On behalf of the joint committee, I formally welcome the Minister and his officials. We are heading towards a very important session in Copenhagen next month and, therefore, are anxious to hear from the Minister on the Government's position on these very important negotiations. I invite him to make his presentation, after which I will take questions from members of the committee.
UNFCC Conference in Copenhagen: Discussion with Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Thank you, Chairman. I have an event at 4 p.m. but can postpone it. I have been waiting for approximately three quarters of an hour——
I am sorry; I did not realise that.
——and have calculated that about 6,000 tonnes of CO2 have been emitted in that time. The key issue in relation to climate change is time.
It is.
We must make these calculations.
I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the invitation. I know the committee had planned to have this meeting some weeks ago and appreciate its agreement to defer it at my request. I was keen to ensure we would be able to reflect in our discussion on the outcome of the October meetings of the Environment Council and the European Council. As it turns out, the timing allows us to reflect also on the changed outlook for the Copenhagen conference which emerged during the course of last week. I will come back to this point later.
Before turning to the business of the meeting, I acknowledge and welcome the committee's recent report on climate change law. I appreciate the work that went into the report. The all-party basis on which it was drawn up was particularly valuable in building public support for climate change legislation. As the committee will be aware, both Opposition and Government members, I have emphasised the importance of cross-party agreement in tackling climate change. As we move towards putting a price on carbon, I hope we can continue to keep this issue at the core of political debate but above political point-scoring and tactics.
Coming back to the agenda for the meeting, let me respond to the request that the committee be informed in advance of attending the Copenhagen conference of the Government's position on the international negotiations. I am pleased that members plan to attend the conference and I am happy to respond to the committee's request. I had a brief conversation with Deputy Coveney and would be happy to sit down and engage in a briefing with the committee on any further questions it may have.
The Government has consistently and fully supported the European Union's proactivity and leadership on the international response to climate change. That remains the position. It is underpinned by the strength of the scientific advice on the potential impact of climate change and the urgency of a comprehensive and effective global response. EU policy on the international response to climate change is reflected by the substantial body of conclusions which the Council has adopted for a number of years, most recently at its meetings last month. They set out a clear and strong EU mandate for the Copenhagen conference. The October Council conclusions are extensive and I do not propose to go through them, but I do want to highlight some important policy developments.
The European Union has provided a clear signal on a mid-term goal. It has adopted a 20% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2020 compared to the figure for 1990 and committed to step up to a 30% target, subject to two conditions: that other developed countries commit themselves to achieving comparable reductions and that developing countries contribute adequately, according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities. There have been two further developments in this regard. The first is the adoption of a European Union objective for developing countries as a group in response to the scientific advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPPC, to commit to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 95% by 2050 compared to 1990 emissions. That level of action by developed countries is essential if global emissions are to be reduced by 50% by 2050. I sincerely hope that the proposed 2050 objective, which is consistent with keeping average global temperature within 2°C of pre-industrial levels, will provide both the aspiration and the yardstick to establish an ambitious mid-term goal in a new legally-binding treaty. In this regard, the EU is seeking to encourage developed country parties to step up to an aggregate mid-term emission reduction goal in the order of 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.
However, since the publication of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, scientific studies have suggested consistently that the warming process is happening more rapidly than anticipated and, therefore, that the emission reductions proposed in the Fourth Assessment Report may be insufficient. A consensus is emerging among leading climate scientists, including James Hansen of NASA, that we may need not just to reduce our emissions, but have net reductions in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. They are suggesting a target level of 350 parts per million while current concentrations are over 380. The next IPPC report is due in 2014. It will represent the global scientific consensus.
Taking these factors into account, the European Union's negotiating position for Copenhagen is seeking to include in the new agreement a review of targets and objectives by the end of 2016. We must have a climate deal which addresses the full extent of the problem we face.
The second vital area relates to the key issue of climate finance. A new treaty on climate change will not happen unless it includes a comprehensive financial package to assist developing countries in key areas such as capacity building, mitigation, adaptation, technology and protection of their forests. Based on figures developed by the European Commission, the Council has strengthened the focus in the international negotiations on finance by setting out EU estimates of short-term and long-term needs. Developing countries have rightly pointed out that the major responsibility for the historical greenhouse gas emissions which have brought the planet to the current crisis lies with the industrialised countries. These countries have an obligation to contribute to adaptation to climate change in developing countries and to assisting those countries to mitigate their own greenhouse gas emissions. The obligation is not based on charity but on responsibility; being the major contributors to the problem, the industrialised countries must be the major contributors to addressing it.
