Minister’s decision exposes failure of Greens in Government to tackle roots of climate crisis Says Bríd Smith TD.
People Before Profit Climate Spokesperson Bríd Smith has reacted to Minister Eamon Ryan’s decision to refuse to support her Climate Emergency Measures bill proceeding to Committee stage.
The Bill would go further than current Government policy and effectively freeze all existing licenses for oil and gas exploration in the state.
Minister Ryan had cited legal obligations and fears of the state been sued by holders of current licences as the reason for refusing to allow the bill, first passed by the Dail 2018, to proceed.
The TD has written to Minister Ryan rejecting the arguments and appealing to him to reconsider the decision (see below).
Both Europa and Providence resources have license options which they claim could separately yield 80 million barrels of oil for Providence and 1.5 trillion cubic feet of gas for Europa. Deputy Smith pointed out that these are just 2 of 19 remaining license that the industry wants to keep alive, meaning vast swathes of Irish territorial waters are still open to oil and gas exploration
Deputy Smith said “Today Minister Ryan will pose with Fridays for Futures and claim leadership on climate policy. The reality is that he has quietly permitted further oil and gas exploration that may see new fields exploited and result in many more millions of tonnes of Co2 emissions being released into the atmosphere. This comes at a time when the science is screaming at Governments globally that the vast bulk of existing fossil fuels reserves must remain in the ground. Real leadership means standing up to the fossil fuel industry here and globally. Real leadership means more than targets for 2030 or 2050.”
The Deputy also said she rejected as factually and legally wrong the assertions made by Minster Ryan to support the decision saying “This is simply a rehash of the case made against the bill in 2018 by Fin Gael. License holders cannot simply expect the right to continue on with business as usual while we are in the middle of a catastrophic climate crisis.”
She added “By killing this Bill the Green party are saying its ok for business interest in Europa or Providence to prioritise their future profits over real climate action. The global fossil fuel industry have used the Ukraine war to unleased a carbon bond on the future of humanity and unless we stand up to them we will guarantee at least 2 degrees of temperature rises with devastating effects on humanity and life”.
Letter sent to Minister Ryan in response to his decision
Dear Minister Ryan.
I refer to your letter of 11/11/22, outlining your reasons for refusing a Money Message for the Petroleum and other Minerals development Bill (Climate Emergency Measures), and your proposal to instead offer a Reasoned Response for the rejection of the request .
Let me outline the reason I believe this position to be factually incorrect and the reasons why the bill should proceed to committee stage and eventually be enacted in legislation.
When the Bill was first proposed in 2018, you will recall it had broad cross-party support and indeed won two separate votes in the Dáil during the last term. Its aim was to effectively ban the future exploration and extraction of any new field or find of petroleum in this state. It did this by tying any proposed issuing of a new or indeed the extension, renewal, or progression of an existing authorisation to the climate emergency we face. Therefore, the issuing of any further authorisation would be made contingent on the level of C02 in the atmosphere. The bill stipulated that levels of C02 in the atmosphere must first reduce to a level no higher than 350 Parts per million (widely held to be the maximum safe level for humanity by the scientific community) before any further licensing could take place.
You will be aware that current levels are approaching 416 PPM with little sign of any abatement in the growth. You will also be aware that this is propelling a worsening climate crisis, thus making clear the importance of ensuring no new fossil fuel resources are extracted anywhere on this planet. There are numerous peer reviewed studies which suggest the vast majority of existing fossil fuel reserves will need to remain unexploited if we are to have any hope of limiting temperature increases to under 1.5 degrees. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world | Nature
The logic and impetus for the bill therefore remains and indeed has only become more relevant and urgent considering the latest figures and scientific advice available. You correctly point out that there have been significant changes in legislation under the current Government.
Specifically, the effective ban on the issuing of any new licenses or authorisations for petroleum products contained in the 2021 Act. However, as you also point out, that act and current Govt policy has left intact existing license and authorisations.
