Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE SUPREME COURT has found in favour of a case taken against the government on its plans to tackle climate change.
Chief Justice Clarke found that the government’s National Mitigation Plan falls “well short” of being specific enough to provide the transparency required to comply with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Friends of the Irish Environment after the High Court rejected its case in September.
Counsel for Friends of the Irish Environment argued that a 2017 government plan to tackle climate change would not have an adequate impact on rising emissions, and that breaches the Act because it did not specify how the government would achieve the 2050 objectives.
They argued that lack of sufficient action from the government was a breach of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights in the area of rights to life, bodily integrity, and to a healthy environment with human dignity.
Chief Justice Clarke found that the 2015 Act “requires a sufficient level of specificity in the measures identified in a compliant plan that are required to meet the National Transitional Objective by 2050″.
He said that the 2015 Act involves transparency in formal government policy for achieving the climate objectives laid out in the NTO by 2050.
“A compliant plan is not a five-year plan but rather a plan covering the full period remaining to 2050.”
“The Plan falls well short of the level of specificity required to provide that transparency and to comply with the provisions of the 2015 Act,” Chief Justice Clarke found.
Climate Case Ireland / Twitter
Climate Case Ireland / Twitter / Twitter
Environmental group Friends of the Earth said that the judgement should give the government a push to take further action on reducing emissions.
Director of Friends of the Earth, Oisin Coghlan, said that the government “already had a scientific, political and moral obligation to step up its efforts to cut climate-polluting emissions. Now the Supreme Court has ruled it has a legal obligation as well.”
“We need bigger emission reductions – and we need the specific policies and measures to deliver them. Emission reductions must also be made fairly – the case for faster and fairer climate action has just become a whole lot stronger,” Coghlan said.
The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the High Court’s decision to uphold the 2017 National Mitigation Plan in June.
Friends of the Irish Environment asked the High Court to require the government to redraft the plan on the basis that it did not meet Ireland’s legal obligations to tackle climate change.
However, the High Court judge found that it would be inappropriate for the court to judicially review what he identified as a government policy document.
Senior Counsel for Friends of the Irish Environment, Eoin McCullogh, told the Supreme Court that climate action globally is “the single most important issue we face”.
The case argued that Ireland is “completely off course” to achieving emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2030.
Counsel for the state argued against the existence of a causal link between Ireland’s emission increases and human rights violations, and disputed FIE’s human rights arguments on the basis of FIE’s status as a company.
The 2015 Climate Act committed the government to transition to a “low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by the end of the year 2050″.
It required that the government produce a national mitigation plan every five years which specifies how the 2050 objectives will be achieved.
The Supreme Court finding has proposed that the 2017 plan be “quashed” on the basis that it does not provide enough specificity.
Judge Justice Clarke found that Friends of the Irish Environment, as a corporate entity, did not have the standing to maintain its arguments based around human rights, as the entity itself cannot participate in the right to life or the right to bodily integrity.
The plan was criticised by environmental organisations after its launch in 2017, who said that it was not ambitious enough and did not set meaningful targets to address climate change.
The plan allowed for a rise in Ireland’s emissions over the lifetime of the plan between 2017 and 2022.
Coghlan said that the plan did not go far enough to “reduce Ireland’s climate-changing pollution”.
Shortly after the plan’s release, the government’s advisory council on climate change said that Ireland was not on track to meet short-term emission targets, or to decarbonise the economy by 2050, unless major new policy initiatives were developed.
It said that the efforts to reduce emissions needed to be increased across all sectors in order to achieve the long-term goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by at least 80% by 2050.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
She 100% spot on. We need to focus on Irish industry and get Irish companies selling Irish products not on the googles and apples who stay here and literally pay no tax. If apple and google paid what they should be paying it would go a long way to paying off the debts that we owe.
But then they wouldn’t be here in all likelihood. So is it better to get very little corporation tax from them, but large amounts of employment taxes or to get neither and have to support through social welfare the workers currently employed by them?
At a basic level, that is what the choice comes down to.
Thats pure crap, why should we treat these corporations different than irish companies. If the big US companies pay nothing then we shouldn’t complain when an Irish company pays nothing. Treat them the same.
Then we got the vacuum when a US company leaves Ireland what do we do with the unemployed! Put them on a plane and ship them to Australia. If we have irish companies with Irish jobs then people won’t need to emigrate to get work. As long as we depend on US multi nationals we will always have emigration. It is the scourge of society since 1800
That’s what we should do, but our politicians are dancing and the corporate companies are shooting at their feet!
Ned what about the taxes paid by employees, services providers to these large orgs. Take a wholistic view of tax and not the narrow view taken by some seeking votes. Individuals pulling one narrow metric to make a broad statement is both dangerous and demonstrates limited knowledge of full end to end impact of FDi.. Little like comments from left wing TDs and unions.
Short term it works out fine. The problem i have is that we expect an irish company to pay full tax and a foreign company to pay less than 1%. If the company moves on because it can make more money in another country it will and all the jobs are lost.
