will be required. Although California has a wonderfully warm climate, not only do people drive their cars, they use tumble dryers and will not put out their clothes to dry.
There are many possibilities. The challenge facing us is enormous. We must reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050, and perhaps even by90%. Think of the difficulties we have in this country in trying to reduce emissions by 3% annually and then consider the scale of that challenge of reducing emissions by 90% in a short period. The European Council has recognised that we must reduce by this much.
With regard to the Bill, it has been correctly acknowledged by Senator Bacik that this proposed legislation is less radical than what is proposed in the programme for Government. The Green Party negotiated what I believe to be a very good deal on climate change, the environment and energy. We got they key Ministries in those areas and agreed a 3% annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The commission in this area which we have proposed will, I hope, be set up before Christmas, and I am progressing that as quickly as possible. The carbon budgeting plan is in place and will happen this year. It will be a difficult challenge but it will happen because it must.
The Cabinet sub-committee on climate change is chaired by the Taoiseach. This is a forum through which we must examine how each area feeds into CO2 emissions. As Senator O'Toole noted earlier, we must also consider the fact that methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.
We are examining the agriculture and transport sectors, the latter being a difficult sector with which to deal. Our transport emissions will increase by 218% if we continue the way we are going, building motorways and so on.
We must understand there are differences on this issue between various parties in this House. While not blowing our own trumpet, the Green Party has led the way, but in doing so, we have perhaps been greatly ahead of the posse. Most people in this country like their motorways, and it is difficult to persuade them that motorways are not in the best interests of climate change, that we should invest the money in public transport. We recognise that we must bring people with us.
The carbon levy is also a thorny subject, and at the previous general election, the Green Party was the only party to propose that levy, although people said it was political suicide. Everyone will have to come on board on this issue and eventually recognise we must decarbonise our society, which means we must put a price on carbon.
Accordingly, it is important we achieve consensus on this issue. At some stage, Fine Gael and the Labour Party may well be in Government and the Green Party might be in Opposition or in Government with them. No one knows what will happen in the future. However, in terms of this single most important issue we face, we must act together. We rescued our economy many years ago with the support of the Opposition parties. We had enlightened leadership in Opposition parties and we saved our economy, indeed our country. We now must do the same on the climate change issue. If we want to have our planet, we must act together. We have a responsibility.
I do not accept the argument that we contribute only 1% to global emissions. That is not the point. We can make a major contribution by doing well in Ireland. Senators spoke of those opportunities and the science for them exists. I met some people today who are investing in wave energy. This country had an opportunity in the early 1980s to invest in wind energy and in research and development in that area. We did not take it and the Danes and Germans went ahead of us. Now we have a wave energy opportunity and I hope we will not waste it.
We have taken some initiatives and have introduced the building regulations, which are a step in the right direction, but we must go further. My ambition was to increase building energy efficiency by 40% and then to move to 60%, but I believe we can go to zero carbon emission by 2016. We must reach that target. It is not impossible. I have seen the prototype houses and they are now being built commercially in Britain. We can build housing estates of such houses. It is not a case of them being south-facing being some kind of strange house. The architecture and the science are in place and we must pursue this issue. Going on my discussions with the building trade, I believe it will come on board.
We are also introducing proper carbon offsetting for ministerial flights. This will be unique for this country and we will be the first to do it. We will invest in projects in Africa. We will know for a fact that this will be proper carbon offsetting. It was said during the debate that one can simply log on to a computer to do this, but in terms of carbon offsetting, one does not know where the money goes.
Some points have been made and I wish to respond to them. I hope I have an opportunity to respond to all Senators. Senator Coffey referred to insulation grants. I can confirm that this is part of the programme for Government. We will give money for the installation programme. I can assure the Senator of that. He also raised the question of a bio-energy action plan. Again, that is part of the programme for Government. Concerns about bio-fuels have been raised by some environmentalists. There is no question in my mind but that there is a problem in certain parts of the world. When one starts to chop down rain forests so that one can invest in bio-fuels, one certainly has a problem. It must be done properly.
Senator O'Toole raised certain issues. He and I agree on a lot of matters. I will not go over what he said because I would be just agreeing with everything. Senator O'Reilly was critical of my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan. The Minister is reforming the greener home scheme and wants to ensure the same amount of money is spent. Clearly what we would like to see happen is for the money to go to people who cannot afford these green measures. Many of the people getting the grants were on their second grant. There was no difficulty for them in terms of cost. It is simply a question of reform.
I am delighted this legislation has been introduced in the House. I turn to the Opposition in general, although I know the Independents are quite separate from other parties. My colleague, Senator Boyle, has indicated that he would like to see this legislation back before the House on 20 December after the Bali talks. However, he is quite clear that is subject to getting all the parties to agree, and not only on setting targets. Targets are one thing but we must agree on basic measures. It is very easy to set the bar but we will have to jump over it together.