In summary, the cost of mitigation and adaptation action in developing countries could amount to approximately €100 billion annually by 2020. Of that amount, the international public support element could be in the range of €22 billion to €50 billion annually. That is the longer-term position, beginning in 2013. There is also the more immediate need for fast-start international public support for developing countries, which the Commission estimates could be in the range of €5 billion to €7 billion per year over the three-year period 2010 to 2013.
These are enormous sums by any standard but they are commensurate with the scale of the action required to underpin a fair and effective global agreement on climate change. The EU is committed to paying its fair share at an international level, and Ireland is committed to paying its fair share of the EU contribution. International financial support will have to be scaled up over time having regard to considerations such as evolving needs and absorption capacity but we must be prepared in Copenhagen to initiate climate-related financial support for developing countries as early as next year.
One point I want to make clear is that I see the international climate change agenda and the millennium development goals as parallel priorities; they are not competing priorities and any suggestion to that effect is unacceptable. I am pleased that in addressing the issue of climate finance, the European Council clearly signalled the need for a gradual but significant increase in additional public and private financial flows to help developing countries.
Equally important is the clarification by the Council that such financing should not undermine or jeopardise the fight against poverty and continued progress towards the millennium development goals. That is a logical consequence of the fact that our financial obligation arises from our contribution to the climate problem
Important issues arise also as to how this money is to be managed. I have recommended that the Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund provides a good and fair model of the kind of approach needed.
Before I conclude on finance, I know there are people who believe, in view of the economic downturn, that action on climate change should be deferred or given a lower priority in the shorter term. Such views are both misguided and damaging. It would be a major economic mistake, not to mention the social and environmental consequences, to pursue economic recovery at any cost.
Within the European Union, the Council is perfectly clear on this point. I welcome and fully support its decision to underline the opportunity and the need to build on the synergies between action on climate change and economic recovery. I agree with its view on the need to seek a long-term financial and economic architecture that will integrate our approach to climate change with our goal of transition to a sustainable economy. Only a sustainable economy is compatible with avoiding dangerous climate change and addressing the inevitable impacts of existing concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
While the major attention of the UNFCCC process has focused on fossil fuel emissions, emissions of greenhouse gases from ecosystems including agriculture, natural forests and plantations, and wetlands are a major contribution to the problem. In addition, the ability of these ecosystems to absorb carbon is an essential element of an integrated response to climate change. The Kyoto Protocol addresses some of these carbon emissions and sinks but not most of them. The worst potential consequences of a policy framework which addresses fossil fuels but mostly does not address ecosystem emissions are increased pressure on these natural ecosystems. We have seen an example of how this would work in the destruction of peatland rainforests to facilitate the production of palm oil. We must ensure that the new agreement does not create any such perverse incentives.
Ireland, therefore, is supporting approaches to the convention which would work towards inclusion in the UNFCCC process of all aspects of ecosystem emissions including all forests and soil carbon, forest management, cropland and grazing land management, wetlands and deforestation.
Turning to the international negotiations, the European Union recognises the process established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as the appropriate forum through which to develop and implement an effective global response to the threat of climate change. The ultimate objective of the convention is clear — greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilised at a safe level.
The scientific advice from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is also clear on the need for early and effective action. A significant milestone towards achieving that objective is the absolute priority for the Copenhagen conference.
As part of the UNFCCC process, the penultimate round of the negotiations in advance of COP 15 were held in Barcelona last week. At the end of that round, the EU restated its firm commitment to reaching a comprehensive, fair and legally-binding treaty in Copenhagen. To be effective, the treaty must cover all countries and reflect a level of ambition consistent with the objective of keeping the increase in global temperature below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels.
More specifically, the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol must respond to the four key elements of the Bali Action Plan — mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and finance. It must also provide a clear and strong context for action in the form of an over-arching long-term goal — a shared vision which responds to the 2°C objective by aiming to ensure that global emissions peak by 2020 at the latest, reduce by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, and continue on a downward trend thereafter.
