Senator Bacik speaking on Climate Change and Listed Buildings
Order of Business
Senator Ivana Bacik: I ask the Deputy Leader for a debate on the Climate Protection Bill 2007, which I introduced to the House in October last year and which still has to resume on Second Stage. In the justified uproar and protests over the dreadful budget, it may have missed the attention of those in government that last week the UK passed the first binding climate change law. The new British Act sets a legally binding target for the UK to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. It has been welcomed by the majority of businesses there as setting an incentive for them to reduce their emissions and move to low carbon technologies.
In a week when the Green Party is seeking a debate on this issue, it would be appropriate to have a further debate on the Climate Protection Bill.
It is unfortunate that this Bill was not passed into law before the British Act was passed, but given that they have passed it, it shows that an argument against passing our Bill into law has been removed. It is clearly possible and practical to pass legislation creating binding targets for reductions in carbon emissions. It is becoming obvious that we have no option but to do so, or else we will never meet the modest Kyoto targets. I ask the Deputy Leader for further time to debate Second Stage and, if necessary, to move on to the next Stage of the Climate Protection Bill. It is vital that we do so, and there is a great deal of support across the parties in this House, and in the other House, for that.
I ask the Deputy Leader also for a debate on protections of listed buildings. In recent weeks we have seen the destruction of two buildings — a 19th century Methodist church near Croke Park and a 19th century convent in Terenure, for which a developer was fined a derisory €1,000 for illegally demolishing that convent. There appears to be an absence of appropriate sanctions for developers who demolish buildings illegally and, with the Green Party in Government, it would be appropriate to debate that issue.
There has been a good deal of misplaced concern expressed in this House about the protection of embryos in terms of embryonic stem cell research. We might reflect on the real concern we should feel for people we know who have Parkinson’s disease or other degenerative diseases and for whom research of this type can offer a real prospect of treatment for the future. We should not close the door on them and lack compassion towards them when we are debating stem cell research.
That is the real issue for us and that is where our concern would be better placed.