Members are aware that our quarterly briefings with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, serve as an important update on EU matters and part of the EU scrutiny process, which forms part of the committee's workload. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. His ongoing engagement with us prior to the quarterly meetings of the EU Council of Environment Ministers is appreciated. I propose that following the Minister's presentation, we will have a questions and answers session.
Environment Council Meeting: Discussion with Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
We were blinded by white smoke while sitting outside. I congratulate the Chairman and Deputy Grealish on assuming their new positions and I wish them well.
I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the agenda for next Tuesday's EU Environment Council meeting in Brussels, which will be the first Environment Council of the German Presidency. There are eight substantive items on the agenda. One is the Council's contributions to the spring European Council, three relate to climate change, two relate to genetically modified organisms and two relate to thematic strategies arising out of the sixth EU environment action programme, one on soil and one on pesticides.
A key element of the first Environment Council of the year is its contribution to the spring European Council, which reviews progress on the Lisbon Agenda on the basis of the contributions of the sectoral councils. This year's environment contribution will focus on three key themes, namely, the environment, innovation and employment, an integrated climate change and energy strategy, and the environmental dimension of better regulation.
On environment, innovation and employment, the Council will underline the importance of promoting eco-innovations with a view to making Europe the front runner in eco-innovation and the most energy and resource efficient area of the world. We will welcome the Commission's intention to report on the environmental technology action plan. We look forward to the presentation later this year of a sustainable consumption and production action plan. These are essential elements in achieving the ambitions of the Lisbon strategy and the EU's sustainable development strategy.
We will underline the importance of mutually supportive EU climate change and energy strategies and we will adopt conclusions in support of energy measures that will contribute to meeting our climate change objectives. The finer details of those conclusions will be drafted following the meeting of Energy Ministers this week.
We will acknowledge the contribution of better regulation to the promotion of a high level of protection and improvement in the quality of the environment. We will highlight the importance of impact assessments in the field of the environment and their contribution to decision making for sustainable development in all relevant policy areas. In particular, we will encourage member states and the Commission to strengthen enforcement efforts with the support of the EU network for the implementation and enforcement of environmental law, IMPEL. In that context, we would urge greater European participation in IMPEL projects and an EU minimum level of enforcement initiatives from the Commission to stimulate better enforcement of legislation generally. We would also urge the Commission to do what it can to facilitate IMPEL projects through funding or back-up support. This would allow these efforts, which are voluntary on the part of member states, to continue and grow.
We have three climate change-related items on the agenda. We hope at Council to adopt conclusions on EU objectives for the further development of an international climate regime beyond 2012. Elements of those conclusions will go forward to the spring European Council. The objectives of a post-Kyoto Protocol regime are those necessary to meet our goal of preventing an increase in global temperature greater than 2° Celsius. The Presidency proposes a package of measures for adoption by Council on 2020 greenhouse gas emissions targets. This includes support for an international agreement whereby developed countries as a whole should reduce their emissions to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. It is also proposed that the European Union will indicate a willingness to reduce its emissions by 30% by 2020, compared with 1990 levels, as part of such an international agreement, conditional on other developed countries agreeing to comparable targets and other advanced developing countries making appropriate efforts. Notwithstanding the international effort to find agreement on a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, the climate change proposals to be considered by the Council include a unilateral target by the European Union to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, compared with 1990 levels. This target has been proposed by the Commission as an important step that will, inter alia, demonstrate the European Union’s long-term commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and build confidence in the future of the EU emissions trading scheme. The measures in the proposed energy policy for Europe will be fundamental to achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets ultimately agreed for 2020.
At Council next week I intend to support the ambitiousness of the Presidency text because it is important to send a clear signal to the international community on the scale of effort required by developed countries in the post-Kyoto Protocol period if the climate system is to be stabilised. I hope this move will energise the international negotiations and stimulate proposals from other countries, although some of the indications given in recent days do not offer many grounds for optimism. While the Presidency text is ambitious, there is a good chance it will be accepted by Council. Judging from my informal discussions with other EU environment Ministers during the Paris conference on global ecology earlier this month, the process is clearly gathering momentum. However, all developed countries must be brought on board because while Europe can play a leadership role, with only 14% of world emissions, it cannot solve the problem on its own. As Ireland produces only 0.167% of global emissions, we certainly cannot solve the problem alone but can take on our moral obligations.
One of the most interesting contributions at the conference was made by Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, who emphasised the importance of the flexible mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol. These enable the richer countries of the world to be ambitious in their own targets, while at the same time giving poorer countries the means to develop their economies with low-carbon technology. The committee is aware that I share Mr. de Boer's opinion and reject some of the extraordinary arguments made in this country about the flexible mechanisms.
We will hold a policy debate on the proposal for a directive providing for the inclusion of aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed directive amends the existing emissions trading directive to bring aviation activities within its scope. This proposal is at an early stage of consideration but discussions at official level have highlighted a number of issues in need of further clarification, including the relationship with aircraft operators from third countries, regional issues, national specificities and the transferability of aviation allowances. We are not yet at the stage where final positions will be taken and, to steer the discussion, will address a number of questions raised by the Presidency. The views of Ministers at Council will further inform the detailed negotiations on the proposal.
We will hold a policy debate on the communication from the Commission on the results of the review of the Community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from cars. This proposal will make a real contribution to helping Europe meet its CO2 reduction targets and shows yet again that it is setting the pace on the climate change agenda. I wrote to Commissioner Dimas earlier this week to congratulate him on his proposals to limit CO2 emissions from vehicles. It stands to the Commissioner's credit that he resisted strong pressure from the car industry.
Two matters on the agenda pertain to genetically modified organisms, namely, a proposal for a Council decision to overturn a national ban in Hungary on the use and sale of an approved genetically modified maize labelled MON 810 and a proposal to approve as a new product a carnation genetically modified for flower colour. The committee may recall that similar proposals on overturning national bans were put by the Commission to the Council in 2005 and 2006. On each previous occasion the Council, on the basis of a vote on the proposals and acting by a qualified majority, opposed the Commission's proposals, with the result that the national bans remained in force. I voted against overturning the national bans on those occasions based on considerations of subsidiarity and because the products approved under previous regulatory arrangements were in any case due to be reviewed from 2006. Furthermore, the Council has twice declined to overturn the Austrian national ban on MON 810. For these reasons, I have indicated that I will vote against the Commission proposal to overturn the Hungarian national ban and have spoken with my Hungarian counterpart to indicate my support.
The committee may be interested to know that the dynamics of the voting system have changed somewhat since the accession of the two new member states on 1 January. We cannot assume the result will mirror the vote on the Austrian ban on the same product. One of the new accession states has indicated that it will not vote against the Commission proposal, while two others, one of which voted with the Commission on overturning the Austrian ban, have reserved their position. As matters stand, both member states will have to vote against the Commission proposal if a blocking qualified majority is to be secured and the proposal defeated. The outcome, therefore, hangs in the balance.
The other proposal concerns the placing on the market of a new product, the so-called Moonlite carnation, which is genetically modified for flower colour. I should make it clear that the proposal covers import, distribution and retailing only and does not include cultivation or its use as food or feed. The scientific advice available from the European Food Safety Authority, EFTA, is that the product is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health or the environment in the context of its proposed use. The Irish competent authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, concurs with EFTA's opinion. Nonetheless, I propose to take the same view on this product as I have on all new products coming before the Council and to abstain on the proposal. In doing so, I am having regard both to the scientific advice available to me and considerations of subsidiarity in that other member states continue to raise objections to the proposal.
