Increased Fossil Fuel Divestment: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann:
acknowledges that:
— the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 is something that Ireland should remain proud of in its capacity of setting a global standard;
— the purpose of the Act was to mandate the movement of financial investments by the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) away from fossil fuels, thus encouraging continued future investment in renewable energy and infrastructure; and
— the United Nations (UN) reports that fossil fuels, namely coal, oil and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions;
further acknowledges that:
— there is an urgent and necessary requirement to amend the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018;
— the purpose and ethos of the Act is being undermined by the exploitation of legislative loopholes found within the wording of said Act;
— the Act is principally concerned with fossil fuel exploration only, as opposed to all fossil fuel use, with a limited exception, which essentially still allows for investment from the ISIF in fossil fuel use;
— section 49A (1) of the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014 (as amended by the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018) contains an exclusionary clause that permits indirect investment in fossil fuel undertakings to be made in financial derivative instruments, exchange traded funds or hedge funds;
— while the Act in its original form brought about significant change, reviewing it in practice over the last five years has afforded us insights into issues that must be addressed;
— on January 2023, Irish financial institutions held US$13.2 million in bonds and shares attributable to fossil fuels in the Global South, of this the ISIF held US$11.2 million, mostly in bonds issued by Chinese electric utility company State Grid Corporation of China;
— at the beginning of 2023, the ISIF also held US$12.5 million in bonds and shares attributable to agribusiness in the Global South, of this the ISIF held US$12.1 million and Waystone34 accounted for the majority of the remaining investments;
— these investments are contrary to the spirit of the 2018 Act and demonstrate that investments are still being made in the fossil fuel industry and therefore the Act must be amended to ensure that such loopholes cannot be availed of via indirect investment and financial vehicles;
— although falling outside the scope of the 2018 Act, reports show that investment managers registered in Ireland held US$6.2 billion in bonds and shares attributable to fossil fuels and agribusiness in the Global South alone, which indicates that the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 is an important step but a modest one;
— as outlined clearly in the 2023 ActionAid Report, How the Finance Flows: The banks fuelling the climate crisis, there is a significant need for the Government to consider the scope of the Act and the Act should extend beyond fossil fuel "undertakings" to include "fossil fuel utilisation", which should be defined in a manner that targets economic entities that fall within an agreed bracket so as to strike a balance that allows for meaningful climate policy while acknowledging any existing barriers within the renewable infrastructure;
— a limitation of the 2018 Act is that investments in companies that depend on fossil fuels, such as agribusiness and agrichemical companies, are not prohibited by the Act thereby allowing for the continued financing of environmentally damaging activities;
— industrial agriculture, and the unsustainable food system that it supplies, is also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reporting that the agriculture, forestry and other land use sector accounts for 13-21 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions globally from four main emissions sources: carbon dioxide emissions from land use change, including deforestation to make way for agriculture; the production and application of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers ("fossil fertilisers") and agrochemicals; livestock emissions from enteric fermentation and manure; and methane emissions from rice paddies;
— industrialised agriculture globally is typified by large-scale plantations; widespread application of agrochemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides; hybrid or genetically modified seeds sold by corporations which need to be purchased anew each year; mechanised farming; monocultures of single crop varieties covering hundreds of hectares; and commodity crops destined for export, with corporations known as "agribusinesses" controlling and profiting from almost every step of the process; and
— Ireland is ideally placed to start the process of getting the proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative on the diplomatic and UN agenda given its commitment to climate action, rejection of further offshore exploration licences and its membership of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance diplomatic initiative;
calls on the Government to:
— signal its commitment to a sustainable, resilient, and zero-carbon future by endorsing the development of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and joining the bloc of states seeking a negotiating mandate;
— amend the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018, in a manner that will widen its reach so that it is applicable to all funds within the ISIF, by removing the exclusionary clause within section 49A (1) of the National Treasury Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014 (as amended by the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018) regarding financial derivative instruments, exchange traded funds or hedge funds;
— ensure meaningful steps are taken to protect the climate and our children's future, while acknowledging the significant role of small and medium-sized enterprises and Ireland's agri-economy; and
— ensure that the investments made by the ISIF are not being made in a way that is contributing to the alarming damage that fossil fuels and agribusiness are proven to cause; and
further calls on the Government to:
— incorporate a provision to allow for a review of the Act every 3-4 years to ensure that the purpose and impact of this legislation is being carried through;
— ensure that it reviews and analyses relevant structures and processes to ensure that investment made through Foreign Direct Investment and international subsidiaries based in Ireland do not undermine our climate and development objectives;
— consider new regulations and policies to phase-out financing to fossil fuels and steer away from harmful industrial agriculture and other high-emitting activities, which should include a requirement that banks and other financial institutions operating in Ireland develop climate transition plans consistent with a 1.5° Celsius climate goal and which should cover all financed emissions with no offsets, and be subject to sanctions for non-compliance; and
— ensure a coherent and equitable approach to preventing emissions at source and a coordinated just transition globally.
- (Deputy Thomas Pringle)
I thank Deputy Pringle for tabling this motion and for hosting a briefing in the audiovisual room in this general space a number of weeks ago. I know that ActionAid Ireland is an important contributor and works hard in this space. At the Oireachtas climate committee we also heard from Trócaire, Christian Aid and Oxfam, as we do in advance of COP every year. There are many organisations in that development space doing really important work and carrying out really important research and they are an important support to policy makers.
I welcome the fact that the Governments is not opposing the motion. The Minister of State outlined some of her concerns with the framing of the motion but expressed a willingness to engage with the Opposition to address some potential unintended consequences and I would expect that the Opposition would welcome the opportunity to do that. We do not want the unintended consequence of limiting support for investment in renewables, for example, but at the same time it is very clear and has been well set out that while the initial Bill was a step in the right direction, in practical terms it left the door open for alternative vehicles, financial derivative instruments, exchange traded funds and hedge funds to very significantly invest in climate-harmful industries and technologies, directly in fossil fuels and in harmful agriculture. There is a real contradiction here, as others have said. In this House we largely argue against the Mercosur deal because of the potential for very harmful agricultural practices to be fast-tracked and delivered into European markets when, in effect, significant funds making their way through Irish institutions are supporting those same industries. There is also a real contradiction in going to COP on the one hand and making welcome commitments in relation to loss and damage funding while on the other hand significantly investing in fossil fuel or climate-harmful technologies and industries in those same countries.
