Paul Murphy: Government Burning Our Climate Targets

Thanks a lot, Seann Comhairle. What's today? 30th of June. It should go down as the day of the bonfire of our climate targets. In this one swift afternoon, we're going to make real the ministers saying that, like, well, we're not going to reach our climate targets, softly said over just after Christmas of this year. But what does that look like in reality? It looks like this afternoon, ramming through with no parliamentary oversight, no proper debate, often in the case of the next one we'll be discussing, no economic impact assessment, just ramming through measures that are going to mean that, I mean, we're not coming close to meeting our climate targets because they are being ignored. I mean, we now have this climate change legislation, which like every time we raised previously, oh, but are we going to reach our climate targets? The answer was, well, don't worry, we've got these legally binding targets. So therefore, we're going to meet them because it's the law. So you have to meet the law. But now we're just disapplying the law to anything that has to do with climate. We're disapplying the law from LNG. You're going to disapply the law from data centres. We're disapplying the law in terms of Dublin airport. So if anything's actually polluting, well, the climate targets don't apply to that. Don't worry about that. I mean, it's an absolute joke. And like, we're all just expected the world to go along with the idea that, oh, we're all following the science and we're doing what we need to do and just stay asleep there. When you guys are absolutely in hock to fossil fuel companies, the big airlines, Donald Trump, the people who are responsible for destroying our planet and just hope that people stay asleep about that. And like, that's what this two hour debate is about. That's what the next two hour debate is about. I'd say this is what the next two hour debate after that in terms of AI is about as well. It's about avoiding a real airing of the issues here and hope that people don't notice that this government is utterly abandoning all climate commitments. In this case, basically in order to satisfy Donald Trump. And who's going to pay for that? Our children are going to pay for it. Our grandchildren are going to pay for it in terms of we see the impact of climate change, even in Europe at this stage where people are dying as a result of extreme heat. But in the more immediate sense, people are going to pay with euros from their pockets. This thing is going to cost a billion more. Who's going to pay for that? Oh, the public's going to pay by a household levy on energy bills. So the public is going to pay for this LNG development. You are locking in fossil fuels. That's the whole consequence of investing in fossil fuel infrastructure. We shouldn't be investing in any fossil fuel infrastructure at all. None. Right. It flies in the face of the science. But you're locking in not just any fossil fuel infrastructure. You're locking in the dirtiest possible fossil fuel infrastructure, because ultimately this is about fracked gas coming from the US. And the Climate Change Advisory Council told you that further expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure through an LNG terminal will commit Ireland to further fossil fuel locking. Like they told you that and you're simply ignoring them. This isn't making us. It's not dealing with the issue of energy security. It's making us reliant on Donald Trump for energy security, which is that's that's a great idea. Or the next US administration. And the consequences is devastating. I put on the record now the hazards that are present here. And the consequence, if I quote stops Shannon LNG, the importing of LNG is associated with hazards such as gas explosions threatening local communities. A key risk in LNG facilities is an uncontrolled release of a cryogenic toxic or flammable fluid. This can include liquid releases, a form of pool on the ground or water and ignite, creating a potentially long lasting pool fire. That's on you. That's on this government. And the disastrous effects of locking us into fossil fuel, tearing up all of our targets is also on you. If you're serious about energy securities and I think energy security is just and it's the Trojan horse. It's you wrap up LNG and say, oh, no, no, this is energy secure. We weren't originally told. Oh, we have to. People want to understand this. You have to empty the whole terminal six times a year. Right. So it's a significant like that's a large portion of what is currently used in terms of gas. Currently in this country is now going to end up being fracked gas. But it's a Trojan horse. You are not excluding commercial developments in this bill. Again, that was like the original argument. No, no, don't worry. It'll only be this one emergency reserve, etc. Just kind of sit there. So that's moved to being something that will sit there and be emptied six times a year. And the bill absolutely is open for it being moved even further. But if you were serious about the issue of energy security, you'd be investing in battery storage. You'd be investing in interconnectors. You'd be investing in different forms of renewable energy that work in different weather conditions, wind, solar, hydro, etc. And so what is this about? And it's about being friendly to Donald Trump. And this is a key ask in terms of the tensions between US imperialism and the EU. Basically he had two asks. One was buy more of our energy. Two was buy more of our weapons. And this is about appeasing Donald Trump. But it's also about, and it's related to the, not the next bill, but the one after that, the AI bill. It's about saying to big tech companies, don't worry. Don't worry about all the energy usage. Green light, go. As much energy usage as you want for your data centres. That we're going to burn more and more fossil fuels to facilitate data centres. And the idea that we can just continue on this track of expanded and expanded energy usage, which in the best case scenario just simply uses up the extra renewable capacity that we're adding. Or the worst case scenario, like effectively what is being opened, the Vista that is being opened here in terms of commercial LNG, but also what's actually happening in many data centres around the country. We're actually going to burn gas. In this case, we're going to burn fracked gas as a consequence. Yeah, I mean, I'm interested in the minister's response. But I mean, the main thing, to be honest, is that like agree or disagree in any of these arguments. Fine. But like it is a disgrace. It really is a disgrace not to allow us to debate these. Not to have a committee stage that can go through it properly, not to give proper time at report stage, not to allow us to get through the vast majority of the amendments that we have before us. It's really a disgrace and it's a very conscious and cynical move by the government, in my opinion.