We will discuss at Council the last two of the seven thematic strategies arising from the European Union's sixth environment action programme concerning soil and pesticides, respectively. Last autumn the Commission published a package of proposals pertaining to soil protection. Although there are soil protection provisions in the body of Community legislation, there is no specific legislation dealing with the matter. Air, water and soil are the three environmental media and, given that EU legislation is comprehensive on air and water, it is appropriate that we look to protecting soil as comprehensively as possible. The package aims to fill this gap and has the objective of establishing a common strategy for the protection and sustainable use of soils, based on the principles of integration of soil concerns into other policies, preservation of soil functions within the context of sustainable use, prevention of threats to soil and mitigation of their effects and the restoration of degraded soils. The proposals have implications across a range of sectors and work is under way on the consideration of the package. We will hold a policy debate at Council on soil protection based on the thematic strategy for soil protection and the proposal for a directive establishing a framework for the protection of soils. I agree that it is appropriate to have an EU-wide initiative but, given the diverse nature and condition of soils in member states, policies need to be flexible and adaptable.
We will adopt the conclusions of the thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. The associated framework directive is being progressed through the Agriculture Council. The lead agency in Ireland is the pesticides control service of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
At next week's Environment Council we will adopt conclusions to broadly welcome the thematic strategy. We will note the importance of proper training, compliance with the principles of good plant protection and the use of tested application equipment in reducing the risks to humans, animals and the environment of the improper use of plant protection products. We will emphasise the importance of coherence between the water framework directive and the proposed legal framework for the sustainable use of pesticides to reduce the risks from pesticides to the aquatic environment.
We will have other business, with five items on the list thus far. This is considerably less than at recent Councils. Papers are filtering through on them this week, mainly progress and information reports.
We will receive information from the Commission and the Presidency on a symposium being held in Berlin this week on adaptation to climate change. We will hear from the Presidency about preparations for the ninth meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity which will be held in Bonn in 2008. The German Presidency is taking a proactive approach to the preparations and working with the incoming Portuguese and Slovenian Presidencies on preparing an EU position.
We will hear about a recommendation for a Council decision authorising the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the Community on aspects of commercial whaling at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission in May. Ireland supports the proposal for a co-ordinated EU approach at meetings of the International Whaling Commission, of which Ireland has been a member since 1985. It has participated and voted in a pro-conservation way at all annual meetings since. In 1997 it tabled its own compromise proposal in an effort to reduce tensions within the international commission. Unfortunately, neither the pro-whaling nor the anti-whaling nations were willing to work with the proposal. As this is another business item on the agenda, I am not sure how much discussion we will have on it. It is interesting to note, however, that the Irish proposal which did not manage to get full support from both sides in 1997, is now commonly spoken of as the way forward in the commission. We all know from what we read in the newspapers that there is a concerted effort being made, particularly by the Japanese, to overturn policies in this area.
The Portuguese delegation has requested an opportunity to update Council on its plans for an informal Council in September on the theme of business and biodiversity. The Czech Republic will provide information on the first conference of the parties to the framework convention on the protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians held in Ukraine last December.
That is an outline of the Council agenda for its meeting on 20 February. I thank the committee for the invitation to share this information with it.
I congratulate the Chairman on his election and wish him well.
The issue of climate change is very important. It is the biggest issue facing not just the country, but the world. I note in the Minister's address significant references to changes that may take place in Europe. I speak in the absence of a report that has been leaked to the press, the EPA report on climate change. I believe it states emissions, particularly in the transport sector, are out of control in this country. I do not see anything in the Minister's proposals that will significantly alter this. There is not very much in Government policy that will change it either. How does the Minister intend to deal with emissions in the transport sector? I accept we are looking at issues relating to biofuel, vehicle registration tax, etc. but we are not going far enough. Has the Minister considered, for example, the abolition of car tax, with an extra cost placed on fuels? In that way, for those who use the roads, the more they drive, the more they would pay. There is an argument that this could be environmentally friendly, as those who drive a vehicle would pay more than those who do not, thus providing an incentive not to drive.
Another important issue is that of rail transport, particularly intercity express rail commuter services. As the country develops, we need new rail-linked transport corridors. I understand the volume of goods transferred by HGV is growing all the time but the freight rail service has practically been abandoned. Does the Minister not think his policy could be much more proactive? He should push his policy nationally and internationally that we should use the rail system to transport heavy goods wherever possible. The current process, where everybody wants to drive on the road, is unacceptable. It is neither environmentally friendly nor efficient.
The Carbon Fund Bill is before the Houses. We do not disagree with the principle of carbon credits and the money being invested internationally will go to very good projects, but does the Minister think it is time to reconsider this view? The approximate figure of €250 million mentioned in the Bill could be used locally for research and development or to sponsor and support industries and employment that would help reduce the effects of climate change.
The Deputy's contribution was interesting and raised some challenging issues. I agree that transport is probably the most challenging. I am not sure I would agree with the Deputy that we should put in place what would, in effect, be a congestion charge for using one's car. The Deputy was referring to all forms of road transport. We have a peculiar pattern and distribution of population settlements in Ireland, as the Deputy knows. In the fullness of time the matter will be considered and if the Deputy has some specific ideas that can be fleshed out, I will look at them but I do not believe this is the way to go.
I agree that the use of biofuels can be very significant. There is a certain irony, as Ireland had a certain volume of ethanol, produced on the Cooley Peninsula, for example, by Ceimicí Teo. It was produced in 1973 and used in Irish petroleum products. It was abandoned when we joined the European Union, as it was regarded as an anti-competitive practice. It is ironic that, 30 years after taking that decision, the European Union is now very much in favour of its production.
The transport industry is facing specific obligations, not only relating to public transport. Fleet operators and private transport services will also be affected. In the 2006 budget there was significant excise relief for biofuels, amounting to over €200 million. I support the Deputy's general thesis about changing the nature of the vehicle registration tax and motor taxation system, to which I have already committed. A consultation process has just been completed in that regard and the idea is that we will move to a VRT and motor registration system that will reflect the level of emissions. We have reduced the vehicle registration tax on hybrid, electric and flexible-fuel vehicles. We have also introduced a CO2 emissions labelling system for all new cars which will have an impact because most people have become very conscious of this matter.
I would like to see more ambition in the movement of public service vehicles to using biofuels but it is not as simple as some of us may have thought, myself included. One cannot just go and buy buses that use biofuels but I have already made it clear that we should be more ambitious.
The Deputy is correct about the investment we have made in public transport. That is the reason the Government has invested significant amounts of money in public transport, not just roads. Transport 21 is the biggest and most ambitious investment programme ever for public transport. The last plan increased passenger capacity on the DART by 100% and we have streamlined many facilities. Over €3 billion was spent in the period up to 2006 and significantly more will be spent in the years ahead.
The Deputy mentioned the general issue of charging per mile. It looks like a congestion charge but it is not. One can call it a pseudo congestion charge for want of a better description. One would need to cost it and adjudicate its impacts. I am not being critical. We must think laterally because we have an over-emphasis on the car.
