Subscriber OnlyOpinion

Failure to curtail our greenhouse gas emissions could cost us two children’s hospitals

In the public mind, 2030 has wrongly become the cornerstone of climate policy, rather than the imperative of complying with two legally-required carbon budgets

Photograph: Frank Miller
John Sweeney
Tue Jul 09 2024 - 06:00

It might be the prospect of financing a wedding in five or six years’ time, or a special holiday or house renovation, that requires planning future income and expenditure; but of course there is no point in imagining a targeted amount of money will be available on the particular day without careful budgeting being done in advance. So it is with Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a public and political perception that achieving an emissions reduction of 51 per cent on our 2018 total by December 31st, 2030 is the only target that matters. This is an erroneous interpretation that is based on a misunderstanding of the differences between an end target date and the primacy in law of the carbon budget approach enshrined in the Climate Act 2021. It is compliance with the five-year budgets that is legally required, not landing on a set figure on a future target date.

Politically, a 2030 target date is much easier to argue for. Kicking the can down the road is a well-established ploy for addressing sticky political problems. The issues of compliance will rest on the shoulders of the next government, who will undoubtedly say “it was like this when we got here”. Hard choices for today that might cost votes can be postponed, and minimal incremental reductions in emissions can be spun as progress.

In the Climate Act of 2021, “2030″ occurs only twice, both times as a guide for setting the two carbon budgets for 2021-2025 and 2026-2030. By contrast, in the 2024 climate action plan “2030″ features 413 times. In the public mind, 2030 has become the cornerstone of climate policy, rather than the imperative of complying with two legally-required carbon budgets. 2030 is a nice fuzzy future date, rather like the nebulous “net zero by 2050″ targets so beloved of some public and private sector organisations.

READ MORE

But procrastination has its consequences. In its recent projections, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that, with existing measures, we will exceed our first carbon budget (2021-25) of 295 million tonnes by 26 million tonnes. Accordingly, our second carbon budget (2026-30) will have to be reduced by this amount, from 200 million tonnes to 174 million tonnes. An overshoot of 135 million tonnes is subsequently projected for this second carbon budget.

Later this year, the Climate Change Advisory Council will be required to submit a finalised figure for the third carbon budget period (2031-35). This is currently provisionally set at 151 million tonnes. Faced with a projected overhang of 135 million tonnes, this leaves a residual amount of 16 million tonnes for the entire five-year period – about three months of current emissions. Even with the over-optimistic inclusion of additional measures, only about one year’s worth of emissions (at current rates) would be left for the five years concerned. Room for manoeuvre is extremely limited and risky. Any attempted alteration of the budget figures runs a high risk of noncompliance with Ireland’s international obligations, such as the Paris Agreement, a requirement embedded in our Climate Act of 2021.

When governments fail to comply with the laws they have themselves passed, the public has the right to seek redress. This has occurred in many jurisdictions across the world in recent years, most recently in the case of the “Swiss grannies”, and in the UK, where the high court ruled that the government’s climate strategy was not fit for purpose and therefore breached its own Climate Change Act.

[ Climate change: ‘How can we feed the world while not damaging it?’ ]

Where legal regulation occurs, redressing the consequences of political procrastination can be ruthless. Concepts such as “just transition” or “bringing the people with us” risk becoming casualties, and this has happened in such cases outside Ireland. But there is also another aspect not widely appreciated by the public. This is the EU requirement to pay for excess emissions through purchasing quotas from compliant countries with surplus emissions. In effect these are fines, taxpayer funds transferred from Ireland to our EU partners. It is reported that the financial implication of the EPA projections being realised would amount to a total of €5 billion for the Irish taxpayer by 2030. In other words, failure to take the legally required action to curtail our greenhouse gas emissions could cost us the equivalent of two children’s hospitals.

John Sweeney is emeritus professor at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units (ICARUS) in the department of Geography, Maynooth University