Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
OPPOSITION PARTIES HAVE condemned the Government for failing to provide sufficient commitment to a “just transition” in the forthcoming Climate Action Bill.
The Bill sets out the plan for Ireland to transition to a carbon-neutral economy by no later than 2050.
But there are concerns that the legislation does not have sufficient protections for sectors which will suffer job losses as a result.
Social Democrats climate spokeswoman Jennifer Whitmore said: “The minister says that the principles of just transition are contained in the Bill.
“They’re absolutely not though – it’s referred to once in the entirety of the Bill, there is no definition for it, there’s no guidance as to what it means.
“I think that this is a golden opportunity to incorporate it fully into the Bill, and to ensure that we meet our targets in a fair manner.”
She told the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment on Tuesday: “It needs to be a very proactive and targeted, focused approach taken with this.
“It can’t happen afterwards because it won’t happen properly. A reactive transition is not a good transition, and it won’t happen organically.”
The Programme for Government commits to a Just Transition Fund to retrain workers and generate sustainable employment in green enterprise.
But efforts by the Opposition to strengthen it in legislation through amendments to the Climate Action Bill have been rejected by Government.
Labour TD Duncan Smith said the commitment in the Programme for Government is not sufficient, and needs to be underpinned by legislation.
“We don’t see it to the extent with which we are comfortable or confident that it’s actually going to make a real difference,” he said.
He added: “What was written in the Programme for Government will remain an aspirational document until it is reflected in legislation and other actions from Government.
“We are not seeing that in this, as it’s currently being presented and debated.”
There have been significant job losses at Kildare-based Bord Na Mona, as it transitions from a producer of peat briquettes to a climate solutions company.
Independent TD Carol Nolan, who represents the Laois-Offaly constituency, where much of the firm’s peat was harvested, said these jobs have not been replaced.
“What’s happening on the ground, and I can tell you from one of the counties most affected by your transition – Co Offaly – it’s not just, it’s far from it.
“County Offaly will be bearing the brunt of the greatest job losses – 53% of all job losses in the Midlands will be in County Offaly.
“Not one single job has been created, so it’s very difficult to see when you’re detached from something, but I’m there on the ground, speaking to the workers, speaking to the community day in, day out.”
Independent TD Denis Naughten, a former climate minister, noted that the legislation as it stands only requires the minister to have regard to a just transition.
“The Government of the day, once they actually tick the box in relation to just transition, they can proceed and do whatever they like,” he said.
Fine Gael’s Richard Bruton, also a former climate minister, defended the Bill and said the proposed amendment gives the impression that “change is avoidable”.
“If we wait and allow an environment to develop where people feel that we can put off change until another day, then we’ll actually do a disservice to those various sectors and communities that we’re trying to support,” he said.
Climate Minister Eamon Ryan cited Ireland’s commitments under European law as part of the reason he would not support the amendment.
He told the Committee: “We also have to have regard to European regulations which require us to show the socio-economic strategy behind any climate strategy.
“So at every stage in the process we have to check to see does it meet our our social as well as our environmental and economic objectives.
“I expect a huge number of community projects to be up and running very, very quickly, to help make this transition happen.
“It will continue to evolve, we will see further European funding available to support a just transition.
“Critically, we will go to the next phase of this trust transition process where we will engage with the likes of the National Economic and Social Council, as to how we spread this approach not just in the Midlands, but in other parts of the country.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This is why we need to leave the EU!!
@Simp Cuckington: quite the opposite, in fact.
Thankfully we only have a few vocal cranks who don’t believe in the scientific facts. A pity social media gives them a voice.
@Fozz: it would be nice if we could silence sheople like yourself
@Simp Cuckington: the world and the EU does not revolve around the UK and Brexit. Delighted to see that the European Council only spent ten minutes on Brexit. Everyone is fed up with the angst of Boris and his Tory party chums who claimed that they held all the cards.
@Simp Cuckington: The anti science tin hat brigade is out in full force. Tin hats believe anything made by some guy in his bedroom on YouTube is fact. so gullible
@Simp Cuckington: isn’t amazing that the only people constantly trotting out the same lines are the same ones that accuse others of being sheeple, or some other ridiculous derivative?
@Leitrim303: Now is your opportunity to enlighten us tinfoil hats with some science, I am sure these guys would love to hear from you
https://clintel.org/
p.s. they don’t operate from their bedrooms
@John Kennedy: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
According to Dutch broadcaster Pointer (KRO_NCRV), the 800 “scientists, scholars, and professionals” that support CLINTEL have “conducted little to no climate research”. DeSmog analysis has found that the list of signatories includes a commercial fisherman, a retired chemist, a cardiologist, and an air-conditioning engineer, alongside a number of retired geologists.
The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is a Netherlands-based climate science denial group founded in 2019 by retired professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and journalist Marcel Crok.
Additionally, research by Follow the Money and the Platform Authentic Journalism, two Dutch investigative journalism sites, and data-journalism broadcaster Pointer (KRO-NCRV), found that oil money built up from the 1990s has filtered its way into the foundations of CLINTEL. [16]
An article on Follow the Money’s site explains that Guus Berkhout founded the Delphi Consortium, a company that develops geo-imaging technology for the oil and gas industry, in 1982. Over 30 fossil fuel organisations were committed to paying €30,000 to €55,000 per year to have access to Delphi’s research, including Shell, BP and Chevron.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/climate-intelligence-foundation-clintel
@Oisín Callan: I find no evidence in the quoted article to dispute the claim by Clintel, perhaps you could point it out to me, incidentally any comment from anyone associated with the Climate Research Unit should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Desmogblog… yup, a truly reliable source
@John Kennedy: Literally the first link in my comment is to a systematic debunking of every unsourced talking point in the clintel declaration by actual climate scientists, not cardiologists and fishermen. I’ll post it again in case you missed it:
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
If you’re going to try post wikipedia articles as some kind of “gotcha”, try actually reading them first.