I was fascinated by the debate in the Paris conference on the clean development mechanism and carbon trading, just after the UN report was published. It was so diametrically opposite on this issue to the critics in Ireland. I accept that Deputy O'Dowd has always supported the view that this is a good mechanism. I mentioned, for example, that Yvo de Boer made the point that the EMT allowed developed countries to be ambitious while supporting the developing world. I think what Deputy O'Dowd has in mind is the joint implementation mechanism where one can carve a part of, or even buy, carbon credits and use them as a way of encouraging technology development in Ireland.
We must do that.
I agree with Deputy O'Dowd. The national development programme has allocated €93 million for research. We must also look at evolving technologies. We have not looked at how we can keep energy businesses and perhaps use sequestration, although that does not win everybody's favour, or use clean coal technologies. Much new technology is developing and I agree with Deputy O'Dowd that a portion of the funding must be put into that area.
I would be interested to hear Deputy O'Dowd's views on joint implementation. We could go out into the international market, buy 500,000 credits and assign them to Irish companies, particularly evolving companies that have alternative and clean technologies.
That is where we must go.
The Deputy and I are ad idem on this matter.
The Government is too laid back regarding this issue. It is not doing enough. We must tackle the transport problem. The Minister did not refer in his reply to my question regarding heavy goods vehicles using our roads. We must change the way we think, drive and transport goods. We must have a radical reappraisal of our transport habits, led by the Government and even by this House. We should examine the possibility of banning cars from the precincts of Leinster House. We should come here by public transport. Obviously Members will have to drive to the approaches of Dublin. For many years I have been looking for park-and-ride facilities on the north side of the city. All drivers must come into the city. The Government must address that issue.
The Minister has not addressed the issue of bus lanes. Why do we not have a progressive car policy whereby a car which is full can be driven in a bus lane? That would encourage people to share car journeys. The Government's policy is not sufficiently dynamic or driven. Unless we dramatically change the way we do things — nothing the Government is doing indicates a dynamic for change — we will fail on climate change.
The Minister's Department estimates that 40% of car taxation is not collected annually. As many as 10% of people do not pay car tax. Transferring that tax to the excise duty on fuel would ensure that those who drive most would pay most while those who drive little would pay little. Many countries, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, are considering a system of pay-as-you-go for the use of motorways. The National Roads Authority has a policy which tolls some locations and not others. Why should everyone who uses motorways not pay for that privilege? The technology is available to charge motorists more if they drive more. We are not tackling this issue unless we reverse our policy on taxation and incentives to encourage people out of cars and onto public transport. Government policy in this area has been a failure.
Deputy O'Dowd is entitled to his views. However, his point that the more one drives the more one pays needs to be thought through. We have a peculiarly Irish settlement pattern with people living in relatively remote locations. We do not have a high density of development in our towns. We have mixed views on greater urban population density; development can go either up or out. Urban sprawl is an issue. That is why the national development plan is focused on giving teeth and funding to the national spatial strategy. I am not sure if a Deputy from Galway would welcome the idea that people living in Spiddal or in some remote area should pay a toll every time they drive to work or into Galway.
The toll would be on motorways only.
I misunderstood the Deputy. We have had interesting debates on tolls. There have been interesting innovations in some places. In Singapore, for example, when congestion builds up to a certain point in particular parts of the city a congestion charge is applied in those areas to discourage cars from entering them. We are a long way from that. However, I do not think such congestion has anything to do with climate change. It results from other issues.
I disagree that Ireland is not doing enough. Under the burden sharing arrangements we must meet a certain target. When we meet that target we will reduce our domestic emissions by 11 million tonnes, including the 3 million tonnes under the ETS. We are committed to buying carbon credits under the mechanism, which is widely recognised. Yvo de Boer's contribution in Paris was very interesting on this issue. The Commission has approved the idea of buying carbon credits and it is included in the national allocation plan of almost every member state. I am grateful for Deputy O'Dowd's support for my efforts to focus the use of that mechanism. I agree with what he says on this matter. The €40 million the Government has spent, in two separate tranches of €20 million agreed by the Dáil, will be addressed to virtuous products in developing countries. This is the way to go. I believe the Council will further endorse the use of the mechanism.
What about banning cars from Leinster House, including ministerial cars. Does the Minister not think we should set an example? As a Parliament, should we not start with ourselves?
I have no strong view on that matter. If the joint committee wishes to put a proposal to the CPP I would be interested in hearing the discussion on it. If we are to have cars in Leinster House we should not park them on Leinster Lawn. My views on that matter are very strong.
We should be forced to come here by public transport or walk, if we have the network to do so. We must set an example.
Deputy O'Dowd makes a very good point.
We must change our ways. We should not drive to work if we can avoid it. That is how it must be.
There has been a significant improvement in public transport in this area. In Greystones, where I grew up, £800,000 was spent on a park and ride facility which is seriously underused.
That should be changed.
Perhaps the Dublin Transportation Office should have been more choosy when it was deciding where to invest.
I congratulate you, Chairman, on your election and wish you well in your post. I also welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting.
I take issue with this attempt to play down both Europe's contribution to the problem of global warming and our own country's contribution to it. The Minister says Europe is responsible for only 14% of world emissions of CO2, but it has only 6% or 7% of the world's population. Let us put these figures in perspective. The Minister has stated Ireland accounts for 0.6% of world emissions. We also have the second highest level of emissions per head of population, second only to the United States. To play down the extent of either Ireland's or Europe's contribution to the problem is to understate the seriousness of the problem and, more importantly, undermine the degree to which people need to understand not only the scale of the problem but also the response required.
I wish to focus on the proposals before the Council meeting, one of the most important Environment Council meetings the Minister will attend. As I understand it, the intention is that the Council will adopt conclusions on EU objectives on climate change which will be signed off at the spring summit. The Government will participate in major decisions in its final weeks. I wish to clearly understand what exactly it — the Minister in particular — will commit us to at the Council meeting. Do I understand correctly that it is intended at this Council meeting that the Environment Council will agree to a 20% reduction in emissions over 1990 levels by 2020? I presume at this stage the Minister is in a position to state what he expects will be the outcome of the Council meeting.
The Deputy is right. This is a tipping point in the debate. Regarding the figure of 14% for Europe, a point being made throughout Europe is that it can show leadership but that it cannot deal with the problem universally. China and India are big players. By 2050 their emissions will exceed those of the developed world. The United States contributes more than 25%. Other players must carry their share of the burden. It is pointless to deny this.
The Commission proposes that, as a unilateral indication of intent, Europe will commit to a 20% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. This proposal will come before the Council next week. The Council will then make a recommendation to the spring summit. I do not know whether the 20% proposal will be supported universally. A number of countries state one thing publicly and another privately. They are worried about the impact this would have in Europe.
We should be ambitious. I will vote in favour of the 20% proposal. Obviously, burden sharing will be the subject matter of negotiation and discussion. The Commission will propose that if we are to keep global warming levels within the 2° target, we must have an even higher target. The Council will accept this. The Commission has suggested a 30% reduction in emissions with burden sharing.
I know the 30% reduction is dependent on a global play-out. Let us stick to the European Union's unilateral commitment to a 20% reduction. Obviously, if the 30% target is agreed, the figure of 20% will increase. Am I correct that the Minister will support the 20% proposal but that he is not sure if that is what will be agreed, although it is what he expects will be agreed?
