Carbon budget is specifically designed to circumvent the democratic process

People could justifiably accuse their chosen representatives of abdicating their democratic duty and breaching the principle of no taxation without representation. The “carbon budget” passed earlier this year by the Dáil did just that.

The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021, which was passed in the Dáil last June by 129 votes to 10, requires the Environment, Climate and Communications Minister to present a carbon budget to the Dáil. This sets out the carbon emissions target to be achieved but not who is to bear the pain of achieving it. The Dáil cannot amend this carbon “budget”. It may only accept it or reject it. But if the Dáil rejects it, the minister can still present it to Government for approval and the Government must either approve it or approve it with modifications.

Thereafter, the Environment, Climate and Communications Minister, in consultation with whatever ministers “he or she considers appropriate”, is empowered to develop a sectoral emissions ceiling for each relevant sector for the period of the budget to 2025, which he is expected to do later this month. The Dáil no longer has any say, not even the pathetic power to reject them and be ignored. If this seems democratically suspect, it’s because it is. The legislation is specifically designed to circumvent democracy.

At the time the bill was being voted upon, members of the Irish Farmers’ Association marched in Dublin in protest at flaws in the Climate Action Bill. In line with public health measures in place at the time, the group numbered fewer than 100 and had a garda escort as it proceeded from the Convention Centre to Government Buildings.

Reducing the fiscal budget is always difficult for everybody across society, but more so for some than for others.

A combination of welfare cuts, tax increases and public sector pay reductions, or increases that don’t keep pace with inflation, are invariably required. However, some are always better placed to shoulder the financial burden than others. That’s why the whole budget is debated and required to be passed by the people’s representatives. Similarly, reducing the carbon budget to a level at which our planet can sustain human life as we know it will be difficult for everybody. Because of the importance of the objective, a democratic debate and vote on who shoulders the burden is more, not less, important. Instead, it will effectively be decided by the Environment, Climate and Communications Minister alone after consultation with such other ministers, if any, he considers appropriate.

It’s difficult to see how the necessary public buy-in required to reduce national emissions by our agreed 4.8pc target will be achieved without any debate or discussion on how the burden is to be fairly borne.

You may love or loathe the current minister. He’s liked by enough people in Dublin Bay South to be given a democratic mandate to make decisions on their behalf. If they like those decisions, they choose him again. If not, they don’t. All are elected to reflect the political priorities of their constituents. That’s democracy.

But the priorities of the people of Dublin Bay South may be quite different to those in Tipperary, which in turn could be quite different from those in Mayo. That’s why the people who live in all those places have representatives too and have an equal right to participate in all aspects of government, especially the formulation and implementation of policies that will affect them, through those freely chosen representatives. It is implicit in a democracy that those representatives do in fact exercise governmental power and that they are accountable through the electoral process for their exercise of that power. 

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency warned we’re nowhere near our carbon emissions targets. 

Removing the people’s representatives from the admittedly difficult process of determining which sectors should bear what share of the burden of meeting them is fundamentally undemocratic. It strips the resultant decisions of legitimacy and the public buy-in necessary to implement those decisions.