The Green Party, when in Opposition, said it would introduce legislation and it offered the Government full co-operation. We said to the Government at the time that if it wanted to cut back on motorways, invest in public transport and introduce a carbon levy, we would be support it all the way. In fact, we said we would support it in anything it wanted to do that would deal with the climate crisis. I do not expect a blank cheque from Opposition parties but I expect a measure of co-operation. That is the best way in which we can move forward on this very important issue.
I wish to raise a point of order. Reference was made to the Labour Party's voting record in regard to the Climate Change Targets Bill in November 2005. The record shows clearly that we voted——
A point of order can relate only to procedure and cannot respond to the Minister.
It is not in response to the Minister but it is in regard to Senator de Búrca's——
One can raise a point of order only on procedure.
Okay. For the record, we voted in favour of the Bill. Senator Boyle was a teller on the day and he can confirm that.
It was about the all-party committee and not the Labour Party. I will explain afterwards.
I will call on Senator Bacik to reply at 6.57 p.m. because we were two minutes late starting. It is now 6.54 p.m. Senator Alex White has three minutes.
I will not detain the House for more than two minutes.
In regard to what the Minister, Senator Boyle and others from the Government side said on co-operation from the Opposition, I would like to be crystal clear and would venture to suggest the Minister will have far more difficulty gaining co-operation from the people who sit on the benches behind him than he will ever have from these benches.
He knows that.
He knows that. When he was in Opposition, he quite rightly pressed the Government in respect of these matters, as he related to us a few minutes ago, but did not get anywhere. It is fine for him to say he is in Government and he now wants the Opposition to swing the lead for him. I speak only for the Labour Party but it will not be found wanting, nor was it in regard to that proposed Bill. Apparently, it was suggested earlier that we voted against it, but we supported it. We will at all times support the types of measures fundamentally needed in respect of this issue. I say, with all due respect to the Minister, that it is on his side he needs to do the work and where the vested interests are represented in this and the other House. They are the people to whom he needs to speak if he wants to talk to the builders and others and not those of us on this side of the House. For our part, we are ready, willing and able to co-operate with those types of measures.
Senator Fitzgerald has one minute.
I was going to share some time with Senator Buttimer. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as I have not had the opportunity to do so before. I know what a committed and genuine politician he is. I do not agree with his choice of coalition partner and I echo the comments of my colleague on this side about the job he will have to do to get support on his side of the House.
Senators Boyle and de Búrca should avoid stereotyping the Opposition the way they have tonight because the Green Party has suffered enough from stereotyping over the years. The fact there is all-party support for the Bill should have been acknowledged by them as opposed to the line they took. We accept we are at a turning point in regard to decisions on climate change and the environment. Difficult decisions will have to be taken on all sides of the House. One can see from our election manifesto that the Fine Gael party will be very supportive in respect of the key decisions which will have to be taken in this area. A turning point has been reached by society in terms of putting the environment at the centre.
The Minister mentioned Petra Kelly and that certainly brought back memories for me of the time she addressed an audience in Dublin many years ago and of how inspirational she was. It has taken a long time for her vision to become centre stage. I would like to give time to my colleague, Senator Buttimer, to make some comments and I congratulate Senator Bacik on introducing this Bill.
Unfortunately, we do not have time. I must now call on Senator Bacik to conclude.
I thank the Minister and Members who spoke in support of the Bill. I am very grateful to them for doing so. I am also very grateful to Oisín Coughlan, Friends of the Earth, the other lobbyists and members and supporters of Friends of the Earth and the other development and environmental NGOs which supported the Bill and lobbied Senators.
Colleagues mentioned support from all parties. Just more than two years ago Deputy Sargent of the Green Party, now a junior minister, described Fianna Fáil as a huddle of gangsters spending taxpayers' money in a carbon casino plotting the most conniving scams to dodge even the woefully inadequate Kyoto targets. Echoing what Senators White and Fitzgerald said, it is important there is cross party support not only from the Opposition but from the Government. I am grateful to colleagues for saying so as it is vital.
Senator Boyle and the Minister supported the idea that Second Stage be adjourned tonight without a vote. I believe the Minister mentioned 20 December, for which I am grateful. We would like the debate to be adjourned on Government time. I believe Senator Boyle has promised that Second Stage will resume in the House on 20 December in order that we can see what progress has been made and debate it in the context of progress post the Bali talks and discussions with all the parties on this issue. I am grateful to colleagues.
On the basis of the promise by the Minister and Senator Boyle promise, I move that the Second Stage debate be adjourned and resumed in December.
Debate adjourned.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.