“Fact-checkers confirmed that climate change deniers misrepresented the contents of the emails.”
“Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
“Desmogblog… yup, a truly reliable source”
More reliable than a think-tank funded by the oil industry. They even listed their sources at the bottom of the article so you don’t have to take their word for it.
@John Kennedy: hahahahaha actually read that wikipedia article and the whole way down you will see that it repeatedly shows that climate deniers misrepresented what was contained in the emails and took sentences out of context to give them meanings they never had. If anything you have just cited evidence of the credibility of the Clinate Research Unit, a large scale hack and 8 subsequent investigations uncovered no actual evidence of scientific misconduct
@John Kennedy: Here’s a good video which looks at the CRU email quotes in context:
https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg
@Oisín Callan: Watch this prof take apart the co2 argument in front of congress using facts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk
The Great Reset
@Mike Burry: the great flying tinfoil monster
@DJ François: how can it be a conspiracy if the world economic Forum aka the davos summit and the UN are actively promoting it.
@Mícheál Seán Mac Conmhaic: Actively promoting the “great reset”?
@DJ François: The World Economic Forum have a podcast talking all about the Great Reset, its on Spotify you should give it a listen (seriously)
There is no tax on airline fuel
@Pete Lee: hopefully flying for business meetings will be a thing of the past now and commuting will be permanently reduced. People do need protein though so they shouldn’t come down so hard on meat and dairy which are essential for our health, while cars, which have enormous emissions during manufacture and use and are mostly unnecessary get a free pass because the EU is controlled by Germany. There’s a reason they built roads not more efficient rail for us.
@SC: we had loads of rail and we got rid of it
@Pete Lee: can’t tax airline fuel they couldn’t compete with oil rich nations where the stuff is consumed like its fresh air because it’s so cheap
Growing imimirgrant population all striving to gets jobs driving to pay for energy to heat their dwellings in a cooler climate, guess we’ll have to go nuclear for the future
@Gerard Heery: The energy cost of individuals is negligible compared with that of industry. That is why it is important for society to act as a whole in terms of energy efficiency
As for nuclear power we should at least be able to debate the possibility. The technology has come a long way since the likes of Sellafield
@David: then why is it a us negligible individual s pay for it the most
@Gerard Heery: Do you mean as tax payers? Businesses pay taxes too. While as a percentage of there income its significantly less overall businesses tax returns account for the vast majority of the finances available to a country
The idea of companies or the rich paying more is a different debate though tax rates do not fluctuate a lot from country to country.
But personally I think cleaner air and a cleaner environment benefits everyone
Install solar panels on every roof of every home built…. or in desert areas for alternative power supply…investment is essential.
@Eddie Michael: You really don’t know anything about solar panels. do you?, in 2019 in the EU28 solar panels operated at 12.7% efficiency
Source https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/the-excess-costs-of-weather-dependent-renewable-power-generation-in-the-eu28w/
based on data from https://www.eurobserv-er.org/
@Eddie Michael: Great idea! And not that expensive, I also think local turbine areas and hydro energy converters that provide power to whole towns would be a great shout, provide a lot of jobs in places they’re sparce and hopefully get more people out into the country
@John Kennedy: Fossil fuel plants are about 33%-37% with out factoring the energy spent in extracting and transporting them not to mention the cost of cleanup including the removal of waste etc.
@John Kennedy: 12.7 % of the sun’s energy is a lot…
@SC: No, that would be 12.7% of their rated output.
@Francis Devenney: No, conventional power plants (fossil fuel) operate at 90% rated capacity.
@John Kennedy: We’re talking about efficiency (Your OP) not capacity. A 100 watt incandescent light bulb runs a nearly full capacity but is less than 10% efficient as most of the input is lost in heat rather than light. In fossil fuel plants about 70% of the input is wasted, as in not converted into energy output.
This is really brilliant news on paper and I’d be really excited about it but I have a feeling our government is gonna use this to tax the pollox off us.. I hope they realise they can’t actually tax us out of our emissions, they gotta make green options much cheaper and WIDELY available if they really wanna take this off the ground. I think we should invest heavily in green energy, if we’re smart enough we could provide clean power the whole island with some left over to sell and share with the rest of the world, our little island nation has a lot of potential to be a real world player in the next 10 years if we make the right moves sooner rather than later
@Dylan Byrne: of course it is. The EU wants to buy more weapons and build up its armies. There are no policies in place to tackle wasteful use of resources (personal cars, excessive consumption, planned obsolescence) and distinguish them from essential activities like farming. It just means EU corporations will ship their manufacturing to poor countries and raise taxes on normal people. Overall global climate will be unaffected.
@SC: gulp
Let’s hope the greens are gone. More carbon taxes on the way.
As someone who has tried organizing a group “do” at a restaurant, I applaud 27 people agreeing on anything.
But while 55% sounds decent on the surface, using 1990 as the benchmark is bitterly disappointing.
@Amiga Ireland: and it seems that they use the 1990 baseline because that been agreed on the Kyoto-Protocol and they are using it since then. Makes sense to have everyone measuring against the same baseline. But they should update it.
@Amiga Ireland: it is the benchmark universally used.
have your say