Climate change in the news often centres on extreme weather events in far-off countries, or world leaders debating at high-level meetings – like this week’s G7 meeting. It’s not surprising, therefore, that we often regard this most pressing of challenges as remote; a matter for diplomats and scientists. In reality, tackling climate change depends just as much on our choices and behaviour on a national and a local level.
National climate change legislation has been introduced in several European countries, including Finland and Denmark earlier this year. The UK’s Climate Change Act dates from 2008. It shows that, when done right, laws of this kind can be a valuable asset. They can frame and give impetus to national decision-making, and help drive a cost-effective transition to a low-carbon economy.
The Oireachtas is currently considering the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill, and this move to introduce climate legislation is welcome. But is the draft law strong enough to deliver the low-carbon future it promises?
ClientEarth believes that, in its current form, the Bill is too weak to ensure good governance of Ireland’s low-carbon transition.
To drive decarbonisation, an effective climate law must provide real certainty and demonstrate long-term commitment to inspire investor confidence. In our view, the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill, as drafted, falls short of the required standard in two important respects: it fails to put in place long-term nationally binding targets; and it establishes an expert body – the Expert Advisory Council – which is not truly independent.
EU targets alone are unlikely to be sufficient to drive the change Ireland needs. The binding national targets developed at EU-level create a strong impetus for Irish emissions reductions and impose serious financial and reputational penalties for failure. However, whether binding national targets will be developed at EU level beyond 2020 is seriously in doubt. The EU-level targets currently being discussed are also inherently short-term because they treat 2030 as an end-point rather than a staging post. There is no binding 2050 target at EU level. This can lead to a damaging failure to plan for the long term, particularly where compliance with a single target can be “bought off” by buying credits internationally; something Ireland is expected to do to meet its 2020 targets.
Essential investment
Far from interfering with EU targets, setting long-term national targets would allow Ireland to lead in tackling climate change, strengthen its position in climate negotiations and, most importantly, provide the certainty to attract essential investment. Other European countries are beginning to acknowledge this, by legislating for binding 2050 targets. In the UK, binding targets are also set every five years. The Bill represents a real opportunity for Ireland to likewise overcome some of the deficiencies of the EU approach.
The UK experience has also shown the significant value of an independent Committee on Climate Change. The committee’s impact has been clear and positive, and its authority has been enhanced as a result.
Other European countries, in drafting and implementing their national climate laws, also place emphasis on the independence of advisory bodies.
If Ireland’s Expert Advisory Council (EAC) is to be truly effective, it must be truly independent. Strong climate law requires that short-term political pressures are resisted, which in turn demands a body that operates at arm’s length from government. Yet the EAC’s composition (including, for example, the director of Teagasc as one of its members) suggests it will not be independent. Whatever the good intentions of EAC’s members, the validity and impact of its work will be undermined from the start by this lack of independence; whether real or perceived. Within the framework of the Irish Bill, it will be extremely difficult for the EAC to challenge such perceptions and develop a reputation for genuine independence. The EAC’s effectiveness – and the effectiveness of the Bill as a whole – will suffer as a result.
Legal action
Finally, the Irish Government has expressed concern that targets might leave Ireland vulnerable to legal action. In fact, a binding law can still give government wide discretion – and can direct accountability towards parliament, as the UK law does. If there were substantive breaches of genuinely binding targets in the Irish Bill, the courts would surely tread cautiously. But it is only right that more procedural breaches should in all events be remedied. Fundamentally, effective judicial oversight is a key aspect of the rule of law. A law cannot be truly effective if there are no consequences of a breach. One certain way to avoid legal action is to act in accordance with targets that are set.
We hope Ireland’s legislators will take this opportunity to address these critical weaknesses. As it stands, the Bill does not create a governance structure that will effectively drive a cost-effective climate transition for Ireland. Ireland is already struggling to meet its climate commitments. If not revised, this Bill will do little to change that.
Jonathan Church is a ClientEarth lawyer specialising in energy and climate change. He is author of a recent report for Stop Climate Chaos