Vol. 488 No. 3
3 Ms Clune asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the steps, if any, he has taken to examine methods to reduce emissions of the three additional greenhouse gases which were not considered prior to the Kyoto conference in December 1997; the target reductions in emissions of the six gases he is considering; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6054/98]
As a first step towards controlling emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs, perfluorocarbons, PFCs, and sulphur hexafluoride SF 6 relevant data are required so that national inventories and projections may be compiled. I refer to the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 240 of 24 February 1998, which indicated that the Environmental Protection Agency, at my Department's request, is working on the compilation of data on the importation and use of these gases. This will include data on emissions and projections for the commitment period 2008-2012 contained in the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
In addition to the work on inventories and projections, l hope shortly to receive the findings of the consultancy study commissioned by my Department and the Department of Public Enterprise to identify additional policies and measures to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the scope for the intensification of existing policies and measures. This study is addressing all greenhouse gases, including HFCs, PFCs and SF6 and all sectors of the economy. The consultancy study, together with the necessary inventories and projections, will facilitate the putting in place of the necessary measures to limit and/or reduce these emissions. At EU level, consideration is also being given to the adoption of common and co-ordinated policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol adopted on 11 December 1997 sets, inter alia, a legally binding target for the member states of the EU to reduce emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), HFCs, PFCs and SF6 — by 8 per cent below 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012. The protocol does not set separate targets for each gas and it is a matter for each party to achieve its target by the emission limitations and reductions considered most appropriate overall.
It is intended that the EU as a whole will meet the target using provisions in the protocol concerning joint fulfilment and on the basis of agreed internal burden sharing. The internal burden sharing arrangement is now subject to review at EU level in the light of the Kyoto outcome, with particular regard to the inclusion of three additional gases — HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 — the timeframe involved and the provisions regarding the use of sinks to absorb CO2.
My Department has asked all other relevant Government Departments for an update of the data necessary for the EPA also to prepare revised inventories and projections for the three main greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N20. These, together with the inventories and projections for the three additional gases, will be taken into consideration in Ireland's participation in the EU internal burden sharing discussions. It is expected that the discussions will be finalised by June. Inventories and projections of emissions of CO62, CH4 and N20, previously prepared, are contained in Ireland's Second National Communication under the Convention, a copy of which is available in the Oireachtas Library.
I have previously indicated my intention to adhere to the level of ambition implicit in Ireland's indicative national growth limitation target of 15 per cent, which was part of the internal burden sharing agreement associated with the EU negotiating position in respect of the three main greenhouse gases — CO2, CH4 and N20.
Will Ireland continue to be committed to the 15 per cent reduction over 1990 levels that we had ambitions for prior to the Kyoto Protocol? Where do we stand within Europe? Will Europe stay with the 8 per cent target or will it go further? There is an ideal opportunity to investigate more energy efficient methods of developing new technology and I would not like Europe to sit under the 8 per cent umbrella. We must set our sights further and work harder in this area.
I agree with the Deputy. I do not think the EU will regard 8 per cent as a lesser target. There are now six gases instead of three and I said, while discussing the Kyoto Protocol, that I was impressed with the EU's commitment to the targets it has set for itself. The EU never regarded the commitment to a 15 per cent reduction as a unilateral commitment. We will make any adjustments necessary by studies being carried out here and similar studies are being carried out in other EU countries. By June we hope to be able to agree the internal burden sharing in the EU. It will then be a matter of ensuring that the other parties to the protocol agree that they will be bound by it. To my knowledge, the EU will not adopt the Kyoto Protocol on a unilateral basis. It will want everyone to agree to it. That was the purpose of the Kyoto conference. The Deputy and I are at one on this matter. We do not intend to lower our sights. We intend to adhere to the position we stated previously and we will work towards that end.
It is very difficult to get specific information on sinks or levels of CO 2 or greenhouse gas emissions. Russia's level of greenhouse gas emissions is 30 per cent below its 1990 level which leaves plenty of scope for the USA and Japan within a trade block. The USA and Japan might not have to implement any reduction in emissions.
That is a possibility, but it would not be in keeping with the spirit of the Kyoto principle. Initial discussions have taken place on the question of sinks and trading. There are scientific ways of measuring the amount of CO 2 emissions absorbed by forestry, but trading is a much more difficult problem. The EU's position in Kyoto was to try to minimise the amount of trading that could take place in what was called the hot air of the Ukraine and Russia. The levels of emissions in those countries have reduced somewhat since 1990. It would not be in keeping with the spirit of the protocol if a country did not adhere to its commitment to reduce emissions simply by trading or the use of sinks. We will try to avoid doing that. Sinks have an advantage from our point of view. We could reduce CO 2 emissions through our afforestation programme, but that is not our intention. Certain industries may have to be facilitated, but I believe all Members want us to make a genuine effort to reduce emissions. The main contributors should invest in clean technology and new environmentally friendly ways of production rather than looking for a relatively easy way out by using sinks or trading.