I have just touched on the high-level political objectives. Agreement on those will be supported by a huge body of detailed provisions set out in the new treaty. EU positions on key issues of detail such as assigned amount units, AAUs, low carbon growth plans, the carbon market and governance on climate finance, are reflected in the October Council conclusions.
I want to respond briefly to a concern on the part of developing-country parties to the convention that the EU is trying to kill the Kyoto Protocol. Nothing could be further from reality; the EU has always been and remains firmly committed to the protocol, its structure and its objectives. Against that background, it is disappointing that the EU position is being misunderstood or misrepresented in this way. This situation arises from the fact that the EU preference for the post-2012 commitment period is a single, legally-binding instrument under the convention; a single instrument that would enhance implementation and ensure consistency in the application of the post-2012 international climate regime. However, this instrument must address the serious gaps in the Kyoto Protocol. These include the inadequacy of its emissions targets and its failure to address major emissions sources such as deforestation, soil degradation and wetlands loss. In other words, a new protocol that builds on the Kyoto Protocol and incorporates its fundamental structure, particularly its provisions on key issues such as legally-binding quantified emission reduction commitments for all developed countries; robust reporting, monitoring and compliance requirements; flexible mechanisms; and requirements on land use, land use change and forestry. The EU objective is to broaden the scope and effectiveness of the international response to climate change in the post-2012 period without compromising on the principles or structure of the Kyoto Protocol.
I will address the news which emerged last week on the changed outlook for the Copenhagen conference. We now know, following statements by Prime Ministers Rasmussen and Reinfeldt, President Barosso, President Obama and Mr. Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary to the UNFCCC, that a new, fully-fledged treaty is now most unlikely to be achieved in Copenhagen. Essentially, in spite of the clear commitment by the parties at their 13th conference in Bali in 2007 to finalise a new treaty in 2009, we have run out of time to complete the task in Copenhagen. At best, we are now looking at the possibility of a politically-binding agreement rather than a legally-binding treaty. That is disappointing and flies in the face of the fact that we are all too quickly approaching a point where the impact of climate change will become significantly more challenging and more costly to address. We must never overlook the fact that, for some developing countries, every day lost in terms of mobilising an effective global response to climate change increases the threat to their very survival, as rising sea levels invade and engulf their land.
Responding to this set-back for the international process, the European Commission has said:
... the minimum outcome in Copenhagen must be a framework agreement on the essential building blocks of the new treaty and a deadline for completing it. The agreement must include ambitious emission reduction commitments by developed countries — including the United States, adequate action to curb emissions growth by developing countries, and a financial deal to assist developing countries both in mitigating their emissions and adapting to climate change. The EU is ready to do everything to complete this work as soon as possible.
My immediate reaction, in addition to my disappointment, is that the framework agreement will have to be convincing on the commitment of all parties and the timeframe for finalising the treaty will have to be short. I will refrain from further comment until I have had the opportunity to discuss the situation with EU colleagues at a specially convened meeting of the Environment Council on 23 November.
I do not want the outcome of COP 15 to be a total disappointment but we do not know what it will be — nobody knows that. I attended the first such conference in Berlin and would have hoped that by this stage we would be reaching a major agreement. It is disappointing that we have had to wait this long to do so. I can tell the members with certainly that the European Union commitment and determination on a new legally binding treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol is undiminished.
I doubt that we will have time for a further discussion of this nature before the start of the Copenhagen conference, but I would be happy to brief the committee bilaterally on the outcome of the specially convened Council meeting on 23 November. I thank the committee for inviting me to attend.
I wish to advise the Minister for his information that our representatives at the Copenhagen conference will be Deputies Cuffe, Coveney and McManus. Three representatives will attend it.
Before I invite colleagues to put questions, I advise the Minister that Deputy McManus and I were in Washington recently——
I read the report and it is very interesting.
I was concerned that, having regard to the hype surrounding the Copenhagen conference, there could be disappointment because of the US position. As the Minister is probably aware, the information we got is that it will be a struggle to get the support of 60 Senators for the Kerry-Boxer Bill. When we asked about the possibility of the US entering into a treaty, the information we were given was not very hopeful because in the US Senate, the support of 67 Senators is needed to achieve agreement to a treaty. I pass on that information to the Minister because it is essential that we enter these negotiations with the understanding that a very important aspect of them is the US position. It appears that the best that can be achieved at the Copenhagen conference is a politically-binding agreement with set targets, which would be very important.
