Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 28 September 2023
78. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications to confirm that the Irish Government will support the establishment of a loss and damage fund at COP28 in November that is obligatory, compensatory, grant based and non-debt-creating, and is funded by the wealthiest states and corporations that have increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41790/23]
View answerWill the Minister of State confirm that the Irish Government will support the establishment of an obligatory, compensatory and grant-based loss and damage fund at COP28 that does not include market-based mechanisms like the Global Shield? Crucially, will the Government push for it to be available to all countries in the global south impacted by climate change and for contributions to be the sole responsibility of the governments and corporations of the global north, which have historic responsibility for the climate crisis?
Loss and damage is a key priority of Ireland's climate diplomacy. For the last year, Ireland has been working on the transitional committee for loss and damage to develop strong recommendations on the new funding arrangements. Ireland is committed to delivering a strong outcome on loss and damage at COP28, including the operationalisation of new funding arrangements for assisting vulnerable developing countries to respond to the impacts of climate change. The scale of finance needs for loss and damage is huge and we need contributions from all government parties that are in a position to contribute, as well as the private sector and philanthropies. It is a key priority for Ireland that innovative approaches such as capturing revenue from fossil fuel intensive activities be fully explored. It is envisioned within the transitional committee that grants will be an important component of the new fund and debt sustainability must be a key consideration given the difficult situation of many developing countries in terms of their debt profile in the context of climate disasters. Ireland’s main priority in this process is to deliver for the most vulnerable countries, recognising that countries that have contributed the least to global emissions are often the countries most affected by the impacts of climate change.
That is a bit of a worrying response. I am sure the Minister of State understands why. It all sounds very good - the Government says it is committed to loss and damage and doing good work and so on - but the Minister of State did not answer the question and the language contained in the answer, which I presume was prepared by civil servants, points towards the Irish Government not pushing for this fund to be 100% grant-based or for it to be available for all countries in the global south impacted by climate change and not just those described as "the most vulnerable countries". What is happening is nothing more than a cynical game of divide and rule that seeks to sow divisions among the countries of the global south in order to delay for as long as possible the establishment of a loss and damage fund because the longer it takes to set it up, the lower the contributions from rich countries and the wealthy corporations responsible for this crisis will be. We know that 100 western corporations produced 71% of global greenhouse gases since 1988. They have to be made pay for that in a way that benefits all of those affected, which is people in the global south.
Ireland has been involved in previous loss and damage operations and will do the same again this time. We are considered to be a high-ambition country and one that puts social justice at the core of what it pushes for. There will be grants. We will be pushing for that angle. We will also try to ensure that the countries that need the money get it. We have to recognise that in order to achieve decarbonisation, we need a fundamental transformation of our economies. This will require participation not only from governments but also from the private sector where that is available. We are not going to lock that out. This is going to take action from all sides. We have a good track record in this area. We would be considered one of the better performing countries. We will continue in that vein in the future.
If we are a high-ambition country, will the Minister of State answer my question positively and give a commitment that Ireland will push for loss and damage to be available for all of the countries in the global south impacted by climate change? Some of the worst impacts of the climate crisis and some of the worst poverty exist side by side in countries such as India and South Africa but northern governments, including in the European Union, are insisting not only that these countries will get nothing from a loss and damage fund, but also that they will have to contribute to it. This is despite the fact that they have no historic responsibility for the climate crisis and are the victims of it in the same way as they were the victims of western colonialism. If Deputy Smyth, who is a Green Party Minister of State, wants us to be a high-ambition country, will he not insist that all developing countries be included as beneficiaries of the loss and damage fund and advocate for new taxes on the big corporate polluters in order to pay these justified reparations to the people of the global south? We should hit those responsible, not working classes in the global north.
It is a question of the extent to which we target the funding. Should we target the funding towards those who need it most or should we make it more universal, spreading it more thinly among a larger number of countries? Clearly, somebody has to draw a line at some point and decide which countries are developing countries and which are countries that require finance. Ireland's financing for loss and damage has historically been primarily grant based. It has been channelled through numerous bilateral and civil society mechanisms as well as through multilateral funds such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility. I do not believe that will change in the future. It is primarily a grant-based system and it is likely to remain that way.
