EPA Report - 2008 - Ireland's Environment - Big Changes Needed

The EPA has just published the latest in its series of "State of the Environment" reports for Ireland. For the first time as well as giving a base line report for our environment today they also project into the future what will happen based on present trends. The report makes it clear that Ireland is on track to massively overshoot binding EU targets on carbon emissions and is performing badly in environmental protection in a number of ways.

The full report is linked on the epa site: http://www.epa.ie/news/pr/2008/name,25271,en.html

IRELAND WILL miss key targets for tackling waste, carbon dioxide emissions and water quality unless radical action is taken now, the director general of the Environmental Protection Agency Dr Mary Kelly warned yesterday. Dr Kelly said under even the most favourable scenario Ireland's greenhouse gases would exceed targets for 2020 by seven million tonnes, resulting in the purchase of additional carbon credits and a substantial bill for taxpayers.

The analysis of likely future developments across all sectors of the economy suggested that pressure on environmental quality will continue to build over the next two decades. Dr Kelly said it was vital that the State continue to invest to reverse areas of environmental degradation, despite the economic slowdown and budgetary pressure.

She called for more investment in research and development of new "green technologies", and use of resources in a more sustainable manner. Presenting a copy of 2008 Ireland's Environment a four-year assessment of Ireland's environment to Minister for the Environment John Gormley yesterday, Dr Kelly said progress generally had been too slow.

Outlining the key issues confronting Ireland's future, she said current trends would see:

• Landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets for 2016 exceeding its target level of 451 tonnes by 800,000 tonnes;

• The greenhouse gas emissions target of 38 million tonnes by 2020 being exceeded by 7 million tonnes, even at the most favourable scenario;

• Emissions of nitrogen oxides, currently well above the 2010 ceiling, remaining high, mainly due to emissions from cars.

Emissions above target would ultimately cost the State more in purchasing carbon credits under the European Emissions Trading Scheme, she said.Dr Kelly said Ireland faced four significant challenges in the immediate future and these were limiting climate change, reversing environmental degradation, mainstreaming environmental considerations and complying with environmental legislation and agreements.

She said additional measures were needed to limit emissions from transport, energy and agriculture, while further action would have to be taken to limit and reverse damage to habitat, flora and fauna. In addition, Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) would have to be imposed on all major projects, while the State must comply with EU environmental legislation.

Accepting the report yesterday, Mr Gormley said it was clear there was a bleak future unless "additional measures" were implemented to bring Ireland on target.

In relation to the Budget, he said "mainstreaming environmental issues" was a key goal, and one which most members of the Cabinet had now accepted.
Mr Gormley said retrograde steps had been made in "tough budgets" in the past - such as the abolition of An Foras Forbartha, which he was thankful to note had subsequently been re-established - and he added there would be no such retrograde steps in the water services programme. "It is unacceptable that people don't have clean water." The Minister also said he had made commitments on flood defences - particularly to the people of Carlow - and these would have to be honoured.

He also said public transport in Dublin was a key issue for the Green Party in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Asked whether the provision of the Luas and Metro systems was an issue akin to the retention of An Foras Forbartha, he replied: "Public transport is vital, I can't be clearer than that."The Irish Times

The EPA reports are a great resource and the report overall shows that we have a relatively good environment, but it highlights very urgent matters that aren't being dealt with.

It is clear that Ireland does not have an energy plan in place to meet targets on emissions. Projects like the hyper costly and damanging Metro North have not been evaluated properly and the idea that this type of vanity project could significantly reduce our transport emissions is for the birds.
Vacillating and illogical policy on biofuels is also a worry.

The best investment that I could see being made in the next budget would be an integrated energy and landuse plan to make Ireland energy self sufficient based on renewables.

Btw - John Gormley is incorrect: An Foras Forbartha was never reinstated.

Ireland environmentally crap...who knew?

ibis wrote:

Ireland environmentally crap...who knew?

Any solutions ibis? Apart from more EU regulation - we're all for that anyway aren't we?. But I hope against stoopid EU targets on biofuels and no source tracing of same.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ireland environmentally crap...who knew?

Any solutions ibis? Apart from more EU regulation - we're all for that anyway aren't we?. But I hope against stoopid EU targets on biofuels and no source tracing of same.

Well, yes - I also favour good environmental legislation as opposed to faddish target-setting, strangely enough! We'll not be getting environmental legislation out of the Dáil any time soon though, unless you count giving a green light to random development.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ireland environmentally crap...who knew?

Any solutions ibis? Apart from more EU regulation - we're all for that anyway aren't we?. But I hope against stoopid EU targets on biofuels and no source tracing of same.

Well, yes - I also favour good environmental legislation as opposed to faddish target-setting, strangely enough! We'll not be getting environmental legislation out of the Dáil any time soon though, unless you count giving a green light to random development.

No faith in Mr. Gormley's Green credentials? Me neither - not a word about ribbon development so far as I can see. Once one tries to move beyond the trendy farmers-market-luas-lifestyle stuff, it seems to be an uphill struggle with them on environmental measures.

I would agree with you about the uselessness of lipservice targets. Targets for minimal change are a positive disadvantage, as they may actually inhibit more ambitious measures and allow everyone who doesn't bother to feel they haven't failed by much.

Ambitious, shocking targets adopted by governments can be a very powerful instrument for making real change. They demand attention and present the prospect of dramatic gains or catastrophic failure, both of which are real motivators. They make it plain that things are going to change and provide encouragement to investors. I am in favour of setting very high targets for replacement of carbon fuels with renewable energy sources.

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ireland environmentally crap...who knew?

Any solutions ibis? Apart from more EU regulation - we're all for that anyway aren't we?. But I hope against stoopid EU targets on biofuels and no source tracing of same.

Well, yes - I also favour good environmental legislation as opposed to faddish target-setting, strangely enough! We'll not be getting environmental legislation out of the Dáil any time soon though, unless you count giving a green light to random development.

No faith in Mr. Gormley's Green credentials? Me neither - not a word about ribbon development so far as I can see. Once one tries to move beyond the trendy farmers-market-luas-lifestyle stuff, it seems to be an uphill struggle with them on environmental measures.

To be fair, I don't think he's doing a bad job, particularly when you consider the alternatives. Most of the legislation is penny-ante stuff, but it's better than what would otherwise be happening. FF don't believe in climate change, I'm afraid - oh, there's probably a couple at the top that do, and they all pay lip-service to the idea, but the rank and file not a bit - the FF supporters on p.ie are typical rather than otherwise. So the Greens are very limited in what they can hope to achieve.

cactus flower wrote:

I would agree with you about the uselessness of lipservice targets. Targets for minimal change are a positive disadvantage, as they may actually inhibit more ambitious measures and allow everyone who doesn't bother to feel they haven't failed by much.

Ambitious, shocking targets adopted by governments can be a very powerful instrument for making real change. They demand attention and present the prospect of dramatic gains or catastrophic failure, both of which are real motivators. They make it plain that things are going to change and provide encouragement to investors. I am in favour of setting very high targets for replacement of carbon fuels with renewable energy sources.

I agree with you there. The scary thing about being scientifically trained, particularly in the life sciences (Geology and Environmental Management), and keeping up with the scientific research, is that you know that we're a fuck of a lot further up shit creek than most people would even imagine.