The role of developing countries keeps coming up. It is important that we define exactly what constitutes a developing country. The idea of China being regarded as a developing country when it is funding US loans to the tune of $800 billion and of funding China towards achieving its targets seems, to say the least, to be ludicrous and ridiculous. A term other than developing country could be used to define it. We should state exactly which countries could be termed developing countries. I do not have a difficulty in categorising many poorer states as developing countries. In regard to the notion that the developed countries caused this problem, countries such as China and India would not be doing the business they are doing today were it not for the developed countries having been industrialised and having given them the opportunity of having a market place for their goods and so on. I do not have a problem in this respect in terms of genuine poor countries, but the idea that India and China would be included in the broad definition of a developing country seems ridiculous. The Minister might indicate if he or the Government would regard China as a developing country in the context of receiving financial aid towards achieving the targets that we are all anxious to achieve.
Does the Chairman wish me to answer that question?
Yes.
The Chairman is right to express a certain amount of pessimism about the US position. We all had great hopes, but it is clear from the conversations I have had that while President Obama may go to collect his Nobel peace prize he may not turn up in Copenhagen. It is understandable given the political realities. The Republicans take a very different view on climate change from most people. There is no support for the issue there. The Democrats seem to be split on it. The political reality is that one will not lose too many votes in the United States when it comes to climate change. That is simply the case.
It is mentioned in the committee's report, and I was encouraged by this, what the Federal states — for example, California — are doing. Therefore, we cannot give up the ghost on this issue. There are very strong environmental movements in the US, the Sierra Club and others, with which I have spoken and they are pushing forward this issue. The question that this committee has to answer is where we go from here if a treaty is not agreed at the Copenhagen conference. Are we to wait to get the deal done in Mexico next year? Is that where we will get the deal and are we to wait a year to get that? That may be the reality. I will not know the answer to that question until we see what emerges from Copenhagen.
With regard to what constitutes a developing country, there is the question of common but differentiated responsibilities. We know that historically the industrialised countries have contributed most to the problem. In fact, if one did a calculation, one could say we are carbon insolvent. We are responsible for 80% of the emissions. However, it is correct that the Chinese and others have caught up. It is interesting that the group of seven is called the G7 and China. China is regarded as an advanced developing country. That is an important distinction. It is now the biggest emitter, which the US gleefully announces at every opportunity. However, in per capita terms it is still way behind. Point 9 of the Conclusions from the Presidency of 29 October is interesting. It states:
Action by the European Union alone will not be enough. A comprehensive and ambitious agreement can only be reached if all parties contribute to the process. Other developed countries should also demonstrate their leadership and commit to ambitious emission reductions and step up their current pledges. Developing countries, especially the more advanced, should commit to appropriate mitigation action, reflecting their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. The European Council underlines the need for measuring, reporting and verification (MRV) of mitigation actions in all countries.
It is clear that the European Union is well aware of the distinctions and that there are advanced developing countries, with China being the most advanced and the biggest emitter. However, China is doing all it can to reduce emissions. We often hear about the coal fired power stations opening every five days or so but the Chinese are also making huge investments in alternatives. I am aware from my contacts with European Green Party colleagues, who have been invited to China, that there appears to be a huge effort on the part of the Chinese to ensure they can be on the wave of the new low carbon future, for example, they are trying to make great strides with the electric car.
That raises two further issues which we have not fully addressed in the context of climate change, population growth and the limited resources on the planet. Huge amounts of lithium and copper are required for the electric car, far more than for an ordinary car. There is no easy solution. Every time one opts for a solution one finds one is using resources which are, in many cases, very scarce. That is something we must examine as well.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement. It gives us grounds for reflection. I welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to brief us about Copenhagen. I presume the Council meeting in November will be in private. The Lisbon treaty provides for meetings to be held in public but that meeting will be in private.
That depends on the Chair. Most of it will probably be in private but we could have a public session as well to try to get the message out.
That would be worthwhile. We could give in to despair but that would not be terribly helpful. The European Union has a good track record but it is important that we assist progress and the United States, for example, in terms of coming to an agreement. We met many people in Washington and have a good grasp of the range of opinions there. One of the over-riding factors is that they are haunted by the experience with Kyoto and they do not intend to make the same mistake again, where a president simply could not deliver. It seems a tortuous process but, at the same time, climate change legislation has been passed by the House of Representatives, which is more than we have done. The Bill is working its way through the Senate and even though the view of Republicans is not at all helpful, there are individuals who have taken a brave approach. On the other side, people like Senator Kerry have tried to ensure there is some co-operation. We must understand that if we are to secure the deal.
