“The absence of ambition; that is most striking.” That is the verdict of Green Party leader Roderic O’Gorman on the programme for government.
A Cabinet member in the outgoing Government, he acknowledges many of their commitments and targets are retained – “reluctantly” in some cases – with obvious green elements deprioritised.
He highlights one missing element that he says suggests a lack of willingness to take hard and necessary steps: the absence of agreement to a 90 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2040.
It may seem like a target for the distant future but so much stems from that, in terms of direction of travel for the economy, in scaling up renewable energy, transforming housing, tipping the balance more to public transport and decarbonising society.
O’Gorman, the lone Green TD following election decimation for the party, expresses surprise, as it was a standout climate commitment in Fianna Fáil’s manifesto. The programme for government, as it stands, does not even indicate the way to get halfway there, he adds.
While the influence of Independents is noticeable in demoting active travel and cycling, he is relieved they lost the fight over carbon tax.
On de-greened elements, he points to data centre development policy that takes away brakes applied by the last Government. He also notes the Climate and Nature Fund is being lumped in with general spending, and risks ending up as “a slush fund rather than achieving climate goals”.
His colleague Eamon Ryan, responsible for climate, transport and energy policy in the last Government, also points to the “disappointing” absence of that 2040 target.
Ryan welcomes moves to strengthen the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in driving rather than delaying climate, energy and transport policy implementation. He welcomes the document’s clear indication key departments “need to deliver quicker and better” – rather than setting up a new department of infrastructure.
Retaining a dedicated Department of Transport is important, he says, while arguing here is evidence of lack of ambition and understanding that it matters beyond climate considerations, notably in good urban planning and reduced congestion.
The programme’s text fails to provide assurances that the objective of meeting Ireland’s legally binding obligations will be prioritised, says climatologist Prof John Sweeney. “A target for 2030 is mentioned, but no reference to the overarching two carbon budgets that precede this is included,” he notes.
Key policy commitments offer “the prospect of continuing and accelerating the gap already apparent in the present and forthcoming carbon budget”, Sweeney says. These include stimulating further growth in data centres; lifting the passenger cap on Dublin Airport, increasing supports for sheep and dairy/beef farming, supporting further once-off rural housing and seeking to retain the nitrates derogation.
Sweeney also highlights concerns about funding priorities that could threaten climate action and sustainability. These include assigning funds from the Infrastructure, Climate and Nature fund to the agricultural sector and limiting objectives regarding Nature Restoration Plans to State lands – ie not including semi-state lands such as Bord na Móna.
On reopening the National Development Plan during the first six months of the new government, Sweeney says this should be seen in the context of “review and reform the prioritisation process of capital projects in key agencies”.
A review of planning and transport guidelines for national secondary roads to facilitate housing, community and industrial development, should be seen in context as “continue to support once-off rural housing”, he says
Meanwhile the erroneous claim that “in 2023, we achieved a nearly 7 per cent reduction in emissions” is repeated. “The figure is based on a partial count of emissions only and the true figure should be 3.8 per cent.
Climate policy analyst Sadhbh O’Neill, who is standing for Labour in the Seanad election, highlights the absence of corrective measures to ensure critical climate targets are met by 2030.
“While it does not renege on the previous government’s commitment to reduce emissions by 51 per cent by 2030, it does not set out how the gap to target identified by the EPA and Climate Change Advisory Council will be bridged,” she says.
That corrective action is likely to be forced on new governemnt. “The 2021 act requires the minister and the government to set out how they will correct course of it looks as though sectoral emission ceilings and carbon budgets will not be met.”
But by ducking this vital issue it effectively commits the new government to failure, with obvious consequences, O’Neill says.
“We have known for years that we are likely to miss the 2030 targets by a wide margin, putting public funds of between €8-€20 billion at risk. These fines alone would be an outrageous waste of money. But failure is also an opportunity cost – we could be ramping up onshore as well as offshore renewables, retrofitting many more cold and damp homes and kick-starting new Luas and rail projects for all our big cities.”
O’Neill adds: “Just reconfirming existing policies isn’t going to be enough. We need bold brave and disruptive measures if the government is serious about climate action.”
Friends of the Earth chief executive Oisín Coghlan claims the programme for government “risks falling into ‘climate cakeism’ – having the established climate targets in there but wanting your pollution too”.
What’s worrying, he adds, is lack of specific concrete actions to deliver the required reductions. “The real test will be what the Government does over the next six months and the next five years. And under the climate law there will be plenty of opportunities to hold them to account for that.”
There is “a worrying shift away from the necessary momentum and action to address our climate and biodiversity crises and provide for a sustainable society”, according to the Environmental Pillar.
“The clock is ticking, Ireland cannot afford to tread water or worse, backslide, in our efforts to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and restore nature,” says its co-ordinator Karen Ciesielski.
The failure to maintain the modest 2:1 spending in favour of new public transport versus new roads is a mistake that will lead to increased emissions, she adds.
“In our manifesto, the Environmental Pillar called for a ratio of at least 5:1 with at least 20 per cent of the capital spend on transport to go on active travel. The concentration on roads in the programme for government is a retrograde step, which will only lead to increased car use, congestion and rising emissions.”
The EP also says it is concerned the clause that says the Government will take all necessary action to ensure and protect Ireland’s energy security could allow for an LNG facility in the Shannon landbank in North Kerry.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
