Vol. 483 No. 3
31 Ms Clune asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the proposals, if any, in relation to greenhouse gas emissions the Government intends to support at the Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto in December 1997; the action, if any, which is under way to ensure a co-ordinated EU position is put at that conference; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20340/97]
At the Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change Ireland will fully support the agreed EU position, which is that developed country parties, individually or jointly, should reduce emission levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, taken together, by 7.5 per cent and 15 per cent by 2005 and 2010 respectively compared to 1990 levels. In the context of the EU position, Ireland has adopted an indicative target of limiting the growth of these emissions up to 2010 to 15 per cent above their 1990 levels.
The preparation of the EU position for the forthcoming conference has been the subject of intensive co-ordination at official and ministerial level for some time. EU Environment Ministers discussed the matter at the Environment Council on 16 October 1997 and will meet in Kyoto for ongoing co-ordination of the EU position.
Is the Minister aware of the ESRI policy research document which states that if Ireland continues at present levels, by 2010 we will have increased emissions by 50 per cent? How can we commit ourselves to a target of 15 per cent? Does the Minister have any definite proposals on this?
I am well aware of the ESRI study to which the Deputy referred. I attended the launch. The short answer to her question is we can commit ourselves with great difficulty. The target was set by the previous Government and it is one to which I fully subscribe. It will require effort. We are committed to limiting the growth of emissions to 15 per cent above their 1990 levels. Some member states will have to reduce emissions by 30 per cent. Through the use of new technologies, energy conservation and abatement measures we must reach the target set because there are wider issues at stake. The issue of climate change is seriously exercising the minds of countries throughout the world because of possible dangers to health and food if action is not taken now.
I agree it will be difficult, but since the Minister will travel to Kyoto in December he must have some idea of how we can reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Previous Fianna Fáil documents committed us to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 300,000 tonnes by 2010, a doubling of the rate for renewable energy sources from 4 per cent to 8 per cent and a trebling of electricity production by renewable energy. Can we expect proposals of this nature to be advanced? What is the Minister's thinking on a green taxation commission and the introduction of green taxes at this juncture?
The Minister will not be responsible for all the necessary measures to ensure reduction of carbon dioxide in addition to a number of other gases, most notably methane and nitrous oxide. Within my remit I have adopted the attitude that the environment and issues pertaining to it are not matters merely for me as Minister but will involve the Ministers for Agriculture and Food, Public Enterprise and the Marine and Natural Resources in ensuring that actions along the lines mentioned by the Deputy and others will be taken over a period, to reach the necessary targets under any agreement reached in Kyoto.
The Deputy will probably be aware the European Union position is more ambitious than any of the other targets so far indicated for these negotiations. For example, the present American target is stabilisation and the Japanese approximately 5 per cent, so it will be clearly seen there are differing views. We have entered into a commitment, as part of the European Union position, which will be honoured if that is what is finally agreed.
Since the Minister was reported recently as saying this was one of the greatest threats confronting humanity, does he agree the majority of the Irish electorate are blissfully unaware of it with a consequent, urgent need for an information campaign here?
In addition, does he agree we have not a hope in hell of reaching the target to be set in Kyoto and that he, as Minister, ought be very honest about this? Has the Minister hired English consultants, ERM, to advise on policy initiatives to meet the 15 per cent target or are they precluded from examining major areas such as Europeat I and ecological taxes?
I agree with the Deputy that most people are blissfully unaware of the present position. Over the past eight to ten years, the matter of climate change was ignored by Governments and people. The issue was regarded generally with great suspicion. Those who spoke of the dangers to humanity from it were perceived in the same light as soothsayers who went about in sackcloth and ashes forecasting the end of the world. However, more recently, people appear to have adopted a more realistic attitude and have expressed concern about the matter. We would not plan to attend the forthcoming conference in Kyoto were people not taking this issue very seriously. From that point of view, I agree with the Deputy that we should make comprehensive information available as soon as possible. In launching the recent ESRI study I complimented that institute on contributing to this debate, thereby adding to our general knowledge. We must continue to educate people about this. The possibility of reaching, if not exceeding, the targets will become more attainable as people realise more fully how serious is the overall matter. If we can get that message across we shall do the public a service.
The Minister did not answer my question on the consultants, ERM, and why they are precluded from examining Europeat I and ecological taxes?