I did not get the impression that the next point where we will clinch the deal will be Mexico in a year's time. The Senate process will have to be completed because that is how American democracy works. It will not be completed before Copenhagen but a political deal is expected to be done in Copenhagen. It will set down the principles and the legal detail can then follow through, not necessarily a year away but once the Senate, hopefully, passes the legislation. It has passed difficult legislation on health care. The inevitability of the argument builds up every day, so there is a lessening ability to say there is no such thing as climate change. It could be a question of months rather than years before we reach the end point of all this. That is the impression I got.
With regard to China, one of the points made quite often in the United States is that China is its biggest banker so it is obliged to have a very special relationship with that country. There was another interesting point. One of the reasons the United States believes China has changed in terms of confronting climate change is that many of its public representatives are scientists or engineers, unlike here or the US where they tend to be teachers and lawyers. Scientists and engineers do not argue with the scientific facts. Things are moving and we must acknowledge that when considering where we go from here.
The need to work out something with the developing world has become a big issue and has not been fully resolved. How does the Minister envisage it being resolved in terms of funding for developing countries? He said the Council must be clear about how much and how it will be done. However, the Irish Government must also be clear. As recently as yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach what this will mean for Ireland and particularly for our overseas aid. Will the overseas aid budget be ring-fenced and not raided to enable us to live up to our commitments on climate change? I am aware some overseas aid goes towards climate change purposes, but that is a different matter. We need to make that clarification before we start pointing the finger at anybody else.
My other question is about eco-system emissions and probably has a bearing on the biofuels obligation as well. I do not know anything about this area in terms of how it relates to Copenhagen. Is it something the Minister envisages being completed at Copenhagen or will it be part of an ongoing process? I welcome unequivocally the fact that the Taoiseach has made a commitment to go to Copenhagen. That is a good step forward.
The issue of afforestation has arisen frequently. We reviewed the directive and found that the EU had a different approach from ours to afforestation. It now appears to have opened up again in individual countries, and other countries such as the US have had a totally different approach from the EU by treating afforestation as a plus in terms of carbon. What is the situation for Ireland? Can we look forward to that being taken into account, particularly in view of the fact that in agriculture reducing carbon emissions is proving to be extremely difficult?
Deputy McManus has asked many of the questions I wanted to ask. I am glad to see that the Minister is welcoming this committee's initiative on producing the template for a climate change Bill, for which Deputy McManus was the rapporteur. Has the Minister made a commitment to introduce a climate change Bill and, if so, when?
It is listed.
It would be helpful to have draft legislation before the Copenhagen summit, if possible. Every time we discuss climate change in a global or European context it seems that we are commenting on the process, rather than outlining specific areas where Ireland plans to bring about change. I would be interested to hear the key issues on which the Minister wants to focus, on which Ireland has some credibility and which it will try to push on 23 November. Do they include forestry and funding mechanisms? I understand that the latter is the only area on which we do not have agreement within the EU. We more or less have agreement on everything else, but not on sharing the burden of financial commitments the EU will make to the developing world, including adaptation, mitigation and technology transfers. I would like to hear about the two or three issues the Minister will prioritise at these meetings in order to make a difference and contribute from an Irish perspective to push for change. This a signature area for a Green Minister and it should also be a signature area for Ireland, even though our credibility on climate change is not particularly good because of our performance. Hopefully that will change.
A mere detail.
A minor detail, yes.
The Deputy should not speak too early on that one either. We have to wait and see.
Absolutely, but I would like to see us push a strong Irish agenda, particularly at European Council meetings, where we have two or three clear priorities on which we are trying to get agreement. One of the areas in which we do have credibility is development aid contributions to independent projects. I would reiterate Deputy McManus's statement on development aid commitments. Any new financial commitments to developing countries for climate change adaptation or mitigation should be in addition to the commitments that have already been made in overseas aid.