The measure of the Government's position in relation to this will be how it picks up on this motion, its action on it and whether it engages with the Opposition earnestly and meaningfully to try to tease out the areas where there is scope to improve and strengthen the existing legislation and, in fairness, if there are potential unintended consequences, to avoid those. That will be the measure of that. It is very clear that we need to move away from fossil fuels. That will require significant and ambitious action. Different perspectives on COP28 over the last few weeks and particularly in the past 24 hours have been outlined here this morning but what is very clear and undeniable is that it still falls very far short of a commitment, in language terms and in terms of actual action, that is consistent with the climate science but that is where we have to move towards. Essentially, COP28 is the only show in town but it is a deeply flawed process. Every year as we come out of it we bank the progress and are grateful for it but we also reflect on the failure of the process itself. Very earnest efforts need to be made to try to ensure that we make progress. If that requires a restructuring or reorganising of COP or a change to its rules, then that is what needs to be done.
An important issue that was made very clear at COP28 was the role of fossil fuel industry itself and its power and influence. I commend my party colleague Senator Lynn Boylan on the publication earlier this week of a Bill to regulate fossil fuel lobbying. We need to move to a space where fossil fuel lobbyists are treated similarly to the way tobacco lobbyists were treated years ago. The science is very clear and we need to ensure there is strong regulation so that the influence, power and money of the fossil fuel industry is curtailed and managed. We have done that in the past with other industries and sectors and there is real need to do it now with the fossil fuel industry.
While COP28 has made some progress, it falls significantly short of what is needed. As is always the case, in terms of both COP and this motion this morning, the measure of it will be in the action that is taken. The motion this morning is an important one. It is part of a number of actions that the Government can take to follow through on the rhetoric of climate action. Very significant changes need to be made in regard to our financial institutions and their priorities. If we follow the money on a national and international scale we can see very clearly that climate objectives and targets are not first and foremost and that needs to change. Amending the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act and progressing the proposed fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty are things we need to see the Government moving on in order to really put words into action. I welcome the progress that has been made on the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act up to this point but we need to tighten up on it.
The motion allows us to do that. Let us see the real intent of the Government in that regard.
Is fiú trácht a dhéanamh ar cé chomh tromchúiseach atá an t-ábhar seo. Muna bhfuil athrú suntasach ó thaobh fuinnimh agus úsáid breoslaí ar nós gáis, ola agus peitril, níl aon dabht ach go mbeidh an-tionchar aige sin ar an domhan agus ar Éirinn. Tá go leor plé faoi theifigh agus gach rud a mbaineann leo seo faoi láthair. Muna bhfuil athrú ó thaobh an fhuinnimh atá á úsáid ar fud an domhain, beidh tionchar aige sin ar líon na dteifeach atá ag fágáil tíortha atá faoi bhrú de bharr athrú aeráide. It is worth reflecting on the seriousness and weight of the challenge we face. There is no doubt but that the world is at a very dangerous juncture. Communities, societies and countries all over the world, particularly in the developing world, face very serious consequences and very concerning situations, as does Ireland, because of climate change. There is no doubt about the need to act.
I commend Deputies Connolly, Pringle and Joan Collins on bringing forward the motion. We certainly agree that the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act was a step forward at the time but shortcomings have been identified in it that need to be addressed. I welcome the fact the Government is not opposing the motion. As Deputy O'Rourke said, there are issues with derivatives, hedge funds and so on, which is resulting in funds connected to Ireland investing in fossil fuels at a time when we need to move far and fast away from that.
It is worth acknowledging that the news from COP at present is more positive than might have been the case 24 hours ago, but it is a source of regret that our expectations may be so limited that what seems welcome is possibly a step below the very least we should expect in some respects. There is no doubt that while COP is the only game in town, and is the forum and the mechanism, the targets that have been set are disappointingly unambitious. That needs to be tackled.
On our part in Ireland, I welcome the motion and the fact it is trying to tackle the investment that funds connected to Ireland make in fossil fuels. In general terms, we have to confront the fact that we are a climate laggard. We are ranked 21st out of 27 European countries for performance on climate change. We had the largest rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the EU last year. We are the biggest emitter per capita. In a context where 23 EU states recorded a drop in emissions, a lot of our targets are being missed time and again. Some 95% of industry experts have said that Ireland will not meet its renewable targets. That is a significant cause of concern.
The renewable side of things is a source of concern for me. The renewable electricity support scheme, RESS, auctions are an important driver of policy. The price for the most recent auction, €100.47 per megawatt hour, is significantly up on RESS 1 and RESS 2, which were €97.87 per megawatt hour and €74.08 per megawatt hour, respectively. The most recent bid price is the highest yet. It is a staggering cost and, on top of that, it is the smallest volume of renewable energy to date. There is an awful lot to do. The potential of Ireland to be a world leader in renewables is huge, but the issues with the grid and the fact that we are drifting significantly from our targets need to be addressed.
I also commend the Independent Group on bringing the motion to the floor. It is timely we are discussing this on the same morning an agreement seems to have been reached at a global climate summit that nearly lost credibility due to the attitude adopted by some states. If we look at the main stories that emerged from the climate summit, we see the encapsulation of the key problems that have been holding the globe back from radically addressing the emissions issue. Excluding fossil fuels from that effort has been a particular issue. To hear the COP president, Sultan Al Jaber, claim there was no scientific evidence that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to tackle the overall issue of global warming was deeply troubling. It was another indicator of the challenges we face from those with so much power and vested interests.
The first draft text appeared to confirm people's growing fears that the climate summit may have been considered by the powerful fossil fuel-producing states as purely an opportunity to do business. Despite this, however, we have reason for more optimism this morning, with the agreement to transition away from fossil fuels included in the text. Although there is dissatisfaction that it stops short of committing to phasing fossil fuels out, it also indicates the challenges we face from vested interests.
This leads me to the subject of how all countries must play a part in this ambition, especially considering that the Paris Agreement does not mention fossil fuels as the main driver of the climate crisis. Each country must shoulder its own responsibility on the damage done by fossil fuels. Amending the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act to mention fossil fuels is one aspect where we have a part to play. For example, Irish financial institutions hold €12.1 million in investments in fossil fuels. Of this, ISIF holds €10.4 million. This kind of problem is even more evident in the bonds held by investment managers registered in Ireland.
Action needs to be taken. If we need to amend the Act to force this change, so be it. Each of us has a role to play and it is the responsibility of the Government to enable this to happen. Unfortunately, the Government is big on promises and setting targets that fall short of many of the key policies needed to implement them. This is apparent from the most recent progress report, published as part our climate action plan, which indicated a steady fall in delivery rates. We have to ask why. Why are we not on track with our renewable targets? There are many problems with our auctions for renewables. As a result, Ireland will come nowhere near to its 2030 targets.
