Is the Environment Minister's cart before his horse?

Environment Minister Phil Hogan appeared before the Environment committee this afternoon. I find it rather strange to say he "appeared before them". But this phrasing is how people generally describe it when a minister goes in to talk to a committee, especially if he is invited. It brings to my mind images of gable walls and miraculous visions. So there he was anyway, a vision of joviality. He didn't however have any particularly healing words to impart. The Environment committee had hauled him in to clear up some uncertainty caused by his remarks about climate legislation at the end of October. At the time it was reported that the minister had said climate legislation was not a priority for him. As can be expected he was criticised widely for this. For a particularly to the point criticism you should listen to Professor of climatology John Sweeney's interview on drivetime. (It starts about one hour and fifty minutes in)

Minister Hogan accepted the invitation to appear before the committee to "clarify" his position. We issued a press release calling on him to stop delaying on the bill and to progress the legislation as a matter of urgency. Many of you took our email action to the committee telling them to stay strong and ask for a climate bill from Minister Hogan..

In his speech to the committee the Minister set out that he is still committed to passing legislation in this Government. However first he wants to do extensive consultation on what climate change policy measures to introduce before legislation is passed. He wants NESC (the National Economic and Social Council) to examine a review of climate policy in depth. This is putting the cart before the horse. A climate law has never been about measures to reduce emissions. Its about putting in place a system to make sure that those measures are actually taken. We already know what the policy measures are needed to reduce emissions; more renewable energy, better public transport, retro fitted homes. We don't suffer from a lack of solutions to climate change, we suffer form a lack of the political will to implement them. A climate law is about making sure that a sound system of planning exists to ensure governments can't find reasons for delay.

A climate law means that governments must explain exactly what targets they are going to meet in the next five years. The targets we have under Kyoto and the EU are often set well in advance and don't mean anything to politicians who think in election cycles. A climate law means that the environment minister has to go before the Dail every year and say if we are on track to meet our targets or not. If we are not then they must explain what they are going to do to get back on track. A climate law sets up a climate change committee to give independent expert advise to government. The climate change committee can advise on what measures are best. The Minister shouldn't be putting more work at NESC's door, he should be setting up a climate change committee. A commitee who's starting point will be meeting targets that avoid dangerous climate change. There is no miracle cure for climate change, and some tough decisions will have to be made. Waiting around until there is political consensus on every measure before it is implemented is cowardly politics and will lead us to climate collapse.

Some members of the environment committee were quite concerned with the Minister's approach. As Gerald Nash(Louth) said, if we wait for consensus on all the measures we'll only "move as quickly as the most obstinate stakeholder will allow."

For the most part the questions and the comments from the TDs on the committee were very well informed and positive. Kevin Humphreys of Dublin South East pressed the Minister twice on his delay in producing a bill imploring that we "think global and act local"

Brian Stanley (Laois/Offally) also pressed the Minister and wanted to see a bill produced as soon as possible. He made the point that there is nothing to stop consultation on the policy measure continuing at the same time as a Bill is being considered by the environment committee.

Some worrying remarks came from Paudi Coffey (Waterford) who welcomed the "sensible" caution of the Miniater and said that "we shouldn't set targets unless we know we can meet them". This is really rather missing the point on climate change.

The emissions that we are putting into the atmosphere are causing dangerous climate change and unless we set targets for serious reductions AND meet them then we are going to face devastating impacts from extreme weather events. We can not afford to only set targets we can meet, nor can we afford to wait for concenus on every measure before legislating. Dangersous climate change will not be averted by any miracoulous visons, we must act now.