President says corporations 'deliberately' working against climate action
THE PRESIDENT HAS said that there are corporations that are 'deliberately' working against climate action at the same time as the world experiences record-breaking weather extremes.
President Michael D. Higgins delivered a speech this morning at the opening of Bloom, the annual food and gardening festival held in Phoenix Park.
Addressing the crowd on the first day of the festival, the President used much of his speech to draw attention to the perils of the climate crisis and the need for action to address it.
He said that the large attendance numbers at Bloom each year reflect 'the interest that people have in being outdoors' and the growing awareness of needing to protectthe natural world and move to a circular economy.
'We are living, as we all know, in an era of profound environmental challenges, one that is defined by shared interacting crises,' he said.
The world's leading climate scientists have told us with increasing urgency that the planet we share is at a tipping point, and in some places has moved over that point,' he said, describing the 'devastating consequences of a warming world'.
'The impacts of climate change in Ireland are impacts with which we are now familiar. They are reflected not only in threat but in actual experience of the consequences of rising sea levels, by the increased frequency and severity of weather events such as high-impact storms, droughts and floods,' he said.
Advertisement
The President said that 'too many of us will have experienced the dreadful consequences of Storm Éowyn at the end of January', adding that he wanted to 'take this opportunity to thank again all those who worked to address the severe consequences, including the first-responders for their valiant efforts, and the great support they received from communities'.
'We have to make ourselves aware of the imbalance between those who are carrying the consequences of a warming Earth and those who contributed to where we find ourselves in terms of the climate change which has been provoked.
'The peoples of the world are aware of the crisis but unfortunately there are corporations that are deliberately going in another direction and are likely to be very active in trying to get us to retreat from the commitments at that great moment of humanity, the 2015 [Paris Agreement] commitments.
During a speech at Bloom festival on climate change, President Michael D Higgins says: 'The peoples of the world are aware of this crisis but there are corporations who are going in the other direction and are very active in trying to get us to retreat from our commitments'
pic.twitter.com/EX9YMqABRC
— Muiris Ó Cearbhaill (@muirisoc)
May 29, 2025
2024 was the
warmest year on record
, according to the World Meteorological Organisation's latest annual global climate report.
The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was also higher than ever before.
New projections published yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency show that Ireland is
far off track
to meet its 2030 climate targets.
Additional reporting by Muiris Ó Cearbhaill
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Journal
2 days ago
- The Journal
Ireland's excessive emissions mean climate goals 'are increasingly out of reach'
This is an extract from the most recent edition of Temperature Check, The Journal's monthly climate newsletter. To receive Temperature Check to your inbox, sign up in the box at the end of this article. As schools wrap up for the summer, the government has been handed a report card of its own: the Environmental Protection Agency's projections of Ireland's emissions in the coming years. The EPA analysed the climate policies and measures that the government is planning to take and how those would impact greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2055. If all of the planned measures and policies are fully implemented, they would reduce Ireland's emissions by 2030 to 23% less than what they were in 2018 – falling far short of the national 51% 2030 target. Not only is the new projection below the target, it's also a decrease on the projection made last year, when the EPA said it expected a reduction of 29% could be made by 2030. Responding to the projections , Minister for Climate Darragh O'Brien said the government has 'made real progress' but is aware that 'we need to move faster to meet our 2030 climate targets'. The projections show Ireland is at significant risk of missing both national and EU climate targets. Advertisement Manager of the Centre for Environmental Justice Clodagh Daly has said the poor progress highlighted by the projections is 'undermining Ireland's capacity to deliver a planned and inclusive transition'. Speaking to The Journal for Temperature Check, Daly said the weak performance is particularly worrying in the context of climate change impacts becoming increasingly visible in Ireland. 