There are a number of forward-thinking businesses in County Tipperary, such as Energy Communities Tipperary Cooperative and Community Power. They have made great strides and are the future of so many of our plans for renewable energy, yet we have been told the system is in need of reform. The average time a wind project takes to clear the system is a staggering 92 weeks. The statutory maximum is supposed to be 18 weeks. No new projects have been approved for more than 14 months. There is also the issue of connecting independent renewable energy to the grid. Many renewable projects are waiting so long for the connection that they are timing out. This is no way to promote or support renewables. Sinn Féin wants to reform the energy sector to expand community-generated power to benefit communities and translate our natural resource into national wealth. We need to make the transition to renewable energy something that works for people.
We would bring forward a truly just and fair transition that would protect our energy security with the roll-out of an equitable energy system, which would also address issues with planning and the grid that impede entrepreneurs and communities from realising their full potential.
I also thank Deputies Pringle, Connolly and Joan Collins. The motion is a piece of work that is necessary and needs to be put in front of us. We all know what is necessary in making sure we steer in the correct direction. At times that is legislation, at times it is regulation, and sometimes it is even sanction.
We are, unfortunately, as Deputy Ó Laoghaire said, almost happy with what has come out of COP28. That is because we have very low expectations. We have a slight improved trajectory as regards what COP is asking for but we have next to nothing near the commitments, even in language, that we should have. That should not be a great shock, based on who is there and where it is located. It is fair to say that there may be some who have a conflict of interest.
Let us deal with the work proposed by the motion. We are talking about the amendment of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 to widen its reach so it is applicable to all funds within ISIF. It is necessary that we do not add to the problem, and that we ensure State moneys are not part of moneys travelling through here that maintain industries directly connected to fossil fuels, when we need to make the journey and transition away from them. The motion also references endorsement of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and removal of the exclusionary clause in section 49A of the NTMA Act.
We all know the direction we need to go in. We all know that the only way this works is on the basis of the moneys provided, the efforts made and the direction taken by governments across the board. It cannot be a case of money chasing profit . We need to ensure we cut that off where the State is involved, particularly, as much as we can, in relation to fossil fuels. We all accept that in doing all of this will not deliver a utopia of decarbonisation. We know what has not happened in the past while. One can insert single transferable speech on how Ireland could be a wind superpower, but we all know that the RESS auctions have not exactly produced what they need to. We also know that we do not quite have the planning system we need in place. We know that those who want to invest talk about the issues that exist in the context of delivering. We know we are unlikely to deliver on any of our targets at this point in time. Really and truly, we need to get our act together and ensure that we have decent regulation and that we enforce it. We must also do the heavy lifting ourselves. We all know the issues: it is everything including ports not being in play, not having our planning system resourced sufficiently and the fact that we have not made the final moves on the entire framework that is necessary for offshore wind. We need to get that done as soon as possible.
Let us be clear. We all understand the importance of legislation, regulation and, at times, sanction. We will all welcome some of the language from COP28 but we welcome the fact that 153 members of the UN General Assembly have called for a ceasefire. It is mad that it is considered a success to have asked for a ceasefire in Gaza because of the disgraceful moves that were made by the United States of America. There are 16 countries from the European Union who have voted alongside us for a ceasefire. It goes without saying that we need to make sure we get the EU Council to make a move in that direction.
It goes without saying that we introduce our own sanctions alongside others in relation to the disgrace that is Israel.
I thank my colleagues in the Independent group for bringing forward this motion. We in the Labour Party are happy to support it. It is a sensible motion. It is not asking for any great new interventions. It simply asks that we close the loopholes contained in existing legislation. The Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 is good piece of legislation, at least insofar as its intentions go. Indeed, as this motion acknowledges in its first line the "Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018 is something that Ireland should remain proud of in its capacity of setting a global standard." I recall Fianna Fáil's enthusiastic support of Deputy Pringle's Bill at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, however, it is evident that it does require some strengthening. Loopholes have emerged. That is fair enough because they often do. Problems arise when such loopholes undermine the original intent of the legislation and we do nothing about it.
For all the positive interventions contained in the Act such as the central aim ISIF divesting from fossil fuel companies it has not been able to live up to its full potential due to the working of the text. ISIF remains too much invested in what one might call fossil fuel adjacent companies and other financial instruments that perpetuate and benefit from fossil fuel extraction and use. Yes, while ISIF may be divesting from the direct bankrolling of fossil fuel companies it is still very much invested in the industry at large. Indirect investment is still investment. The exploitation of these loopholes that exist is not in the spirit of the 2018 Act. The Government has the opportunity to change that and it should.
We are all conscious that we are having this debate as the COP summit rumbles on and comes to a conclusion. We will probably have statements when we return from recess but this plays into the broader picture of the topic of this motion. Perhaps the House will indulge me for a few moments. The proceedings at COP in recent days have been utterly shameful and farcical. To start with it is utterly ludicrous that the summit would be held in a petrostate, the economy of which is almost entirely reliant on fossil fuel exports. Next year it will be the same again with another petrostate host. It is a joke. I seriously worry about COP as a vehicle for progress after witnessing what has gone on over the past number of years, and especially this year. It was obvious that last year's agreement had the fingerprints of the petrostates all over it with no fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and no advancement of ambition on the 1.5°C target. This year, we have handed them the pen. Clearly, the initial draft agreement presented was purposely unacceptable so that the agreement we ended up with is slightly more palatable but watered down nonetheless. Let us be clear: this was an act of sabotage on the part of oil barons and petrostates. The self-interest is there for all to see. They are barely even trying to hide it. They can do all the greenwashing they want but when it comes to brass tacks they are risking our future, our planet's future and our children's future to protect their coffers. To his credit, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, was right to say that the EU should walk away if the initial draft text was not dramatically improved. I would not say it has been dramatically improved but at least there is some form of a commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Tackling climate change is an active international and intergenerational solidarity. The COP summit is the only multilateral forum we have to do it. It is vital that we make the process work. Regrettably, that process appears to have been captured by petrostates and those who benefit from continuing on at business as usual. We need to challenge that and the only way to challenge this is by having leaders stepping up to the plate. We in the Labour Party, and no doubt many others too, want Ireland to be one of those leaders. We want to be a leading green State at COP summits to come. We know we have the potential. A piece in The Irish Times this week by Dr. Cara Augustenborg highlighted the fact that we are one of the best placed countries in the world to lead by example in making the transition to a green net-zero economy. This is not to say it will be easy and no one is for a second saying that will be but it is possible. It is more possible here than in most other countries. The alternative of not taking action and carrying on as if the world is not nearly ablaze is far more costly and painful than committing to and acting on a green transition. We have the potential but it requires political will. We have the knowledge, we have the science and we have the resources but it requires political will. We have not seen enough political will from the Government to get their head down and lead the charge on climate action. There are missed targets, delayed delivery and dodging of responsibility. The courage to grasp the nettle does not seem to be there within this Government.