Does the Minister accept the scientific view on climatic change is accepted by the European Union Council of Ministers of the Environment and that the difficult targets negotiated during our last Presidency need to be set out in very clear terms? I have three questions for the Minister. First, will he publish the action programme to achieve the reduction targets now incumbent on Ireland? I was a little concerned when he referred to an indicative target because I regarded it as a binding target to make up the European umbrella. Second, will the Minister set interim targets between now and the year 2010, and publish those? Third, acknowledging that it is not a matter exclusively for the Minister or the Department of the Environment, will the Minister consider re-establishing the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainability to ensure that all Ministers meet their responsibilities in this area in a structured way between now and 2010?
Deputies should first realise that we have not yet reached any agreement at Kyoto.
The European target is notwithstanding that.
The European target is based on agreement being reached at Kyoto.
No, we are doing this anyway. That was the agreement.
The Minister, without interruption.
The EU is doing it.
It would be a foolish way of doing business for the European Union to unilaterally agree to bind itself——
And destroy the climate.
——to specific set targets and to give an advantage to other countries not bound to specific targets. I dispute what the Deputy said. We have not yet reached agreement in Kyoto.
I chaired the session in the UN.
When the final agreement is reached it may be appropriate to take the steps the Deputy mentioned in relation to an action programme, the interim targets and so on. It is important that people know the targets and the way they would affect the various sectors. That is a reasonable suggestion. On the question of the Cabinet sub-committee, we are already putting in place a system whereby all Government policies on the environment will be monitored at official level. I will report fully to Cabinet on a regular basis on matters relating to sustainability and the way environmental policies are pursued to ensure there is co-ordination at Cabinet level in relation to all our environmental targets.
Has the Minister put any suggestions to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, in the context of the forthcoming budget with regard to the introduction of carbon taxes? Does the Minister expect that tax changes in the budget might be availed of to introduce carbon taxes which would help to address this problem?
That is a budgetary matter. I do not think it arises on this particular question.
I am very worried by something the Minister said a moment ago. May I ask him to review the file on the European Union decision on this matter with a view to understanding that the targets set down by the EU are in fact decisions by the European Union in that regard? May I ask him to confirm that one of the principal considerations in the minds of the Councils of Ministers in the European Union in adopting those targets was that they would be useful in putting pressure on other actors on the international scene at the Kyoto conference? I invite the Minister also to reflect on the fact that such movement as we have seen so far, specifically from the United States and China, has come about as a direct result of the fact that the European Union has bound itself in the way it has. I ask him again to reconsider setting up the Cabinet sub-committee on sustainability as being the only practical means of ensuring that the kind of co-ordination he talked about so loosely is carried out.
The Deputy should brief himself on this matter. The March 1997 Environment Council agreed a negotiating position for the EU in regard to the negotiation. It is not an EU unilateral commitment.
On the second matter concerning the Cabinet raised by the Deputy, I am satisfied that the arrangements I will put in place will ensure that the commitments the Government will enter into on the setting of environmental targets will be met fully by the various Government Departments.
The Minister for Public Enterprise has dealt a mortal blow as far as transport is concerned. She has scuppered the Minister's transport target.
Regarding ERM, why is the Government precluded from looking at Europeat 1 and eco taxes which are so important in dealing with global warming? Will the Minister take that issue seriously and insist that parties make statements on the Kyoto Summit next week? As in the case of the Employment Summit, it is important to set aside two hours to discuss this matter. Does the Minister consider a "Tallaght strategy" to deal with the question of global warming would be a good idea? Otherwise, if a Government introduces carbon taxes which are required, the Opposition will berate rather than congratulate it.
The Minister mentioned that at the ESRI conference a consultancy study was initiated between his Department and the Department of Public Enterprise to identify actions to reduce carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. When may we expect a report from that study group?
I expect the report from that study group will be published shortly. I cannot give an exact timescale but I will get the information for the Deputy.
On the possibility of enabling parties to make a statement on their positions on the forthcoming conference in Kyoto, I have no difficulty if Deputies wish to do that, but that is a matter for the Whips. Regarding an environmental strategy on carbon dioxide emissions and carbon taxes, the position is that there is no agreement in Europe on carbon taxes.
Some countries have a unilateral agreement in place.
What about the ERM?
The Deputy's question on ERM is specific and if he were to table a question on it I would be delighted to answer him.
Will the Minister answer my question now? After all, he is the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.