If apple paid tax that the should then it would be at least 10billion. That would greatly help with current situation. Then u got google facebook and the rest!!!!
It would take a long time for all the employees of the US companies to make 10 billion.
Good MEP – knows her brief, works hard and has smart ideas. What more do can you ask? She’ll get my vote!
Mine too. She talks sense and follows through. Only genuine politician that I know of.
She’s actually one of the better ones out there, though it’s a really competitive constituency so she might struggle, especially with Ming entering the race which could split the independent left wing vote.
That is my worry. Ming is entertaining at times and while he might liven up the campaign a little bit, I fear that his decision to run means that Marian Harkin and him will both lose out. She’s built up a good reputation in Brussels and adds something substansial to the debate. Ming only adds entertainment as far as I can see.
“Independent left wing vote”?
Marian Harkin is a member of ALDE, the same group to which FF belong.
@ Noel: True that they are both part of the ALDE group within the Parliament, but it is slightly more complicated than that.
FF is a member of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party, while Harkin is a member of the European Democratic Party – which sits with the ALDE grouping in the European Parliament in order to recieve speaking time etc.
A situation somewhat akin to the ULA sitting with Shane Ross and Stephen Donnelly in the Dáil, in order that both can benefit.
Shes right , The govt are a disgrace jetting around the world like clowns allegedly getting investment while our own homegrown entrepreneur and small investors are largely ignored. if we ever hope to get Ireland to stand on its own feet we have to build our own indigenous business from ground up. I would love to see how effective has their so called business trips versus the actual gain recieved has been.
She is right , but no one wants to see small company’s getting a start , I moved back here from the states and tried to get funding to start a company that I have been given a licence by the owner of the parent company in the states to start here , I went to local development boards , done buisness classes , went to Solas and no me wants to hear it , they asked if I was working here now ,I said no of course , and they said I would have to be in receipt of jobseekers for at least a year , which I did ,and still no . I had a meeting for one last attempt three weeks ago and the woman wouldn’t even listen to me in Solas , said I couldn’t get funding I would need to try a job bridge course or an internship and offered me a job grooming dogs , so I’m off out of here and starting it in Newyork to make capital to fund the Irish side of it myself , hopefully , but they could do more , the price of a few flights for these people would have got me going , I had bought my own vehicles for the company already ,just needed to secure first import of product ,ah well , I hope she makes changes .
Seems the job is getting a bit too much for you Marian. . .
In fairness at least she can distinguish between the yes and no buttons when voting unlike our current MEP’s FF/FG/Lab……
It isa bit early yet to be putting up posters, from 23rd April is the correct time.
Yes and cutting hedges ceases on the first of March… Buts its still being done. Country cannot run without breaking the rules.
A small roundabout beside me has 7 from the same candidate. With the catchy slogan “let’s get maynooth working”. She’s a labour candidate. ..she shouldn’t have even bothered
Two more questions
Who voted for the President of the European Council?
Did anyone in Ireland vote for Van Rompuy or for that matter Barroso or even hear of them before they took over ?
1) Who voted for the President of the European Council?
The members of the European Council in 2009 voted for him. The members of the Council are the Heads of State and Government, while the President himself is more like a secretary to a board than anything else. He organises meetings of the European Council and follows up on actions agreed afterwards.
2) Did anyone in Ireland vote for Van Rompuy or for that matter Barroso or even hear of them before they took over ?
Nope, as Van Rompuy was the Belgian Prime Minister – nobody would have voted for him in Ireland. But in effect that doesn’t really matter greatly, because his role is more akin to that of secretary of the board. The two other Presidents – President of the European Commission and President of the European Parliament – are argubably much more powerful in managing the European agenda.
Regarding Barroso, he was selected in 2004 by the members of the European Commission. However this year the process has been changed significantly and MEPs will have more of a role in electing the Commission President, like the Dáil elects the Taoiseach for example.
I hope that helps. European Voice and EurActiv both have good articles outlining how the process will work this year verses 2004.
I found her less than helpful, like most politicians, when I went to her trying to highlight the lack of formal education in my industry. Voters are growing long memories.
What industry
The blacksmith industry. We are the third largest craft industry worth €15m to the Irish economy every year but have no training facility’s. Marian did not feel we were worth supporting.
Needs to keep those hands in her pockets!
It’s rather worrying that she is the second person to say that the role of the job suits her at the moment. I’d love if my job fitted in around my circumstances.
Oh stop putting words in her mouth. She actually said “I couldn’t have done this when I had younger children …”
Yes so what I said is true
Another politician hoping to benefit from gender discrimination.
How so? She was first elected in 2004 as an MEP and is an independent, so never elected using an internal party quota.
The point she makes on the whole system of quotas is quite a good one I thought.
She makes no point at all. Simply makes an ambiguous statement about some people being given the nod because of nepotism. She doesn’t explain her position on this at all.
Do you really believe the answer to perceived inequality is actual statutory discrimination?
have your say