We have the opportunity here today to restore a bit of faith in our Government's response to climate crisis and to back up all the rhetoric with actual meaningful action. It is an opportunity to show people that this Government does in fact take global warming and ecological destruction seriously. What is more, this is easy. It is a straightforward motion. It simply asks that we make a piece of legislation do what it was intended to do. It is not reinventing the wheel but by allowing this motion to pass and acting on it we will be taking genuine and important steps towards divesting us totally from fossil fuels. It would be wise for the Government to take this opportunity and bring forward amendments to the Act to ensure that it lives up to its potential and its intentions. Many have lost faith in the Government's commitment to climate action but we would be happy to be proven wrong.
I acknowledge and thank Deputies Pringle, Collins and Connolly for this really important motion, and for the previous work they conducted on this in 2018. It was a landmark Act and a game-changer when it comes to Ireland taking seriously our climate actions and where investments go. What I find particularly good about this motion is that the Independent group have done what should actually have been done by the Government, which is the continual review of how legislation is operating to see whether or not it is meeting its intent and if it can be improved. Unfortunately, it was not the Government bringing forward this legislation to say where it had identified gaps. It is actually Deputy Pringle and his colleagues, and Trócaire and ActionAid Ireland, who have done the work to identify the huge gaps in the Act. I thank them for that. The gaps that exist were detailed in the ActionAid Ireland report on this issue and indeed in this motion. Those gaps include the indirect investments, the ability for ISIF to use State money to indirectly invest in fossil fuel undertakings and invest in hedge funds, and the absence of agribusiness, which is another positive aspect of this motion.
The Social Democrats will be supporting the motion. In light of the fact that it is the day after the COP statement has been finalised, and acknowledging what the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has been stating at COP about finance, it is really important that we get this right. In the statements from the Minister he said that he wants to see "a plan to ensure that fossil fuel industries take greater responsibility for climate financing and investment in the shift to renewables." That is absolutely critical.
Also critical is for Government to take responsibility for where it invests State money and to ensure it is not invested in fossil fuel industries. Unfortunately, we have not seen that with the ISIF financing system.
The mistakes, flaws and gaps identified by the Independent Group and ActionAid in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill and its operation will be carried forward into the climate and nature fund announced in the budget. That is of huge concern. We often hear the statement, “Show me your budget and I will show you your priorities.” I would extend that to, “Show me where you are investing your money and I will show you where your priorities are.” With the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund, it appears the Department of Finance has taken the template from the fossil fuel divestment fund and its operation and has applied it directly across those funds. When those funds were announced, I had major concerns, initially, about the fact we said €3 billion was being set aside for climate and nature funding for a number of years down the road when the crisis is here and now. The investment is needed now and not in a number of years’ time. Since looking into this further, I have other significant concerns about the operation of the fund. The Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, stated the call to amend the Act may significantly limit ISIF’s investment universe and ability to deliver on its commercial mandate. That is also the mandate on which the climate and nature fund is based. The entire premise of that fund is a commercial one. That is the first place the Government needs to look to reform: exactly how that fund is operating.
I draw attention to other aspects of the heads of Bill in relation to the climate and nature fund. It is stated, "The Agency shall endeavour to ensure that the assets of the Future Ireland Fund and the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund are not directly invested in a fossil fuel undertaking”, and that it should also endeavour to ensure they are not invested in any indirect investment at any time, unless it is less than 15%. It is pretty much the same as the comments in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act and how that operates. Money from the climate and nature fund can be used to invest on a commercial basis in Ireland or overseas. It is stated:
...the Agency may invest the assets of the Future Ireland Fund and the ... Climate and Nature Fund in a fossil fuel undertaking or in a collective investment undertaking the assets of which are invested ... in a fossil fuel undertaking, where the Agency has satisfied itself on reasonable grounds that the investment is intended to be consistent with ... the national transition objective ... the State’s climate change obligations, and ... policy of ... Government...
My reading is the State could theoretically invest the €3 billion in the climate and nature fund in fossil fuel undertakings overseas and that would be allowable under this. I know we are only at the heads of Bill stage but I ask that the Minister of State engage quickly with the Department of Finance on the Bill. Under no circumstances should the State invest money in fossil fuels, directly or indirectly, through any loopholes or schemes. It should be absolutely out of bounds when it comes to State money. Only when I see the remit and scope of the climate and nature fund will I be confident the Government is taking this seriously. It comes down to where the money goes. Individuals are doing as much as they can. They are buying EVs, retrofitting and putting money into solar at huge cost. For the majority of people it is very expensive. People are doing it but it will be worth naught if State money continues to fund fossil fuel investments, directly or indirectly. The State needs to show leadership and it shows leadership by where it spends what is not Government money but taxpayer and public money.
I look forward to seeing the heads of Bill amended and to that discussion. I hope the Government will not only amend them and take Deputy Pringle's motion on board but will at the same time reflect on the climate and nature fund so that it meets its intended purpose.
I thank Deputies Pringle, Connolly and Collins for this excellent and timely motion. It aims to end the current situation whereby public money is invested indirectly through ISIF in damaging fossil fuel investments and agribusiness in the global south. It highlights Ireland’s role as a conduit for billions of euro of investment in damaging fossil fuels. In particular, I highlight the call for Ireland to take a lead in a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
That demand is extremely timely given the final text agreed at COP28, which emerged a couple of hours ago. For the 28th time, the news from COP is not good. We see a failure of the COP process and global leaders protecting the interest of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of small island nations and the future of all our children and grandchildren. What we needed to have any hope of averting catastrophic climate collapse of 2°C of global heating was a cast-iron commitment to a complete phase-out of fossil fuels. What we got was more of the same: more of the same hedging that tries to blur the distinction between ending fossil fuels and continuing them; more of the same diplomatic language that hides the sentencing to death of billions of people in the poorest countries in the world; more of the same polite fudges to cover over the destruction of a liveable future for our children and grandchildren.
I heard the Minister, Eamon Ryan, on “Morning Ireland” this morning claiming that transitioning away from fossil fuels and phasing them out mean the same thing in his mind. It does not matter what they mean in Eamon Ryan’s mind; what matters is what they say in the text. That is why thousands of diplomats, thousands of lobbyists from oil and gas companies and big agrifood companies, and the 34 billionaires who flew to the talks on their private jets have been wrangling over this text for the past two weeks. It is because every word, comma and paragraph counts. It matters that those who want to block action on phasing out fossil fuels won on that key question. The chair of the talks, Sultan Al Jaber, who is also the head of the UAE national oil company, knew when he presented a joke of a first draft yesterday that anything else would seem better by comparison and the likes of Eamon Ryan could go on the media, greenwash what has been agreed and claim it is a great compromise and an important step forward.