That is what I hope will be the result. Virtually all official contributions by Ministers in Paris and previously in Nairobi were in favour of the 20% proposal. However, I detected some doubts in a couple of contributions. I will give an example. An interesting and informal discussion took place in Nairobi around the issue of carbon trading in real terms, not hot air, as arises in the case of Belarus. Countries that had previously been firm against moving in that direction were less so on that occasion. That would be an improper use of the mechanism, as it would not save anything.
If the 20% proposal is accepted — obviously that is what the Minister is hoping for — how will it translate for Ireland? The EU level currently stands at 7%.
It is 8%.
Which translated to +13% for Ireland.
Correct.
What informal consideration has been given to this issue? I presume the Minister has some sense of what an EU reduction of 20% will mean for Ireland.
It will depend on the burden sharing arrangements agreed. The Deputy is correct that previously Ireland was required to achieve a figure of 13% above the 1990 figure, which figure was established as part of the burden sharing mechanism. Ireland's economy has grown by 150% since 1990. For this reason the figure for emissions is set at +23%. The burden sharing negotiations have not even begun for the good reason that the 20% proposal has not been signed up to. I suspect that what will happen next week is that the proposal will be firmed up and submitted to the spring summit which will, in the context of its general debate, adopt it and instruct a commencement of burden sharing.
I want to know where we will end up. Ministers attending Council meetings generally know what it is they are buying into and to what that will translate in terms of domestic obligations. I do not accept the Minister will attend the European Council and blindly sign up to a 20% European Union reduction in emissions by 2020. I appreciate the burden sharing arrangements will not be negotiated until after agreement has been reached on the target. However, I do not accept that the Minister does not have some sense of what a 20% reduction in emissions would mean for Ireland. He should share his views in that regard with the joint committee. Also, how would the figure of 20% be reached in terms of the proportions to be achieved by carbon reduction, ETS and carbon purchases?
As Europe has not signed up for 20% reduction, it would be premature even to start burden-sharing discussions. The burden-sharing discussion this time will be considerably different from last time as the EU has expanded significantly. The new member states have less developed economies, which will have an impact. It would be futile to start to speculate at this stage.
I do not ask the Minister to speculate. To cut to the chase, I do not accept that the discussions which have been taking place in advance of the Council meeting, on which I am sure the Minister is very much up to speed, have been proceeding blindly on the basis of a 20% reduction without some analysis, understanding and informal discussion among member states' representatives. The Minister has told the committee that he will attend the Council meeting tomorrow and put up his hand to vote in favour of a 20% reduction. While he will have my support in doing so, I do not believe he has a sense of where it will leave our domestic obligations for 2020. No Minister would go to a Council meeting and sign up to a European Union commitment without knowing how it will translate domestically. What will an EU commitment to a 20% reduction mean approximately? I am not asking a trick question or seeking to hold the Minister to an exact figure. He will probably not be in office to be held to the figure anyway.
I am not sure how many of us will be around by 2020.
I want to know what it means in the domestic context.
The first thing to do is establish from where the 20% figure comes. I am very pleased Deputy Gilmore accepts it given that it is the minimum Europe will do. The figure is established by working back from the current climate figures plus 2%.
I know where it comes from.
If the figure is adopted, we will advance to burden-sharing discussions. There have been no discussions on burden sharing whatsoever. What we are talking about will remain hypothetical until we get agreement on the 20% figure, which is likely. We will then commence discussions on burden sharing. There is, therefore, no way of saying what those figures will mean.
I do not wish to mislead the committee. While burden sharing is likely to have a very different dynamic this time, mathematical projections based on proportionality suggest we will revert to a position close to the 1990 figures. However, I would be misleading the committee if I were to assert that will be the position in 2020, irrespective of who is in office then. It is impossible to say until we get into the burden-sharing discussion. The Deputy, however, asked for a ballpark figure.
If an 8% reduction translates as a 13% increase, a 20% reduction will come in at the level of the 1990 figures.
It will be close. Perhaps it will be plus 1%. I do not want to mislead the Deputy as the landscape has changed since the last negotiations on burden sharing.
Is the Minister suggesting we will not get as generous a deal?
The first 80% of the task is always quite easy, the next 10% challenging and the last 10% more challenging still. I do not know how the burden-sharing arrangements will look. The nature of Irish industry has changed significantly since 1990, but more importantly there are more member states.
Will the Minister support the proposal to include aviation in the ETS?
Yes. The principle of excluding aviation, which probably has an even greater environmental impact than the emissions tonnage suggests, was a mistake from the outset.
Is that a shift?
No. As Deputy Cuffe continues to remind me, my task as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is to put forward an environmental agenda, which I am doing.
The Minister's comments on the aviation industry some months ago were at variance with his current suggestion.
That is completely untrue. I have always said I felt the situation with aviation was anomalous.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is supporting the proposal. How will it work out given the greater difficulty of achieving a reduction in aviation as fleet longevity tends to be approximately 30 years? What assessment has been made of what the proposal will mean for air fares?
There is a series of issues to be discussed before that. One must consider aircraft which originate in third countries and move into Europe. Approximately 3% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from aviation according to experts, the majority of which derives from international flights. The question of how to apportion the burden will be part of the debate. I do not know what Deputy Cuffe meant. I have always stated my belief that the exclusion of aviation was a mistake. Another area in which a significant mistake was made involved shipping transport which is a heavy polluter and uses heavy fuels. Global emissions from international aviation have increased very dramatically since 1990 and are approximately 87% greater now. They are forecast to double between now and 2020, which is why the measure must be introduced.
The increase in ticket costs is likely to be very modest. There has been debate on the matter in the UK. Assuming airlines pass on the full cost, the price of a return flight within the EU would rise by €1.80 according to lower estimates or €9 according to the higher ones. The cost of long-haul trips would increase by more depending on journey length.
There is an additional complication, in which context there has been some unfair criticism of an Irish airline. The more modern the fleet, the more cost-effective it is and the less it pollutes per passenger mile. According to very preliminary estimates, the increase in the cost of a return trip to the USA may range from €8 to €40 and will depend on CO2 prices at the time.
I thank the Minister for presenting the document on next Tuesday's Council meeting in Brussels. I wonder if today's discussion will affect the Minister's views or influence him in any way when he goes to the Council meeting or has he already made up his mind? Are we merely going through the motions in getting an insight into the Minister's intended approach on Tuesday? The document which was circulated today is very aspirational and contains fine words, including the following:
On environment, innovation and employment, the Council will underline the importance of promoting innovations with a view to making Europe the front-runner in eco-innovation and the most energy and resource efficient area in the world. They are fine words. How will Ireland play its part in this? What targets will the Minister set to ensure Ireland plays its part? I notice the target for the international agreement will be to reduce emissions by 30%. Even if it is 20%, how does he propose Ireland achieves the target?
I am concerned about another aspect of the report which seems to have slipped away lightly, namely, the new GM product, moonlite, whatever it is. The scientific advice is that the product is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health. This is not reassuring. It is like drinking moonshine. It is unlikely to harm one's health but it has harmed the health of many people. Will the Minister explain what it is?
It is entirely appropriate on St. Valentine's Day.
Is that today?
I thought Deputy McCormack was more romantic than that. Moonlite is a deep crimson carnation.