This runs the real risk of future discoveries in the areas covered by those licences. Indeed to date following your decision to extend the FEL 4/19 for Europa oil and Gas, and in light of ongoing requests from Providence and others, there is a very grave risk that significant new fields of oil and gas could legally be explored and extracted especially in the current environment of high fossil fuel prices and a orchestrated campaign by lobbyists to exploit potential fields.
Providence Resources have estimated that they expect over 80 million barrels of oil to be extracted at Barryrow. Europa have variously estimated they hope to exploit around 1.5 trillion cubic feet of gas. While the industry has a history of overinflating its potential successes these figures illustrate the severe dangers of this state facilitating the emission of vast quantities of new sources if CO2 at a time of worsening climate crisis.
The case on environmental and climate grounds for this legislation to pass is strong, as it will indeed end petroleum activity in this state aside from the exiting Corrib field.
I will now address the reason you give for refusing the money message request.
These echo the reason offered by your predecessor as Climate minister. Essentially, it is claimed that there is a risk of significant costs to the state from disappointed licence holders suing the state for a change in legislation which removes their legitimate expectation of profits or income. I believe this argument has been comprehensively dealt with before, but before I recap I would point out that it remains my contention that the use of a money message for this bill is not in line with the constitutional provisions or indeed what is envisioned under standing orders as I believe there are no significant or direct costs in implementing this Bill and whatever costs are entailed do not properly fall under the heading required to be considered for a money message.
- Firstly, existing licence holders have no automatic right of progression under the existing terms and conditions of their licences and authorisations. This was clarified in a written PQ reply to my office on 11/09/2017 from your Department. The key sentence form Minister of State Kyne is this;
“the Licensing Terms do not provide for the automatic renewal of an exploration licence”.
- The 2007 terms and conditions explicitly states that the minister has sole discretion to suspend licence activities indefinitely in certain circumstances , including; “ In any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person, waste of petroleum or damage to property or the environment”
- Injury to the environment at a global and national level is now the imminent threat and reality we face because of continued or increased activity in the extraction and exploration for fossil fuels.
- As referred to in the advises of the OPLA to my office on the 18/08/2018, it is therefore clear that existing licence holders are subject to a condition that the minister may suspend all activities if he believes it is in the interest of preventing further environmental damage. As was explained in a legal opinion obtained by this office “a holder (of such a licence) could not as a matter of first principals plead an argument based on legitimate expectation or breach of contract if forced to suspend indefinitely petroleum activity”
- I would remind you that the Dail passed a motion May 9th, 2019, declaring a Climate and Biodiversity Emergency and that the current overwhelming scientific advise is that the extraction and exploration of any new find or field of fossil fuel is incompatible with the goals of the Paris treaty which this state is a signatory to.
- As such I would argue that no existing licence holder has a reasonable expectation that they should be uninhibited in pursuing the exploitation for new reserves of fossil fuels.
- I would also add that several significant court judgements further enforce this view. Specifically, in Mulddon v Minister for the Environment 2018 (IEHC 649 ) and in Gorman V Minister for the Environment 20012 (IR 414).
- These findings were also referenced in the OPLA advises to me in 2017, which, based on these court precedents stated clearly; “The terms of a licencing regime may change so that a current licensee no longer qualifies to hold a licence or so that value property attaching to the licence diminishes. Without this being an infringement of the holders property rights”
- This confirms that a licence holder cannot sue ( or expect to win) against the state for losses because of changes in the regulatory regime if such is enacted by the Dail. The one proviso to this, it would seem, is that such legislation was rational and not capricious. It is self-evident that this legislation is rational given the scale of the climate crisis we face.
It is a separate matter if the state did wish to offer compensation to licence holders as a result of a change in the regulatory regime, there certainly seems no basis in law to suggest that the state must do so or that licensees have a strong legal case to look for compensation. In either case, the idea that this point precludes the bill progressing to committee is redundant.
I therefore request that the Bill progress to committee stage, and that you provide the money message . I am open to any amendment that may be proposed provided that we ensure there is legislative backing to halt the grave dangers of this state facilitating new sources of fossil fuel extraction at a time of an existential threat to our collective futures from the climate crisis.
Yours,
Bríd Smith TD.