What does the text actually say? The crucial part is paragraph 28, which “calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches". How many get-out clauses are in that one sentence alone? The small island states which this agreement virtually guarantees will disappear under rising floodwaters have labelled it "a litany of loopholes". “Calls on” means everything that follows is voluntary and not binding on a single country at the talks.
What are the "global efforts” that countries are called on to contribute to, "taking into account ... their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches”?
The first is "accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power", that is, continuing to use coal. The dirtiest form of fossil fuel out there is fine. We just has to use less of it. That is what "phase-down" rather than "phase-out" means. Then there is the word "unabated", so we just have to try to abate it, relying on the fiction of carbon capture and storage technologies that have not been invented yet to take the carbon back out of the atmosphere after the coal has put it there. The US, which is the biggest historic emitter of carbon and the country with most responsibility for destroying our climate, fought tooth and nail for the science fiction of abatement to be included. For that, it received the Colossal Fossil award from the Climate Action Network of environmental activists, reserved for the biggest and baddest fossil at the conference.
Another global effort that states are called on to contribute to is "Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems, utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century". Net zero emissions again means carbon capture and storage but also carbon offsetting, which has already been exposed as a complete sham and a scam that simply does not work and makes some corporations even richer. The phrase "zero and low carbon fuels" means continuing to use fossil fuels on the pretence that they are low carbon. Of course, there is no definition in the text of what "low-carbon" means. Presumably even coal will count as being low carbon as long as it is abated with technologies that do not exist. What does "around mid-century" mean? Does it mean 2050, 2055 or 2060? What sort of legal agreement has a non-specific deadline in it? What worker would be a fool to sign an employment contract that promises to pay them around the middle of each month?
The clause that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and others are using to try and greenwash this historic sell-out and failure is 28(d), where states are called on to contribute, "taking into account ... their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches", to "Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems ... so as to achieve net zero by 2050". Again, we have net zero, which means carbon offsetting and carbon capture and storage. Again, we have no specific binding target for any state, large or small, rich or poor. Without that, every capitalist government in the world can keep placing the burden on other capitalist governments to get to net zero. It is what we do here every time the Minister for agriculture claims that if we did not produce 90% of our beef for export, someone else would do it instead and all that would happen would be that the Irish meat industry would lose out. It is the same version of what Sultan Al Jaber was claiming with Mary Robinson, that we should not worry, we have the lowest carbon and best fossil fuels on earth. It is that suicidal logic of global capitalist competition that is killing the climate, one euro, one dollar, one degree at a time.
That is why it is vital that we do not just pass this motion today saying that the State should take the lead in joining with many other states, small island nations, Latin American countries, the European Parliament and the World Health Organization, who have signed up to a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. The Government now needs to act on this. I raised this with the Taoiseach yesterday and he did not know anything about it. He said that we have not been shown the text of it, when the point is that the broad principles are out there and we are asking the State to get involved in pushing and driving it because, very clearly, the COP process has failed.
I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I commend my Independent Group colleagues on bringing it forward. I would caution people about getting rid of fossil fuel as if we have all the alternatives in place. As the fella says, "bí cúramach" in what we are saying and doing. We need to make sure we have things right to take over from fossil fuels.
In that context, I have in my constituency a huge problem with wind farms that are being proposed. If all of the wind farms being proposed in my constituency happen against the will of the communities, we would have uproar. For some reason, we have three major wind farms being proposed. We have one that is surrounded by 249 houses, with residents and a national school all within close proximity. We have a national park in Knockma Hill, which is historic. We have biodiversity and all that goes with that. We have an aquifer system under the ground that is helping our flooding systems and supplying water to at least eight group water schemes. Yet, we have an investment company, as I would call it, putting in a proposal to erect 180 m high wind turbines, some of them within 400 m or 500 m of residents.
We have the same thing happening down in the Kilconly, Caherlustraun and Cloonnaglasha area. There are funny names on these, Shancloon and Laurclavagh, or something, and we do not know where they actually are. We have another one over in Clonberne in County Galway. What is happening is that we have an ongoing issue with public meetings, where hundreds of people are appearing to protest at the fact these wind farms are being imposed on them in areas where they are not at all suitable. We have guidelines that go back to 2006, and we have draft guidelines that have not been introduced. What we have is a total isolation of communities of young people. We have huge problems with this, and the Government needs to grasp it. The only solution is to put these floating wind turbines out in the ocean and get on with that rather than trying to destroy our country. In places where these are being proposed, I can guarantee the Minister of State that the local authority would not give planning permission for a house because of all the biodiversity that would be disturbed or the unsuitability of the drainage and road systems. Yet, we can see people who will invest in these things, bring them to a stage where they get their money and asset together, and they will sell it off. That is a problem facing the Minister of State straight away.
I, too, welcome the motion, and I congratulate Deputies Pringle, Collins and Connolly on the work they have done to bring this before the House. It is timely that the Government would review fossil fuel investment, especially in light of COP activity. I note the concerns the Minister of State has raised regarding some strategic financial investments, and obviously that is going to require more work. I accept the fact the Government is not opposing this motion.
The motion calls on the Government to support the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. That would be a very formidable step and Ireland should take it. We all have to recognise that. We have listened in recent days to the deliberations at COP28 and about the dangers our planet and future civilisation are facing. Ireland has shown, by being a part of two UN resolutions in the past two weeks, that we can punch above our weight diplomatically. This is something we should look to also.
The direction of ISIF investments in the State is a good sign of State intent, and we need to look at what the Government is doing with regard to furthering our own ambitions on meeting our climate objectives. The Minister of State pointed out in response that Ireland is to chair the International Energy Agency in 2024, and that would be a good opportunity for us to get our own house in order.
I note Deputy Canney's comments regarding onshore wind farms, which have been hugely problematic in the countryside. We need to get our planning right but we are, at present, trying to progress MARA and onshore wind generation off the south coast. That, too, is going to hit many planning difficulties because of the impact, scale and size of these turbines. The licences that are being offered there are purely for pylon-based wind infrastructure. I have raised this a number of times in the House. Why are we not looking at floating offshore, which is moving at pace? We are talking about it being possible off the west coast in ten or 15 years' time, and yet there is offshore floating taking place already in other parts of Europe.