What?
A flower.
Lord save us. Is it flour or flower?
It is the flower one smells and which the bees like. It will not be grown in Europe. It will be imported. I do not understand why it is necessary to fool around with nature but it is there.
The environment technology programme, ETAP, was well received by the Commission and is part of the funding for Ireland. It is important the European Union channels resources and policy into eco-innovation in Europe. Every year, EU member states invest countless billions in nuclear energy. It is time Europe transferred some of that resource to the development of environmental technologies. There are huge bonuses for doing so.
Part of the Lisbon Agenda is that Europe will become a leader in these areas. Sigmar Gabriel, the German Minister with responsibility for the environment, told me that in the past few years Germany increased employment in eco-innovation such as solar panels and developing alternate technologies to the point it now exceeds total employment in the nuclear industry. If a fraction of the money invested in a technology which transfers a problem multigenerationally were placed in alternative technologies, Europe could meet its energy needs and become a world leader.
Our neighbouring island still has an abundance of coal. New technology for clean coal burning is evolving. If a fraction of the money to be invested in cleaning up nuclear waste were invested in clean coal technology, Europe could be a world leader. A major experiment on carbon sequestration, which involves capturing carbon, is taking place in Peterhead, Scotland. It is important that Europe is ambitious in this area and shows leadership. The Austrians have done incredible work on developing solar panels. We all discuss the Danes who saw a gap in the market and developed turbines.
I welcome the change in emphasis and Europe will gain significantly from it. Countries with their heads stuck in the sand on environmental issues, particularly global climate change, will lose out. Countries continuing to operate gas guzzlers when new technologies become available in car and transport industries will lose out. Hybrid technologies developed by the Japanese are being licensed to European producers. It would be so much better if we were there first.
The Minister did not answer my question. Is this debate of any assistance to him? Will he change his stance in any way as a result of the deliberations here this morning?
I beg Deputy McCormack's pardon, I did not answer that question. As a Minister, I must present to this committee our view on what will happen at a Council meeting. The nature of those meetings involves tic-tacing and outside discussions. A high degree of agreement has been reached before one gets to the meeting.
Before it tables a target, the Commission will seek indications in advance and take soundings. Of course the work of this committee is helpful. All the major political parties are ad idem that we must aim for 20%, work out what it will cost us as a country and morally we should aim for 30%. We have a consensus on this issue which is extremely helpful. Certain lobby groups here believe it cannot be done and we should not do it. As always, people seek to pull us back and be less ambitious. We should be ambitious. If we set the targets high and make them clear we will have difficulties reaching them but we will know where we are going.
My congratulations to the Chairman on his elevation and I apologise for my late arrival.
I strongly believe a gaping hole exists in the Government's record on climate change during the past ten years. Its eye was not on the ball. What will the Minister bring to the table in Brussels tomorrow? Politics should be about providing leadership and vision. I am still not clear on the Minister's bargaining position and where he wants Ireland to be in 2020 or 2030. In the past we debated whether Ireland is closer to Boston or Berlin. On the issue of climate change we are closer to Houston, Texas, than to either Boston or Berlin. We had a 2% increase in climate change emissions last year, almost twice the increase allowed for over 1990 levels.
The Minister is doing the equivalent of lighting matches in a hay barn. I do not believe he is intent on tackling climate change in Ireland. He gave examples of the many jobs created in the solar panel industry in Austria. He also mentioned how wind power employs tens of thousands of people in Germany. The Minister gleefully gives subsidies to Aughinish Alumina, allows major polluters to continuing to do what they always did, and reneges on commitments he made in previous programmes for Government that he would tackle those responsible for major climate change emissions. He gives a free ride to the polluters.
What will he do about this? Those involved in the green cement industry wonder why subsidies are given to Cement Roadstone Holdings. In other areas, people would gladly create jobs in carbon neutral projects. We do not appear to have leadership. Meeting a 2020 target of returning to 1990 levels will require 3% cuts year on year from 2012. What is the Minister's plan? We have a climate change strategy from several years ago. However, there is no up-to-date climate change strategy for Ireland. There are discussion documents but no plan. What is the Minister's response to this? In the past ten years the Government has spent four, five or six times as much on roads as on public transport. While I am unsure of the exact figure, it is certainly a significant multiple of what was spent on public transport. This is the sector in which the increases in emissions are taking place. The Minister is familiar with the graphs, as are his civil servants and those around him. Although we are shooting off the scale in respect of transport, the Minister is still intent on spending more money on roads than on public transport. I simply ask him why.
The Deputy's observation on roads is interesting because we must have good roads to continue to develop. The idea that we should abandon the roadbuilding programme is farcical.
No one has suggested that.
Several years ago Ms Mary White of the Green Party spoke of being hopeful that there would be an economic collapse in order that we would stop building roads.
She did not say that; the Minister is speaking out of the side of his mouth. He knows she did not say that.
I do and I can provide the precise quote.
Although the Minister has made many commitments in respect of public transport, he has not even joined up the Luas lines. If he cannot do so, how can he tackle climate change?
Please allow the Minister to respond.
I listened to Deputy Cuffe as he came up with his usual headlines. There were no answers, only questions.
The Minister should speak for himself.
Please allow the Minister to make his point.
Since 1990, the economy has grown by 150%——
I was talking about climate change.
I will deal with——
The Minister should address the question. What is his plan to ensure a 3% reduction?
Please allow the Minister to respond. I will allow the Deputy back in subsequently.
The Deputy should allow me the simple well-mannered courtesy of finishing a sentence without his ridiculous contributions.
The Minister to continue without interruption.
The economy——
The Minister should not make personalised attacks on members of my party who are not here to defend themselves. I resent it. I am not making personalised remarks about members of his party who are not here to defend themselves.
The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption, please.
There is little or no point to this.
With respect Chairman, I would prefer if the Minister did not make such remarks.
I call the Minister to continue without interruption. I will allow the Deputy back in subsequently.
That is a fair point.
The Deputy simply does not wish to know the truth. Thankfully, the economy has grown by 150%. Consequently, emissions have grown by 23% and the Deputy is correct to note there has been a blip in respect of energy. Everyone with a scintilla of common sense knows that we face real challenges in that sector. Two turf burning power stations have been brought into operation and it is right and proper that we should have diversity in energy generation. They have contributed to that spike which, as the Deputy will know if he has bothered to read any of the publications issued, will be dealt with in the fullness of time. This is because the two power stations in question, as well as others of that type, may be used for coal burning. Moreover, they can burn miscanthus and other renewable energy sources, which is the route we should take.
The Deputy has observed, as he does repeatedly, that Ireland is doing nothing. In fact, as he is aware, we have set highly ambitious targets on the renewable energy side, despite the nationwide difficulties encountered by strategies such as wind generation. I accept he has courageously supported such initiatives. Such targets are operational and will save 1.3 million tonnes of emissions by 2010. Moreover, modernisation of the national gas network, already under way, will save 50,000 tonnes. As for industry, the European trading scheme, ETS, which the Deputy has completely and utterly misrepresented, requires the approximately 100 industries which are part of the scheme to cut their carbon emissions by 3 million tonnes. This process is under way.
The Deputy has demonstrated that clearly he has not read the details of the European trading scheme. Each industry which participates in the ETS is allocated a quota that requires it to cut emissions by a specific period. The Deputy is aware that to describe this as a subsidy is perverse and misleading and misrepresents the truth.