We now seem to be accepting that the best we can get out of Copenhagen is a politically binding agreement. What timescale will the Irish Government be pushing for as regards the EU's position on that? There is a suggestion that we might be waiting 12 months for Mexico, which seems to be quite a long delay. Ireland needs to be a driver in this area, rather than just watching what is happening, which often happens at European Council meetings, particularly for smaller countries. I have had experience of this in the European Parliament where everybody comments, but very few players drive the agenda. There is a sense that Europe has done a lot on this and that everyone is in a cosy agreement, but I would like to see Ireland going out on a limb. We should pick two or three important issues, push them initially on 23 November and then carry them on to Copenhagen also.
I will start with Deputy Coveney and then come back to the points raised by Deputy McManus. I agree with Deputy Coveney that it is important to attempt to set an agenda in a number of areas. We have done that. Our interventions at the last Council were of great importance, particularly in the controversial area of EU finances. Frankly, we did not think we would get agreement on it. Members of the joint committee will be aware of the difficulties that emerged between the newer member states and what Donald Rumsfeld referred to as "old Europe". It surrounded the whole question of AAUs. Conclusion No. 18 states:
The European Council notes that during the current commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, a significant amount of unused assigned amount units is likely to accrue. This issue must be addressed in a non-discriminatory manner treating European and non-European countries equally and so the handling of the AAU surplus does not affect the environmental integrity of the Copenhagen agreement.
That was an important intervention because it looked as if we were going to go all day on that issue. We made a strong intervention saying, "If we don't do this folks, then we will not have a robust carbon market, particularly because of the accumulation of AAUs in Russia and the Ukraine".
Another area where we have been strong — it is clear from my contribution today — is on the question of ODA versus a mitigation fund. This comes to Deputy McManus's point. I have met the development agencies and discussed this point, that we have to keep that distinction. I fully agree. The phrase that is often used is "100% additionality", which is sometimes not very clear because it suggests somehow that we will have the same amount going for climate adaptation as we have for ODA. That is not what is meant by it. They are saying, however, that we have 100% separation and I fully agree with that. I have been trying to find out from our colleagues in overseas development aid how much money they calculate has been spent on climate mitigation and adaptation. It is always hard to calculate, but they reckon it is around €50 million, which is a sizeable amount of money. We have a good record on expenditure in this regard. People have said that we have developed a good reputation over the years as regards overseas development aid. I have seen that at first hand when visiting the United Nations. It would be a shame if we dented that by what some people would see as creative accounting. We must therefore make a major effort in that area as well.
Is the Minister speaking on behalf of the Cabinet in giving that view? I do not want to put him on the spot, but I want clarification.
The Deputy can put me on the spot if she likes. I am expressing my views here as the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Cabinet has not reached conclusions on these matters as yet — that is an important point — because we have not looked at the financing issue. We are trying to calculate what this will cost Ireland annually. My own calculation is that in terms of mitigation we could be talking about €180 million per annum by 2020. We need to be clear on that.
Would that be a totally separate budget line to the ODA budget?
It has to be totally separate, yes. That is important.
Where will it come from?
It will come from a number of sources, including Exchequer funding. We will have to look at all the options.
When the Minister says "by 2020" does he mean it is building up to 2020, so it will start small and build up?
Yes, that is it. It is the only way we can do it to get where Deputy McManus and I want to go.
Deputy McManus also raised another important point; that is the area of land use, land use change and forestry, LULUCF. Incidentally, she stated she did not understand it.
Enough to deal with it.
There are only 50 people in the world who fully understand it, according to an article I read recently. Deputy McManus should not feel too bad about that.
Is the Minister one of them?
I hope to be the 51st by the time I get to Copenhagen. We have been going through how one calculates the emissions from that sector. There is the calculation of what they call net-net versus gross-net, the baseline period, and so on. It is extremely complex. However, no doubt it is important from our perspective of what can be achieved here because the question of agriculture is hugely important. For us, for the Swedes, the Norwegians and all the Scandinavian countries, this is very important. I do not under estimate how important the question of soil carbon and all of that area is for this country.
On the question of the United States, there will be a bilateral meeting on Tuesday between the US and China and I hope something positive can emerge from that. I saw Senator Kerry in Poznan and I am aware of his abiding interest in this subject. There are individuals in the United States who want to push this agenda forward.