'We've seen increased heat extremes, heavy precipitation, storm events like Storm Éowyn, and so it's really concerning that the government is going backwards on its emission reduction obligations,' she said. Fianna Fáil's Darragh O'Brien was appointed Minister for Climate, Environment and Energy and Minister for Transport as part of the new government in January 2025. Alamy Stock Photo Alamy Stock Photo The EPA report compares Ireland's projected emissions with the carbon budgets that were designed to set limits on how much the country emits over five-year cycles. The margins by which the carbon budgets are likely to be exceeded, particularly for the budget covering 2026 to 2030, are staggering. The first budget, which allowed 295 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2eq) to be emitted between 2021 and 2025, is projected to be exceeded by between 8 and 12 Mt CO2eq. The second budget over the subsequent five years is projected to be exceeded by the significant margin of 77 to 114 Mt CO2eq. To put that in context, the total budget for 2026 to 2030 is 200 Mt CO2eq. That means that at the EPA's upper estimate, Ireland's emissions could be more than 50% higher across those years than what they legally should be. Related Reads UN says 70% chance average global warming will exceed 1.5C benchmark in next five years And that's before you even start to look at what it means for complying with European Union obligations. The EPA projects that Ireland will not meet its EU Effort Sharing Regulation target of a 42% reduction by 2030 (of emissions in sectors included under the ESR), instead looking more likely to reduce those emissions by only 22%. 'The problem is that if we continue to overshoot our legislative carbon budgets, the goals of the Paris Agreement and Ireland's Climate Act are increasingly out of reach,' Daly said. 'As the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly warned, any overshoots of the budgets will have to be compensated for in subsequent carbon budgets, and that makes it really difficult to achieve.' The Centre for Environmental Justice, which is based out of the Community Law and Mediation legal centre, already has two active court cases against the State over what it argues are shortfalls in previous iterations of the annual Climate Action Plan. 'The State already is facing the legal consequences of not staying within the carbon budget,' Daly said. 'One case is challenging the Climate Action Plan 2023's failure to sufficiently detail how it will reduce emissions in line with the carbon budget program,' she said. The other case sees the legal centre joined by a grandfather, a youth climate activist and a child to challenge the 2024 plan for 'failure to reduce emissions in line with our carbon budget programme, and that, as a result, we claim that there are fundamental rights breaches under the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights'. 'We're not asking the court to impose any kind of sanction in terms of financial penalties. What we're asking the court to do is to strike down the plans as they are and for the government just to go back, review the plan, and develop a new one that actually is aligned with the law.' Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
RTÉ News
2 days ago
- RTÉ News
Will Trump kill America's clean future?
Donald Trump's campaign pledge to "drill, baby, drill," struck fear into the hearts of climate campaigners, but it was music to the ears of Washington's fossil fuel lobbyists. And the US President didn't waste any time delivering on his promises to Big Oil. In a dizzying slew of executive orders on his first day in office, Mr Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, rolled back Biden-era clean energy incentives, stripped away environmental restrictions on oil and gas exploration and threw a lifeline to America's dying coal industry. Leaving no doubt as to the direction of travel, the administration went on to initiate legal action against states over their climate policies, shutter federal climate research offices, scrub information on extreme weather tracking from government websites and even ban the use of paper straws in federal buildings. "We're going back to plastic," Mr Trump said as he signed the order, "these things don't work". The president has made no secret of his disdain for renewable energy projects either, calling wind turbines "stupid" and "unsightly" and freezing approvals for wind and solar projects on federal lands and water. The administration is now reportedly preparing to eliminate limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants in the United States, which is already the world's second-largest polluter. For some analysts, Mr Trump's policies could sound the death knell for America's competitiveness in green energy, a field where other countries, like China, are already surging ahead. "They're really taking a meat axe to the federal government's work, both on the science of climate change and the technology addressing climate change," Harvard professor John Holdren, who was science advisor to former President Barack Obama during his two terms, told RTÉ News. Others, though, welcomed what they saw as the administration shifting focus to America's own energy security, which they believed would benefit the US in the long term. Energy security "I think what we are seeing from President Trump and Republicans in Congress is a strategy that looks to balance a future that has abundant, affordable, reliable and lower emissions energy," said Jeremy Harrell, CEO of ClearPath, a conservative-leaning clean energy