It is a free ride.
The allocations made to the industries in question require them to make a cut.
A total of 95% is free.
The Minister should be allowed to reply.
With regard to Aughinish Alumina, because of the issue of calciners in that industry Ireland was recognised in Europe as being the country that applied the requirements most correctly in this regard. It is perverse to suggest that we should close industries by making impositions in excess of the ETS requirements. Recently I met representatives from the pharmaceutical and chemical industries which are under a challenge, as the Chairman and anyone from the south west recognises. The imposition of burdens beyond those imposed in other European countries would not simply disadvantage such industries, it would drive them out.
The Deputy made a point about the cement industry. It is part of the ETS and did not receive a special deal. The rules of the ETS were applied more forcefully in this sector than elsewhere. Premier Periclase Limited which I believe is located in Deputy O'Dowd's constituency complained the target was excessively forceful. One cannot discuss this matter in abstraction without ever reading the contents of the ETS.
The Minister gave a free ride.
I did not.
Please allow the Minister to reply. I will allow Deputy Cuffe to respond.
The simple and repeated assertion that I gave a free ride is, apart from being monotonous, untrue. The ETS was applied in Ireland in the same manner as elsewhere.
I am not arguing with that.
If not, the Deputy is arguing that we should have put in place a completely different system in Ireland. Had we put a system in place that differed from that which applied in all other European countries, we would have driven enterprise from Ireland. This is not the way to deal with the debate on the environment. As Kofi Annan noted, we should deal with the debate on economic sustainability and the environment as part of a continuum. It is simply lunacy to suggest, as the Deputy has just done, that we should apply impositions on the cement industry, Premier Periclase Limited, Aughinish Alumina, pharmaceutical companies or other industrial enterprises that differ from those applied elsewhere.
I will not put words in the Minister's mouth if he will refrain from putting words in mine.
I am characterising the Deputy's comments because he said that would not be a bad thing.
The Minister did so with a few seismic shifts along the way.
It would be a bad thing.
That is the Minister's prerogative.
I agree with the Deputy's point in that the ETS has forced companies to think of carbon. The Stern report makes the point that it is only when industry begins to realise there is a cost to carbon, that it will become more carbon-efficient. This is the entire thesis on which the ETS is based and constitutes part of the Stern thesis. It is wrong for the Deputy to suggest that we should operate in a completely different manner from all other countries.
Far from being major polluters, industries in Ireland are among the cleanest in Europe. If we were to close Irish industries because we had placed an excessive burden on them, we would end up importing cement from Egypt, as is already taking place, or north Africa where none of the environmental standards that apply in Europe operates. Moreover, we would be obliged to pay the carbon credit on transportation. It is untrue to state the ETS in Ireland has applied in a way that is different and it would be lunacy to suggest we should.
I did not say that.
I asked the Minister what was his plan to reduce emissions by 3%. He did not answer the question, which is a reasonable strategy for a schoolchild. However, I expected more.
I wish to make a minor point in response.
I wish to come down to a specific——
The Deputy is correct. I did not answer that question because I did not go through the entire list.
On energy, the targets have been published and are available to the Deputy. On industry, there is the reduction of 3 million tonnes, with which the Deputy agrees.
What about transport?
The Deputy should allow me to go through the list. As he is aware, the absence of transport from the ETS is an issue. This is one of the reasons for the discussions on future direction. A total of 5.75% of the Republic's transmission fuel supply will be derived from renewables by 2009, one year ahead of a similar target set under the EU directive. It is simply not true to say nothing is being done. I agree that we should be even more ambitious.
The Government has had ten years.
One cannot decide to abandon every vehicle on the road and come, Stalin like, with another plan.
The Minister should not use rhetoric. Let us talk facts.
All right. On forestry, 2.8 million tonnes of emissions will be removed annually through the afforestation programme and 2.4 million tonnes will be removed under the CAP, while the nitrates action programme is specifically in place. On transport——
I said——
The Deputy asked a question; I ask him to listen to my answer. On transport, we are talking about 700,000 tonnes of emissions. These are all published figures. If the Deputy has not read them——
I have. I am concerned that the Minister is using his get out of jail card.
A vote has been called in the Dáil. I propose that the joint committee adjourn for 20 minutes.
Sitting suspended at 11.50 a.m. and resumed at 12.10 p.m.
I invite the Minister to continue his response to Deputy Cuffe.
I want to nail the view that nothing is being done in Ireland about carbon emissions. Emissions reductions from existing policies across the whole spectrum will amount to 8 million tonnes. We are well on target with those. The figures are published and Deputy Cuffe knows where he can access them. Participation in the European emissions trading scheme is 3 million tonnes. This is an imposition and not a free gift. When one is told one must take steps to stop emitting one is not given a free gift. The ceiling on the purchase of carbon credits is 3.6 million tonnes. That gives us a total of 14.6 million tonnes from those mechanisms.
Since that has been published a whole series of additional policies have been introduced of which Deputy Cuffe is well aware. They set out in detail where the other reductions will be made. I have mentioned to him the nitrates programme, which will help significantly, not only in protecting water quality but also in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The greener homes scheme has been phenomenally successful and, I notice, has been rightly praised by the Green Party in its literature. It is producing the kinds of results we want. The energy building regulations will produce reductions of a further 300,000 tonnes per year. It is not true for any Member of the Oireachtas to say nothing is being done.
Which energy building regulations?
The new and more challenging building regulations are aimed at conserving and reducing emissions by 300,000 tonnes. The energy certification process will further contribute.
Deputy Cuffe asked about transport. We have an amazing increase in the number of vehicles on Irish roads but there have been improvements. For example, the delivery of the biofuels programme, to which the Government has allocated more than €200 million, will save well in excess of 250,000 tonnes of emissions. Infrastructural developments in Dublin alone, before the addition of Transport 21, are calculated to reduce emissions by 270,000 tonnes. I could go on but I would merely bore the committee.
Sometimes the facts are more boring than the headline grabbing soundbites. However, it is simply untrue, whether due to a misunderstanding or a willingness to distort the truth, to say nothing is being done. We have ambitious targets, particularly for a country growing as rapidly as Ireland. To come from 78.25 million tonnes down to 63 million tonnes is very ambitious.
Given that we have relatively clean industries in Ireland, our challenge is even greater. It is simply a statement of fact that Ireland is responsible for one sixth of 1% of global emissions and the European Union for 14% of global emissions. It is not rocket science, and is certainly not diminishing the challenge to say that neither Ireland alone nor Europe alone can solve the problem. We have a moral responsibility to meet our Kyoto Protocol targets; we will meet them. Europe has a moral responsibility and is showing great leadership in this matter. To suggest, as has been done, that we have abandoned our responsibilities in this regard is unfair, untrue and completely at variance with the facts.
The quotation from a councillor, who is not present, can be found in the report of a council meeting of 19 November 2001.
The president of the Irish Farmers Association gave witness that she did not say that and I believe the president of the IFA on the issue.
The quotation is, "Hopefully the economy will crumble before we can build this road".
From what is that an extract?
It was said in the council chamber on 19 November 2001.
It is not a report from the council minutes.
Council minutes are never complete.
It has been denied by the president of the IFA, who was present.