The reason is cost differentials. Over time, they will pale into insignificance compared with the visual and possibly disastrous impacts on areas like the Copper Coast in County Waterford. As a resident of County Waterford, I want to see a move to renewable energy but Deputy Canney mentioned 180 m turbines in County Galway. The turbine height proposed off the south coast of County Waterford, within three or four miles of the foreshore, is 350 m, larger than anything in Europe at present. This policy must be reviewed quickly and other possibilities to tender out must be examined. It is also timely to review our hydrogen strategy, which we have spoken about, and Ireland's ability to become a leading player if we utilise all of the wind resources around the country. We are good at talking about our initiatives but we are not good at progressing them. I was part of an interparliamentary group that went to Germany earlier this year. Germany identified that it will need probably 70% of its future electricity generation to be provided by other countries. Ireland could play a significant part in that. Where is our hydrogen strategy? Where is it laid out? Where have we shown real ambition and vision to develop this as a significant resource? It is sad to say but we will miss the boat while other countries, including the UK, are being proactive in this area.
Beyond that, I raise the issue of carbon sequestration and calculation. I highlighted to the Minister of State a number of times that the EU does not seem able to agree exactly what carbon output is but what it is trying to engender is damaging Irish agriculture. A lot of work is being done on new pastureland additions - the use of different plants to aid carbon sequestration to reduce nitrogen output. I ask the Minister of State to look at that matter with the Department of agriculture.
The Independent Group in its Bill signals its recognition that the Government must acknowledge the significant role of small and medium-sized enterprises and Ireland's agri-economy. However, I cannot support the objectives of the Bill because of the wide-ranging ways in which it seeks to double down on the folly of a so-called zero carbon future by endorsing the development of a fossil fuel non-proliferation theory. This would place us in a regulatory straitjacket that would further threaten energy security and lead to an unsustainable overreliance on renewables. In that regard, I will focus on wind farms. Many of the proposals for wind farms are completely against the wishes of communities. I have spoken in the Chamber many times about the proposal for Lemanaghan wind farm in County Offaly, in my constituency. It is a heritage and archaeological site. No way should a wind farm be allowed to proceed when the community is clearly against it and it would lead to the destruction of heritage and archaeology. This site is very important in monastic history. I have called for the draft guidelines to be published several times. We must ensure balance. It cannot be all one-way traffic in favour of the companies. Communities need safeguards. I ask again for the draft guidelines to be published as soon as possible. It is unacceptable that they have still not been published and finalised. We already know the Government's controversial Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021 will cost €20 billion each year until 2030. I am completely opposed to it.
I am not in favour of this and will explain why. The agricultural sector, a cornerstone of Ireland's economy, is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for machinery, transportation, production and processes. A rapid transition could disrupt this sector, leading to economic instability and potential job losses. I am delighted Deputy Ring is in the Chair because I wish to relay a story through him to the Minister of State and the House. Over the last few days, the people over at COP have been talking about protecting our environment and the world. Every one of them missed what was happening in Ireland in the last week. There are fallen animals - in other words, cows, calves, pigs and sheep that have died. Does anybody in this House recognise that in County Kerry alone, in a week, there were 1,000 fallen animals? You cannot bury them at home so they were rotting on the top of the ground. I will describe exactly what happened to them. Every dog from miles around and every rat from 100 miles devoured them at night. We are lucky the weather was cold. Did it bother the Minister for the environment, Deputy Ryan? Did he or the Minister for agriculture do anything about it? I have worn a path to the Department asking it to do something about the rendering plants. They are over in Dubai talking about protecting the environment and we have motions like this. Does anybody care about the thousands of animals on top of the ground, rotting, that cannot be collected? Nobody is talking about that. Talk about an environmental disaster and upset to people's families and farming people to look at those animals. Animals can die at marts due to accidents and different things. I know of marts where numerous animals died and could not be collected. Nobody is talking about it because they are more worried about trying to ban fossil fuels and starve people of means of surviving. Do they have any notion of low family incomes and how they will heat their homes?
No one in this country has an issue with fossil fuels transitioning out but the part we have to look at is transition and supports for doing so. They are not there. There are no supports. If you look at the energy situation here, people have put up solar panels on their houses, which is great, but the infrastructure cannot take more than 6 kW even though a person could provide 20 kW from their house and they may only use 12 kW to 16 kW. It can be up to 16 kW with underfloor heating. The grid cannot take it. Infrastructure is key. The Government wants people to use electric vehicles. The average car is from between 2010 and 2016. People can barely afford a car from between 2010 and 2016 but they are being pushed towards electric cars. The highest number of second-hand cars for sale in the UK are EVs that cannot be sold. Four-year-old EVs cannot be sold in the UK and are sitting in garages. The Government is pressuring people who are trying to feed their families, pay their mortgages and put food on the table. It is trying to force people who can only afford vehicles from between 2010 and 2016 to go to EVs. Support and transition are needed, not guillotining something and saying it has to happen today. COP28 is a cop-out because the person out there went on live television and said communities should share 30 vehicles. That is who is representing us. There is no cop on.
This motion may be well-intentioned but it fails to grapple with the harsh realities of Ireland's energy landscape and the potential economic fallout of its proposed policies. In the real world, Ireland, like many other countries, is heavily reliant on fossil fuels, with about 88% of our energy in 2023 coming from these sources. A sudden shift away from fossil fuels could have significant economic repercussions. The agricultural sector, a cornerstone of Ireland's economy, is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for machinery, transportation and production processes. A rapid transition could disrupt this sector, leading to economic instability and potential job losses. Fossil fuels are currently the lifeblood of Ireland's energy sector, powering 88% of our vehicles, homes and industries. A sudden divestment of fossil fuels, as proposed, could plunge the country into an energy crisis with severe repercussions for every facet of our daily lives, from transportation to heating our homes. Furthermore, the wording of the motion attacks agribusiness and overlooks the sector's vital role in the economy and the livelihoods of thousands of farmers. While it is true that agribusiness can be a source of greenhouse gas emissions, it is also a sector ripe for innovation and sustainable practices. Painting it as a villain is a disservice to the many farmers who strive to make their operations more environmentally friendly.
This motion's proposals seem to be rooted more in idealism than in practicality. The reality is that Ireland's planning system is mired in gridlock, and it could take decades before renewable energy sources become a viable alternative to fossil fuels. The motion's failure to acknowledge this reality raises questions about the feasibility of its proposals. What are the alternatives? We have no alternative. That is the problem we have. We have a lot of dreamers in this Chamber and I would love to come in and say we should all have a Jaguar and go home in it. There is no alternative at this stage for farmers who want to put produce on our tables. There is no point in Deputy Pringle smiling and laughing over there. Let him go back to Donegal and tell the fishermen to go out on a battery boat, or tell the farmer to go out and till his land with a battery. He will smile then and see when they bang the door and let him know where he stands.
He should talk to those who drive lorries to bring food-----
-----to the tables of this country. Wake up to reality. You are miles away from it right now.
Deputy Collins is the one who is miles away from reality.
