|
Minister for the Environment, Heritage
and Local Government (Mr. Roche):
The Government has put in place a range of measures which, collectively,
will deliver an average 14.6 million tonne reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions during the period 2008 to 2012, over which our compliance with
the Kyoto Protocol will be assessed. That is the point I was making to
Deputy Gilmore but he was not listening. Measures which will give a
total of 8 million tonnes include strengthening energy requirements in
the building regulations, accounting for 300,000 tonnes of CO2 per year;
changes in transport, which I have mentioned; excise relief in last
year's budget will produce a saving of 250,000 tonnes; the Common
Agricultural Policy will take 2.4 million tonnes; and the Government's
forestry programme will contribute to the removal of 2 million tonnes.
Participation in the EU trading scheme will contribute a further 3
million which will take us up to the 11 million tonnes figure. The
balance of 3.6 million tonnes which is recognised in the Irish 14.6
million tonnes suppression target is from the purchase of credits and it
may not be necessary to do that.
A review of the national climate change strategy has taken place to
assess progress and to identify additional measures. I recently launched
a report on the review, entitled Ireland's Pathway to Kyoto Compliance
to provide a basis for the public consultation.
Specifically on the consultation a total of 322 submissions were
received by my Department to date. As analysis of these submissions is
still being completed, it would not yet be appropriate to comment on
them individually until that is complete. The submissions will be
published on my Department's website in due course. The responses to
this open consultation will inform the preparation of a revised national
climate change strategy, which I intend to publish before the end of the
year.
Mr. Cuffe: I do not know what was in the water in Citywest last
weekend but I think it went to the Minister's head given his commentary
about——
Mr. Stagg: Fluoride.
Mr. Cuffe: It was possibly the fluoride on which we are also
awaiting action. It is rather like the climate change strategy, we might
be waiting for a while. Will the Minister clarify the specific number of
submissions received? He said he received 322 submissions. I know of one
NGO which stated that the number submitted through it to the Minister
was towards 500. Will he clarify the number of paper submissions and the
number of electronic submissions he has received on this issue? He
stated that they will be published. When will they be published? Has the
Minister any intention to make annual yearly reductions in emissions
mandatory? Future generations will judge him by the action he took on
climate change. The compelling evidence is that the actions of the
Government and of the Minister's Department have been increasing climate
change emissions rather than reducing them. We cannot continue to build
motorways as if the oil will last forever. We cannot continue with
building regulations which make us look appalling in comparison to other
European countries and a dedication to urban sprawl, led by the
Minister, which is increasing long distance commuting times by car. What
action is the Minister taking and will he be able to tell future
generations he did the right thing on climate change?
Mr. Roche: In regard to Deputy Cuffe's question on whether there
were multiple responses, one NGO had people send the same response
several hundred times. That counts as one response.
Mr. Cuffe: Did the Minister say 700 submissions count as one
response?
Mr. Roche: The same submission was sent several hundred times.
Mr. Cuffe: The submissions were sent by different individuals.
Mr. Roche: A submission with the same wording was sent by
different individuals.
Mr. Cuffe: That implies several hundred different submissions
were sent.
Mr. Roche: The Deputy's statement is somewhat foolhardy.
Mr. Cuffe: The Minister is being economical with the truth.
Mr. Roche: If the same circular letter is sent 500 times ——
Mr. Cuffe: In any other forum, they would be seen as multiple
submissions but the Minister has a way with the truth.
Mr. Roche: In answer to the Deputy's second question, I think we
will reach our target. We have already identified 14.6 million tonnes of
savings out of a target of almost 15.3 million tonnes, as well as a
series of measures which were not calculated as part of the 14.6 million
tonnes but will take us beyond the target. The bioheat programme could
allow for reductions of 160,000 tonnes, a figure which did not form part
of the earlier calculation. A further reduction of 300,000 tonnes could
be made through the increased use of renewables in electricity
production. As I mentioned earlier, we aim to more than double the
proportion of renewable resources used, an increase which Deputy Cuffe
correctly supported on the basis that it is the best option and because
it saves tonnage. An additional reduction of 20,000 tonnes which will be
made from the green homes scheme was not included in the 14.6 million or
mentioned in the EEA report. An extraordinary 250,000 tonnes will be cut
through the conversion of anaerobically digested waste into energy. A
range of other measures mentioned in the Green Paper which have not yet
been calculated will bring us beyond the target of 15.2 million tonnes.
Deputy Gilmore wrongly suggested, in his charming way, that Ireland
stands alone on this issue. The Irish economy has grown by 150%, whereas
greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 23%. It would be much nicer
if the increase in emissions was only 13% but we are working towards
that figure. Seven of the EU 15 have wider gaps to bridge than Ireland.
Austria's gap stands at 29%, Denmark at 19%, Finland at14%, Italy at
19%, Luxembourg at 28%, Portugal at 14% and Spain at 33%. We will meet
our responsibilities on emissions.
Mr. Cuffe: The Minister is using the same logic as a prisoner in
the dock pointing out other individuals in the court who have committed
worse crimes. He is putting an emphasis on buying our way out of the
Kyoto agreement. Will he confirm, however, that he agrees buying our way
out is not the best way of addressing the problem?
What percentage of submissions argued for the establishment of mandatory
annual targets for emissions? I ask the Minister to determine the number
of individuals who made such an argument, rather than referring
collectively to several hundred different submissions.
Mr. Roche: I do not have that information to hand but I will
revert to the Deputy with it. The submissions will be published in due
course. I do not agree with the hypothesis that Ireland, uniquely,
should establish a legal mandatory limit.
Of course it would be better if we did not have to buy carbon credits
but, whether a tonne of carbon is produced in Dublin or New Delhi, the
same problem arises for the atmosphere. The mechanism we are
establishing for carbon trading is specifically mentioned in the Stern
report as being one of the solutions to the problem. |