Deputy Cuffe's suggestion last week that I had written to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council condemning its new energy efficiency rating was also untrue.
Two days ago Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council passed a variation to its development plan which will, in effect, bring about a 40% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from new homes. It is a fantastic step forward and I congratulate Councillor Ciarán Fallon, who led the initiative. We were grateful that Fianna Fáil and all councillors unanimously endorsed that variation to the development plan. Nevertheless, I am curious as to why the Minister's Department wrote to the county council, in a letter received late, specifically asking the council to reconsider its use of targets and stating that the targets are onerous and could be considered redundant.
Does Deputy Cuffe have the letter?
I do.
Would he like to read the first sentence?
I would read the entire letter if I may, Chairman.
I do not mind. I simply ask him to read the first sentence. In the Dáil last week, Deputy Cuffe's party leader suggested, not just onerously but untruthfully, that the letter instructed the council to do other than it should have done.
I do not believe he used the term "instruct". I will read the letter to Mr. Michael Gough, director of economic development and planning for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council re the proposed variation No. 5 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2004-10, new energy policy 7.
Dear Mr. Gough,
I refer to your recent letter in relation to the above mentioned and set out hereunder some comments for consideration by the council.
The Department recommends that the council be commended for seeking to promote more sustainable development in relation to energy performance of the built environment and reduction of dependence on fossil fuels. The council should reconsider the use of specific targets, which result in the simultaneous use of the planning and building control systems for the same purpose, as this is likely to lead to confusion with two separate levels of energy performance being required for each building.
It is the Department's view that the energy rating system to be introduced for dwellings in January 2007 provides a better basis for expressing required performance for buildings. Moreover, the proposed targets are quite onerous and could add considerably to the average cost of a new dwelling. The proposal regarding assessment of specific options for buildings over 1,000 sq. m is, in fact, a requirement of the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and will be implemented from 1 January 2007. It could, therefore, be considered redundant in this context.
I hope these comments are of use to you in your considerations.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Kenny, spatial policy.
The letter is stamped by the county council as having been received on 2 January 2007, with the word "late" written on it.
I am happy to read the letter into the record. Does the Minister stand over this submission? Does he not accept that in the absence of his showing leadership on building regulations at national level, councillors have little option but to improve standards themselves at local level?
I am delighted Deputy Cuffe read the letter into the record because he misled the Dáil during the week.
I did not.
His party leader suggested that the letter opposed the decision of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. The letter commended the council. A letter which begins by commending the recipient for an action can hardly be regarded as condemnatory, which is how it was portrayed.
Which part of the word "reconsider" does the Minister not understand?
I have made a formal complaint to the Ceann Comhairle about this extraordinary and outrageous manipulation of the truth.
The second part of the letter makes it clear that it is important to use coherent language. I stand by the first sentence of the letter, in which the council is commended. With regard to the——
What about the other four paragraphs?
Unlike the Deputy, who speaks in ambiguous terms, the paragraphs are coherent and concise. As a trained architect, the Deputy knows that precision in regulations is important. Without it, people would find space to dispute the good intentions of members of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. If there is any difference in the language used in the two regulatory regimes, the Deputy knows as well as I that it will be exploited to frustrate the intention of councillors. It was mendacious to suggest to the Dáil that an official in my Department was being anything other than positive about the wishes of the council, but I trust the matter will be dealt with by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
The Government has introduced a number of measures concerning the energy rating of buildings. During its lifetime it has raised the requirements three times and we have indicated a further upward review later this year. In spite of the propaganda, Ireland's standards are among the highest in Europe, as has been independently attested to. Sweden has higher standards for roofs, which one might expect given that country's climate, but Ireland's standards are comparatively high.
The energy and environment debates are not served by headline grabbing soundbites. We are doing well. While the challenge we must face is considerable, we will meet it, but we will not do so by changing policies and direction every 15 minutes. If we want to be ambitious, as I want us to be, we must set out clear priorities for industry and transport. We have done so and in that context, are working on the next climate change strategy document which will be published in or around Easter.
I am unsure of the Minister's interpretation of the meaning of the word "reconsider", but I am sure the matter will be taken up. It is clear the Department did not wish the council to proceed. Given that we build 90,000 homes every year, a clear way to meet our climate change targets would be to improve our building regulations dramatically. In the absence of the Minister showing leadership, I understand why the Green Party would lead a local initiative that was unanimously endorsed by councillors, including those in Fianna Fáil.
That is right.
I hope the Minister heeds this wake-up call. I would prefer it if he introduced a level playing field at national level, but in the absence of his improving the regulations, I can understand why local authorities would proceed having listened to all submissions and concerns.
While we are discussing Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the number of houses constructed, I hope the council will show equal ambition in addressing its appalling record in building social and affordable housing. It is the worst in the country in that respect. I will not be lectured by a council which has failed year in, year out to provide social or affordable homes for those on its burgeoning housing list. If it was really focused on the well-being of the Deputy's constituents, it would complete the programmes for which it has received funding. I am not criticising any particular party represented on the council, as there is a need for more ambition across the board. A ten-year analysis was conducted. While I realise that we are straying from the issue, it is appalling that the Deputy's constituents cannot afford houses and it is reprehensible that his constituency lags behind in its affordable housing output. It is scandalous that his colleagues on the council have not shown ambition in meeting social housing targets. In a rich country, it is a disgrace that because of the council's collective failures, young people in Dún Laoghaire cannot avail of the affordable housing scheme as others have done elsewhere in Dublin. It is scandalous that people live in substandard housing conditions after my predecessors and I provided funds. If we are to eulogise the council, we should ask it to be socially aware and ambitious in an area fundamental for life, that is, the provision of decent homes for decent people.
I did not wish to be parochial to the exclusion of other matters, but my party has shown leadership on these issues and supported proposals for housing at a time when the Minister's party was talking about the protection of smooth newts, which was more of a red herring than a smooth newt. The Green Party has shown leadership on the issue of providing housing in Dún Laoghaire. I wish that the Minister's party would show the same courage of its convictions.
Through the Chair——
May I finish? Pardon me for speaking while the Minister is interrupting. I also wish that the Minister's party would implement the recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, particularly in respect of the price of building land. It is immoral that land in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is worth €2 million one day and, with the stroke of a rezoning pen, €200 million the next and that the local authority must compete with such an inflated price. It is immoral that the authority is prohibited from purchasing land at current values. Successive Governments have sat on this issue since Mr. Justice Kenny made noble suggestions in his report on the price of building land 30 years ago. If the Minister was serious about providing affordable housing in Dún Laoghaire, he would ensure the implementation of the recommendations to allow the council to buy land at affordable prices instead of allowing his Cabinet colleague, the Tánaiste, to sell State land on the open market, thereby forcing the authority to buy it back from a developer after the profits have been rolled into the price.
Let us keep the matter in perspective. The Kenny report was published 30 years ago and there are good and cogent reasons no Administration has been in a position to implement it.
I was clear and careful in my criticism of the council as a collective. In an area with a growing housing list and in the light of the funding provided by successive Governments, it is scandalous that there is no real ambition to address issues affecting the people of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, namely, putting a roof over the heads of young people living in substandard conditions and paying high rents. It is unacceptable for anyone to debate one issue and not the other. It is my responsibility to ensure councils meet their targets. I commend any Deputy or councillor who raises the issue and forces it along.