I say to Deputy McManus that I am not lapsing into despair. I was at COP 1 in Berlin. I felt then that we could have made progress. After COP 1, we thought that after the Rio conference we would get some place and we did not. Let us face the fact that there has been a series of disappointments. The science dates back to when Jim Hansen went before the US Senate in the late 1980s. We have missed opportunity after opportunity. That is not to say we will just give up. We will not. We will keep going until we get a resolution.
It is encouraging that the ideas pooh-poohed by many are now mainstream. The climate change sceptics are now the ones out on a limb and those of us who believe that climate change is caused by human induced emissions are the ones who are talking sense. That is the leap, the considerable progress that we have seen.
We will get that agreement. At Copenhagen, we will have the political agreement and a timeframe. There is no question about it. The question then is, when will we have the treaty. I cannot answer that question here today. I do not know.
I am conscious that the Minister has another engagement. Is there anybody else who wishes to put a question to him?
I was heartened as well. We should not underestimate the progress made in the US. It was a big achievement to get the Bill passed in the House of Representatives. The impression we got from listening to Senators Kerry and Boxer was that to get to the 60 votes required they were working extremely hard, and I think they will get there. It is the next leap, to 67, that is the difficulty. For that reason, we should welcome and support the efforts being made in the United States by these key people. They certainly deserve our support and encouragement. There are enough people around in the United States who will help us cross the line. Whatever we can achieve in Copenhagen, they will achieve a political agreement on targets. That is an important step forward, as the Minister will be well aware, compared to Bali where there was a great deal of reluctance on the part of the US to get engaged at all in the negotiations. There is great progress.
There is one matter I wish to raise before the Minister leaves. On the forest carbon offsets, this country needs to encourage the agricultural industry to plant more trees. On the carbon saved as a result of sequestration, does the Minister foresee that there would be a reward for those who provide this benefit to this country? It is important that a message go out from the Minister and this committee that we will strive to see that such will be the case because we are falling way behind in planting forests. Let us be realistic. The agriculture industry, like most other industries, from time to time comes under a great deal of stress and strain, and any encouragement we can give in terms of plantation should be done publicly. I hope the Minister will see his way to making that clear to everybody.
I agree. I forgot to answer Deputy Coveney's question too. I note reference in the committee's document to this. I hope to publish that legislation in the new year and I hope to publish the scoping document on it before Copenhagen. I noted that the committee's document made reference to RMUs.
No doubt Ireland's forest cover is low, at 10%. We have an objective of approximately 17%, which is where we ought to be heading. Just as I answered Deputy McManus, we need to be careful in how we calculate that and exactly what the emission reduction is. Where does one plant? On what sort of soil does one plant? If one plants on bogs, one could cause a net emission. When does one plant? When does one harvest? These are all the matters at which one must look. Once one harvests, and depending on when one harvests, that is regarded in some quarters as an emission.
On the Government's climate change strategy, the figure of 15,000 hectares a year of afforestation is spoken of. In the new programme for Government, it is 10,000 hectares and, in reality, it is 6,000 hectares. This is not to blame the Minister personally for it. If we are serious about forestry, we have a significant amount of work to do to get people planting again. The trend has been moving in the opposite direction, in terms of cutting premia, and so on. For what it is worth, I appeal to the Minister to look at that issue.
That is why it was addressed in the programme for Government. Deputy Coveney is quite correct, it is a matter for another Department, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The trend has been in the wrong direction, but we hope now that we have that commitment in the programme for Government that we can move in the other direction. It is important. However, it is also important that we get it absolutely right. There is no point in taking on measures if they do not reduce carbon. There must be a net reduction in carbon as a consequence. Otherwise it is fairly useless.
On a brief footnote, I am disappointed in the Minister's reply on climate change law. The scoping document to which he referred is something to which he had already committed before this committee published its report. An enormous amount of work went into the report. It is not just another report. It provides the heads of a Bill.
It does not.
It is, at least, an explanatory memorandum.
It is an explanatory memorandum.
If the Minister was serious about getting all-party support and working together to show the people that this is above politics and beyond politics, I would have thought he would have sent that explanatory memorandum — whichever he wishes to call it, I have no difficulty with terminology — to the Attorney General and have been able to produce at the very least full heads of a Bill before the Minister went to Copenhagen. Other countries have gone way beyond us in terms of legislation, but even countries like the US are further down the road than we, in Ireland, are.
We are able to state that we are doing great things. The great things are not happening and will not happen unless we get our legislation right. There must be a statutory framework. I am very disappointed. It is as if we had done nothing.