I commend the Independent Group on bringing forward this important motion on fossil fuel divestment. It is an important part of the just transition conversation. However, in a cost-of-living crisis where approximately one third of Irish households are in energy poverty, and 59% of my Clare constituents have no renewable energy sources in their homes, just transition is a tough one to swallow with little incentive from this Government, and little mention of it for communities. There is little in terms of alternatives, and little for communities to buy into. The Government needs to be cognisant of the creation and building of resentment with the lack of just transition. Communities have been left in the dark with no mention or focus on those who live in material deprivation, and who cannot afford to heat their homes now. Poorly administered SEAI grants do not make a climate strategy. I support recent calls from Social Justice Ireland for the State to do three practical things. The first is to develop a national retrofitting strategy of scale to deep-retrofit the entire housing stock within a 20-year timeframe, using green funding to bolster our construction sector and increase capacity. The second is a building renovation passport scheme integrated into the strategy with a step-by-step approach to retrofitting. It would prove more financially appealing and manageable for families. Finally, we must upgrade the national grid as a matter of urgency, so we can reap the benefits of floating offshore capacity. It will mean that every farm, home and business in rural Ireland has the potential to become self-sustaining and in a position to sell excess energy back to the grid. That is something I hear constantly from farmers in Clare. The Loop Head Peninsula was recently designated Clare's pilot decarbonisation zone. The community there understands that the fuel sources we currently use are not the most sustainable. We need significant financial investment from the Government into decarbonising rural communities in Clare and across Ireland. The Clare Public Participation Network recently launched its report on just transition. I invite all colleagues, particularly the Minister, to read it at clareppn.ie.
I thank the Chair and Deputies. I also acknowledge and thank Deputy Pringle for the Act in 2018 and the work done on this, and for tabling this motion to discuss how we can further improve on it.
I also think today is a historic day. We have news this morning about work done by a group of Irish officials - civil servants who worked night and day in Dubai - to reach a deal to limit climate change. Our Minister for energy, Deputy Ryan, was appointed an EU lead negotiator and so Ireland was represented on a global stage in Dubai. We should acknowledge that. Last year, Deputy Ryan was in a similar position. He was lead negotiator for the EU on climate finance. That was when we agreed the loss and damage provisions, which were significant. This year the focus changed towards fossil fuels. It is incredible that this is the first of the climate agreements over 30 years to point to fossil fuels as the cause of the problem, and to mandate that the world should move towards transitioning away from or phasing out fossil fuels. Ireland did not just work with the EU. It also negotiated closely with small island states to push for the double ambition of reducing emissions as well as obtaining and securing climate justice. I say today that the Paris Agreement is stronger today than it was yesterday.
It is easy to be cynical and look at these global agreements, to ask why bother, and to say it is just people talking and coming together. There is no way we can do this without coming together. There is no way we can achieve any progress on climate change without all of the countries working together. They are coming from 190 different positions and it is difficult to get agreement, but it is working. We know it is working because if you look at investments in the global electricity system over the past year, 90% of money now being invested around the world is going into clean energy. That means investment of $2 billion per day. The whole financial system has moved away and identified that investing in fossil fuels is a risk. Progress is being made. It is easy to be cynical and say this is all pointless. A turning point was reached in 2014 when climate finance went mainstream. In 2014 the then governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, gave a famous speech in which he said that the majority of fossil fuel reserves on the books of the global energy companies were unburnable if we were going to avoid catastrophic climate change. He said that the assets on the books of these large energy companies were effectively stranded assets, and that the companies were mispriced. This led to a huge change in the financial markets, reorienting investment away from fossil fuels. I want people to know that these negotiations, COPs and climate change conferences have an effect. They are significant and worth doing, even though it is dispiriting dealing with countries that have no interest in achieving progress.
I have listened carefully to the contributions of different TDs. In her opening remarks, the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, highlighted that the Government understands and supports the motivation behind this motion. As might have been expected, this motion has prompted a wide range of discussion about fossil fuel divestment. ISIF has a proven record as a responsible investor. It has been highlighted that ISIF has already divested voluntarily from investing in tobacco companies and in companies that manufacture nuclear armaments. Under legislation, it has also divested from companies involved in the production of cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines. These form part of its sustainable and responsible investment strategy. ISIF is a responsible investor. Its S&RIS document on its overarching approach to sustainability and responsible investment states:
The S&RIS is focused on ensuring that the whole portfolio ... third party managers, and investee companies are considering potential [climate] risks and opportunities ... as appropriate and that [such risks are] appropriately captured as a part of ISIF’s decision-making and portfolio management ... ISIF seeks to engage with [like-minded] investors and organisations that share the Fund’s ambition to deliver on ESG priorities.
With regard to future investments by ISIF, the enactment of the proposed amendment could have the effect of significantly restricting ISIF's investment universe, in particular with regard to globally focused funds in which ISIF may wish to make an investment. It is additionally important to stress that the removal of the derivative ETF hedge fund exclusion would significantly and negatively impact on the ability of ISIF, and perhaps more so other envisaged funds, to deliver on the relevant mandate. The NTMA, in particular, would not have sight through to many of the underlying investments in collective pooled investments and derivatives. There is a restriction that only up to 15% of its assets can be invested in fossil fuel activities, and 20% in respect of companies or holding companies. These restrictions ensure there is a limited engagement in fossil fuel. However, it also allows ISIF some room to perform its commercial mandate. ISIF has developed a list of 243 fossil fuel undertakings in which it will not invest, having regard to the criteria in the Act. This list is updated on a semi-annual basis and is available on ISIF's website.
The Government's commitment to taking action on climate change is well established and demonstrated through legislation such as the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act, which was enacted in July 2021 and significantly strengthened the statutory framework for climate governance in Ireland. The 2021 Act binds Ireland to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 51% by 2030, relative to 2018 levels, and to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. The new framework, set out in the 2021 Act, requires the delivery of successive climate action plans and long-term climate strategies supported by a system of carbon budgeting and sectoral emissions ceilings to meet our 2030 and 2050 targets.
Ireland has committed to an early and complete phasing out of coal- and peat-fired electricity generation and has ceased issuing new licences for oil and gas exploration. In fact, we also ceased issuing new licences for coal exploration since the House passed the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act last summer. Ireland recognises that its energy future lies with broad deployment of renewable energy and has committed to increasing the share of renewable electricity in Ireland up to 80% by 2030 and to allocating 15.5 GW of wind and solar capacity from renewables by 2030. To that end, Ireland has been an active member of the Global Offshore Wind Alliance since COP27. International collaboration is key to achieving the widespread transformative change needed to tackle climate change, rather than specific domestic measures as suggested by this motion.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Pringle for introducing this motion. It was a privilege to sign it along with my colleague, Deputy Joan Collins. I will deal with the Government's response presently. We are seeking in this very specific motion to amend the Bill Deputy Pringle pushed through the Dáil in 2018. In a few days, it will be five years since his Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill became law. We were hailed as the first country in the world to make provision in that regard. Earlier this morning, the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, talked about her pride in that and in being able to share it on an international basis. That is very welcome. This motion gives her an opportunity to be even prouder of our actions on this issue.