I ask that we conclude this issue and return to our business.
I will return to the agenda for tomorrow's meeting and item No. 5, aviation emissions. Does the Government plan to follow the example of the Norwegian Government by making ministerial and official air travel carbon neutral?
Our air travel was carbon neutral when we travelled to a number of recent conferences. The wider debate on Tuesday will be about aviation, not ministerial travel. We should focus on the principle rather than the minutiae. The principle of including aviation is good and should be focused on rather than being distracted by minutiae. It is the issue, not the sometimes misrepresented matter of ministerial travel. The issue of principle to be discussed next Tuesday is whether airlines will be included in the arrangement and I believe we should do so. It must be recognised that the more progressive airlines, including Irish airlines, have indicated their anxiety to consider this proposal. Recently, a British Minister levelled some ill-focused criticism at an Irish airline, which did not recognise that the short haul use of high quality machines optimised operations. However, the general point is that the aircraft industry must be included. Were it to enter the trading system, events would move rapidly and airlines would engage rapidly in the technical retrofitting of fleets. For example, while the fitting of winglets to the tips of aircraft is costly, it produces much greater efficiency. Moreover, engines would be changed. Basically, the inclusion in the system of the aviation industry would be a very good idea.
My final point was on No. 8 on the agenda. I note the Council will consider a proposal to place genetically modified carnations on the market. On the day that is in it, is the Minister in favour of genetically modified flowers, against them, or does he intend to abstain on the issue?
I have already dealt with that issue. As I am unsure whether the Deputy was present, I will repeat my comments. First, I will abstain on that issue. Second, I do not agree with it. As a gardener, I do not like the idea of tinkering around with flowers as one can breed them, as has happened for generations.
Although the Minister is against the proposal, he will abstain.
Yes.
He will remain silent.
As the Deputy may have been absent, he should note the Council will vote on the more important issue, namely, the Monsanto maize MON 810. I will vote against it and will support the Hungarians in this regard because I believe it raises a subsidiarity issue.
As I am conscious of time, I will be brief. I welcome the Minister and his officials and I compliment him on the excellent work he has done in this regard in the past number of years. All members are aware that this is a major issue that is of concern to all and the Minister and his Department are working extremely hard on it.
I listened with interest to Deputy Cuffe's comments regarding major industries in Ireland. It is plain to see that if the Green Party enters Government, we will see a mass exodus of such industries from Ireland. He made that quite clear and it will be important to promulgate that message.
I wish to raise some minor points. What budget has the EU in place to help industries reduce their emissions? The effort to reduce emissions constitutes a significant expenditure for companies. Has a budget been allocated to help Third World countries? Has the EU made a fund available to help those Third World countries that are major polluters to reduce their emissions? If so, how are such moneys distributed? How do the EU and the Department help industries to reduce their emissions? It is important to try to help the industrial sector, given the number of people in Ireland who are employed by foreign enterprises. Although such industries must be complimented, if the Green Party has its way they will leave Ireland and we will revert to the mass unemployment of the 1980s. What programmes and schemes exist to help such companies?
I note the exit of the two Green Party members. The Deputy is correct in that the important point in this debate is to achieve balance. We will have no credibility without balance. The idea suggested in the House that Ireland should lead the world is laudable and it is good to be ambitious. However, if one produces one sixth of 1% of the total global emissions, one cannot be the world leader.
It is not being negative in any environmental sense to state that one will use existing mechanisms that enable one to be ambitious in cutting greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously protecting Irish industry. I do not understand the logic that informs much of the debate in Ireland, which suggests that one should not use the mechanism that constitutes the essential core of the burden-sharing arrangements of the Kyoto Protocol. For example, I fail to understand why some portray using the clean development mechanism in negative terms. I have heard Members in the Dáil describe it as a fine.
The Deputy is quite correct that one of the developed world's moral obligations is to cut its own greenhouse gas emissions. A second is to help the developing world to ensure it is not impoverished in the process. We have bought two tranches of carbon credits, each worth €20 million. One was from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. That sum will be invested in clean technology development in some of the eastern European countries that are entering the European Union and in which there is a legacy of very dirty industry. It is entirely virtuous to buy carbon credits in a manner that will support them to become clean technology users.
As global warming and global emissions are global problems, the target and object of the Kyoto Protocol is to remove carbon from the global atmosphere in such a way that several countries will share the burden. Carbon trading is at its core and is one of its most sensible mechanisms and everyone, with the exception of the Green Party, recognises this. For example, I am pleased that Deputy O'Dowd stated that he saw it as being virtuous. I also believe the Labour Party has come closer to reality in this regard. Everyone accepts it to be virtuous. If Ireland can cut — as it will — 11 million or 12 million tonnes of emissions from its production, that will be a global victory. If we buy 3.6 million tonnes in an ethical way by helping another country in Europe or Africa to develop in a clean manner, two benefits will accrue. First, the carbon emissions will be removed from the global environment and, second, one is helping less well-off countries.
Interestingly the debate in Nairobi centred on how to use such help. Kofi Annan gave an electrifying address in which he spoke of the Nairobi initiative to use what the rich countries had to support the developing countries. I accept that representatives of the Irish media and other observers from the Irish environmental movement are sincere. However, it completely eludes me as to how they can see this in negative terms.
Moreover, we must keep the balance right in this debate. I was stunned. The enterprise in question is in the Chairman's constituency and he showed great forbearance. It strikes me that anyone who would suggest that one can simply write off the 500 jobs in Aughinish Alumina on an ideological point is not in touch with the real world. The alumina will be produced globally in any event. Is it better to produce it in Ireland, thereby providing jobs, where environmental standards are very high or to displace those jobs, put 500 or 600 people on the dole and move that industry to a part of the developing world in which standards are lower? I do not understand the logic whereby an environmentalist can suggest throwing people out of work, creating human misery and transferring the business.
Similarly, the reference that I have read about the particular person who made suggestions regarding the M9 and the collapse of the economy is to be found in the local newspapers. I will quote from the local newspaper, which stated that the editor stands behind the reporter in the White storm on 29 November 2001. However, this is irrelevant.
The Deputy's second question pertained to the innovation fund. While I do not have the precise figure to hand, I can make it available to him. While it is significant, it is not sufficiently large. Far too many resources go into the nuclear side and there should be a rebalancing. At European Council meetings and before this joint committee on previous occasions, I have stated that I would like to see greater use of European funds to support the development of environmentally positive industries in Europe as part and parcel of the Lisbon Agenda. I have stated repeatedly that such a switch would be welcome and I will make this point again on Tuesday.
I thank the Minister. It would be remiss of me not to make a brief comment, given the references to Aughinish Alumina, which is located in my constituency. I am very aware of the responsible manner in which it has invested heavily in this regard. It has been successful in reducing its emissions. I agree with DeputyGrealish, as the company is a major employer in my constituency in which it provides 500 very good jobs. In some cases, one can only go so far and we have gone a long way. As the Minister has suggested, a balance must found between protecting these and similar jobs, while still playing our role in reducing emissions.
I again thank the Minister for coming before the joint committee, which is his normal practice before attending European Council meetings. I wish him well in his attendance at the Council meeting next week.
The joint committee went into private session at 12.41 p.m. and adjourned at 12.42 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15 February 2007.