Vol. 534 No. 2
1 Ms Clune asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the action he has taken following the announcement by the United States that it intends to withdraw from the Kyoto agreement; the implications such a move would have for Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10163/01]
The strengthening information in recent days on US opposition to the Kyoto Protocol is a matter of deep regret to me. I made my position clear in a statement to this House on the Adjournment on 29 March 2001 and in a press statement I issued on the same day. My concerns about the implications for the necessary international arrangements to tackle the real and growing problem of global climate change are shared by the EU and its member states.
The strong commitment of EU Heads of State and Government to the Kyoto Protocol as the basis for efficient international action to reduce emissions was also made clear at the meeting in Stockholm of the European Council on 23-24 March 2001.
Last week I wrote to the US ambassador asking him to convey my position and that of the European Union to his administration. At my request the Irish ambassador in Washington met senior officials at the US State Department to the same end.
In the light of discussion at the informal meeting of EU Environment Ministers in Sweden last weekend, which I attended, the Swedish Presidency has repeatedly stated that the Kyoto Protocol is still alive and that no individual country has the right to declare a multinational agreement as dead. While the EU Ministers continue to hope that the US will participate in the Kyoto process, the EU intends to maintain its target of ratification of the protocol by 2002, with or without the US.
Ireland will continue to participate constructively in the international negotiations as part of the overall EU position. Within this context I welcome the US intention, working with friends and allies, to develop technologies, market incentives and other creative ways to tackle climate change. This has to inform the final outcome of the US review currently under way and should input to the resumed climate negotiations in July, as the Kyoto Protocol is the only comprehensive basis for achieving these stated US objectives in any realistic timescale.
It remains essential for Ireland to meet our international climate obligations through intensive implementation of the Government's national climate change strategy.
I thank the Minister for his reply. We are all disappointed and disillusioned with the announcement by the US last week that it intends to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Listening to the Minister's response, I am conscious of the statements he has made, both here in this Chamber and outside. I also realise that the issue was raised at the weekend in Stockholm.
There seem to be declarations, statements and hopes, but does the Minister believe that there is any real mechanism whereby the US can be made legally bound by the Kyoto agreement? Was that discussed or is there any framework for going down that avenue?
If, as it appears, the US can just walk away from the agreement, what will that mean for our strategy which is due to be adopted shortly? Must that be revised? Does the Minister anticipate that, in regard to the agreements on reductions reached in the Kyoto Protocol, the EU basket must now be revised downwards from 8%?
There is no way in which the US can be forced to honour the signature it put to the Kyoto Protocol – that is not the way things are done at international level. Through negotiations, clearly spelling out our position in the EU, talks etc. we and the EU are endeavouring to persuade the US that it should not withdraw from its obligations under this international treaty.
Among the points we will be putting to the US are that it took almost seven years from the date of the initial talks to get as far as signing the Kyoto Protocol and it was not easy for anybody. The work was continuing and the Deputy will be aware of what happened in The Hague last year when we could not reach consensus on this. That only underlines how difficult the process is. To seek to return to square one, as the US administration of President Bush seems to be talking about, is not realistic. Even close friends and allies of the US have made it clear that they do not think setting aside the Kyoto Protocol is an option. Therefore I hope that the weight of public and international opinion will have some influence on the US.
On the question of what it would mean if the US pulls out of the Kyoto Protocol and does not agree to participate in it, what the US is saying is that it accepts that climate change is a major problem which must be address but that it will look at addressing it domestically and in a way other than through the Kyoto Protocol. The EU's difficulty in that regard is that there would be no international commitment to reporting regimes or no way of ensuring compliance.
We must proceed to Question No. 2 as the time for Question No. 1 has expired.