As I said, the motion is very specific in expanding the remit of the 2018 Act from prohibiting direct investments to prohibiting indirect investments as well and, very importantly, supporting the fossil fuel divestment contract that is being pushed by a number of countries. I listened carefully to the Minister of State's speech. I am not sure whether the Government agreeing not to oppose a motion is worse than its opposing it. It might be more honest if the Government were to oppose this motion. While the Minister of State welcomed it and described her pride in it, the reality is that the Government has failed to carry out a review of the 2018 legislation in the past five years and to ask whether it was functioning effectively and doing what it set out to do. Indeed, we and Deputy Pringle had to do that research, assisted by ActionAid, Trócaire and other excellent organisations that keep us educated. The Government has not told us how things have been working.
The Government is saying out of one side of its mouth that it will amend the 2018 Act. We are asking it to make provision for a regular review. Out of the other side of its mouth, the Government tells us about the difficulties and that the changes would interfere with the commercial mandate of ISIF's investment policies. Imagine that. It seems the commercial mandate will trump our obligations on fossil fuel divestment. At least that is the interpretation I take from what I am hearing. Forgive me for being cynical but my experience in here has copper-fastened my cynicism. The message seems to be that we must not interfere with ISIF's commercial mandate.
The Minister of State went on to tell us that ISIF is a very reliable and responsible investor that works towards sustainability and responsibility. Let me give a little background to the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act 2018. I previously sat on the Committee of Public Accounts. I pay tribute to Conor O'Kelly, former chief executive of the NTMA, under whose remit ISIF comes. On 21 July 2016, when he appeared before the committee, there was no question of fossil fuel or tobacco divestment. Mr. O'Kelly appeared before the committee again on 12 July 2018, at the same time as Deputy Pringle's Bill was passing through the House. That very honest and direct man put his hands up and told the Committee of Public Accounts that the NTMA had not thought about the issue but he would go away and think about it. That is exactly what he did. I have the greatest respect for him. He went away and thought about it, after which the NTMA started to divest.
The Minister of State has given the up-to-date information. However, we are not being told what the Government intends to do about the issues. We have been told about the problems, and I agree there are problems and that we should work together. What is the timeframe for that in view of the COP28 result today, which was an utter cop-out? Power, privilege and profit were what drove the whole thing right through the night and into the morning. There is a distinction between phasing out fossil fuels and having a transition phase. Power, privilege and profit rule as the world burns. In the words of the Taoiseach, the world is burning.
I have no disagreement with the Rural Independent Group and I wish those Members would look at the connection between this side of the House and theirs. We want sustainable farming, a thriving rural community, sustainable development and investment in recyclables. I absolutely agree there are problems with the way that is being done, without community involvement and without something going back to the community in terms of ownership. I have raised that point repeatedly on the floor of the House. The Rio de Janeiro summit took place as long ago as 1992. Here we are in 2023 with a cop-out from COP. Yet we are taking pride in it. I cannot do so while the world burns. It is the most basic request that the legislation be expanded to allow us to catch indirect investments.
I thank Members for their discussion of and support for this Private Members' motion. I also thank those who do not support it because it is vital that we have informed debate in the House that leads to having better policy in the long run. It is important as well that debate should be conducted in a way that reflects what is actually in the proposal under discussion. What this motion talks about is fossil fuel undertakings in the agricultural industry, which are basically the manufacturers of products used by farmers that could be replaced very easily within the industry to make it more sustainable into the future.
The response by the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, to the motion was powerful and very positive. I welcome that the Government is supporting it and I hope it is the intention to work to implement it. When we look at the detail of the Minister of State's contribution to the debate, however, we see it is disingenuous because a lot of it is the direct opposite to the motion itself. It makes you wonder whether the Government is actually supporting the motion or whether, as Deputy Connolly said, it just does not want to have it on the record that it opposed it. The Minister of State said in her contribution: "If the Act was amended as proposed in the motion, to avoid being in breach of the relevant statutory provisions, ISIF would have to divest from and may be prevented from investing in substantial investments that may have minimal or no exposure to fossil fuel undertakings..." The reality is that such investments do have exposure to fossil fuel undertakings and, therefore, there is indirect promotion of the use of fossil fuels right across the world. The Minister of State went on to say the change would "limit ISIF's investment universe and its ability to deliver on its commercial mandate". Of course it will. She went on to say: "[I]t would have the potential to reduce the investment horizon for the proposed future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund." That is what we hope it will do. It is very worrying that the Government is looking at things in this way. It seems it is okay to invest in fossil fuels if it is being done by way of the proposed future Ireland fund or the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. That is the reality of the what the Minister of State is saying and it is very wrong. She went on to underline that point when she said that removing such bonds from Ireland does not mean they will not exist elsewhere. That is the reality of the Government's attitude, which is that we better get these investments because, if we do not, someone else will and we cannot have that. It is pretty sad.
On fossil fuel investments, the NTMA is prohibited from holding an outright investment in a particular fossil fuel undertaking, company X, but permitted to have an indirect holding in company X through a hedge fund. The Government will need to be clear and accountable that such investments are not occurring and that, if they are, it would go some way to undermining the overall intention behind the 2018 Act, which is to divest ISIF assets from such companies.
It is clear that the 2018 Act as it exists requires amending. We have seen that money is still flowing from Ireland into fossil fuels and agribusiness. Research shows us that the best way to offset any devaluation is to move quickly. As well as being detrimental to our environment, fossil fuels are also detrimental to the market and there is a clear trend of investing in the renewable economy.
The science clearly shows that the window of opportunity for tackling the issue of global warming is narrowing almost exponentially. Keeping global warming under the threshold of 1.5°C is a target that is simply further away from us. A terrifying statistic is that to have a 50% chance of getting under 1.5°C we must reduce global emissions to zero by 2050. We need to pause for a moment to think about that. That is the reality of the situation we face. Less than 30 years from now, we have to be carbon neutral if we are to have even half a chance of success. The time for meaningful action was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, those who came before us did not see or feel the urgency and already we are paying the price. That is the reality.
I want to thank my staff for their assistance in putting this motion together. I particularly thank Jessica Bray and Emer Taylor for the work they did. I would also like to thank Selina Donnelly of Trócaire and Karol Balfe of ActionAid Ireland for the work they have done in this regard as well.
Question put and agreed to.
I congratulate Deputy Pringle on the success of his motion.