That is not true.
Apart from containing nice words, this is nothing more than a scoping document. We have moved way beyond a scoping document.
I have previously acknowledged the work done by this committee. One of my first actions as a Minister was to ensure that the committee was established. I welcome the work that has been done by the committee on a cross-party basis. I want to ensure that the legislation is comprehensive.
It is not true to state that the US is ahead of Ireland. We have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. I recognise that there are individuals in the United States who are doing good work. However, it is incorrect to state that Ireland is behind the US.
In respect of legislation——
The legislation will enshrine many aspects which are already in existence. When I read the committee's report and the explanatory memorandum relating thereto, I thought it was fine and was of the view that we could achieve what was set out in it. However, the Deputy understands the process relating to legislation and it aware that it is necessary to obtain buy-in from other Departments. I guarantee members that this legislation will be forthcoming. Questions do not arise in that regard because we have a commitment and the legislation has been promised. There is no getting away from that fact.
The fact that it is on the list of promised legislation does not inspire confidence.
The legislation, which will be comprehensive, will be introduced. It will take into account many of the suggestions made by the committee. I cannot pull it magically from a hat. However, I can consider the extremely good recommendations made by the committee and others and ensure that they become part of the legislation. I would be happy to return to discuss these matters with the committee when the heads of the Bill are published. I will try to ensure that this happens as soon as possible. I have no difficulty coming before the committee again.
That would be great. If the Minister could produce the heads prior to the Copenhagen conference, it would make a clear statement to the effect that, regardless of who is in government, when Ireland makes commitments, it lives up to them. It is extremely important that we should make such a statement. However, we will not be in a position to do so unless we have made advances with regard to the legislation.
I hope that by the Friday before I leave for Copenhagen, the carbon levy will have been introduced in the budget. There are few enough countries that have stepped up to the mark by putting a price on carbon. The latter is absolutely essential if we are to tackle climate change. Let us be proud of that particular achievement.
We can do more than that.
From the point of view of seeking all-party consensus, people must realise that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government cannot oversee what is being done in the Departments of Transport and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and elsewhere. The committee suggested in its report that the Department of the Taoiseach should oversee these various matters because that is the only way progress will ever be achieved.
No one wants Oireachtas committees to become talking shops and there is plenty of other work in which members could be engaged. We like to think that if we go to the trouble of producing well researched reports, we will receive support and encouragement from the Government. This is an all-party committee and we have been fortunate that our deliberations have never broken down as a result of party policy implications. If the committee is to continue its work, it is important for members to believe they have a real role to play in developing legislation. We received absolutely no encouragement in respect of the draft offshore renewable energy development Bill we produced.
The committee has, on an all-party basis, put forward draft versions of two items of legislation. It also produced a report on electrics cars and scrutinised the EU Commission's proposals, many of which were taken on board. The message must go out that if the Government wants committees to operate on a positive basis, it should provide them with the encouragement and see to it that their work is recognised. All of the intelligence in this country does not reside in Government Buildings.
Many strands of the committee's work are progressing. The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has overseen significant developments in the area of electric vehicles and in the context of energy being brought ashore in County Mayo on an experimental basis. In addition, a huge amount of work has been done in the preparation of legislation. There is a dramatic difference between the heads of a Bill or the explanatory memorandum relating thereto produced by the committee and the type of robust legislation that can be brought through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
As the Minister pointed out, a carbon levy will be introduced this year. Several members indicated support for that in the past, but their enthusiasm appears to have diminished in recent times. I am of the view, however, that the work being done by the committee is feeding into the process of government. As a member of a party in government, I believe that work is feeding into the achievements that are being made.
I do not wish to labour the point. However, the Government was able to magically produce the NAMA legislation. An extremely important international conference is due to be held in Copenhagen in the coming weeks and it would be an extremely important statement of our intent if we were in a position to produce the heads of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the Minister is discussing publishing the heads of a Bill. If they can be produced before he and the Taoiseach leave for Copenhagen, that would be a welcome development.
On that positive note, I will bring our proceedings to a close. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. I wish him well with the negotiations that will take place in Copenhagen and we look forward to co-operating with him in the future.
The NAMA in which I am interested now is that which relates to a nationally appropriate mitigation action. I am going to bring the latter to Copenhagen with me.