organisation, based in Washington DC. Federal programmes were being reevaluated under President Trump to ensure they were "economically viable" as well as targeted towards technologies in which the US was in pole position to lead, Mr Harrell said, citing geothermal, nuclear and carbon-capture as examples. Was this an acknowledgment that the US couldn't compete with China in sectors like wind and solar, given that China now makes 80% of the world's solar panels and dominates global wind turbine manufacturing? There was certainly bi-partisan support in the US Congress, Mr Harrell said, to onshore US energy in an effort "to reduce reliance on China and Chinese supply chains, and position the US as a technology leader globally, in areas where we have some strategic advantage". But other observers felt the moment for asserting any strategic advantage had come and gone. "It is a travesty that the United States has not taken a leadership position on the clean energy future," said Caroline Spears head of Climate Cabinet, which advocates for pro-climate policies at the state and local levels. She was also sceptical that the United States would be able to boost domestic industry and technology under current conditions. "The amount of uncertainty and volatility being created is wild," said Ms Spears. And when it comes to massive projects - like nuclear - there was a danger the administration would overpromise and underdeliver, she said. The push on climate was going to have to come from individual states, she said. The power of red states Last week the US House of Representatives passed a major tax bill - dubbed the "Big Beautiful Bill," - which gutted the clean energy credits established in former President Biden's signature piece of legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The bill is now on its way to the Senate, where it may well be watered down, experts said. That's partly because much of the financial benefits from the Inflation Reduction Act flowed to Republican-voting areas of the country. Senators of these so-called "red states" will be reluctant to legislate against large renewable energy plants that have brought jobs to their constituencies and have proven popular with voters, experts told RTÉ News. A recent poll carried out by the Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation found that 84 percent of Texans were in favour of renewable energy projects. Although best known for its Stetson-sporting oil barons, Texas is now the nation's leading producer of wind and solar power, having outstripped California some years ago. Nationally, a long-term study carried out by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication showed that more that three quarters of Americans supported renewable energy infrastructure on public land while 66% of people polled wanted a full transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy by mid-century. All this leads to a degree of unstoppable momentum, analysts said. "A lot of the progress we have made in the United States on the ground is not going to be reversed through policy changes," said Anthony Moffa, law professor at the University of Maine. The deployment of more renewable energy or electric vehicle adoption are trends that are going to continue, he said, even without federal government incentives. "Automakers have already invested a significant amount of money and time in developing affordable electric vehicles," he said, "and we're seeing them adopted more and more throughout the United States". Indeed, despite the Trump administration's rollback of the tax credits and incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act, the US power system began producing more electricity from clean energy sources than fossil fuels in March, according to data released by Ember, a think tank. That trend has continued for the past three months. Stalling the energy transition But while progress may not be halted, it's likely to see a significant slowdown, analysts said. According to data from E2, a US-based group of business leaders and investors, $14 billion in clean energy projects supporting 10,000 jobs have been cancelled or postponed so far this year. But this is where individual states can make a difference, Caroline Spears told RTÉ News. "They can set renewable portfolio standards, for example," she said, "they can create permitting and leasing offices and make it easier to get projects off the ground". And beyond supporting clean power generation, local governments had a variety of strategies to tackle climate change, she said. "The biggest source of pollution in the country is increasingly transportation," she said. "There's a lot that states can do on electric vehicles and on public transport," she said, "and we're seeing progress and movement there as well". Court battles As with President Trump's trade tariffs, the US courts have become a major climate battleground too. In what law professor Anthony Moffa called an "unprecedented move", the administration has thrown its weight behind lawsuits brought by fossil fuel companies against state climate policies. The department of justice, for example, sued New York and Vermont over their climate "superfund" laws that would force oil and gas companies to pay into a state fund for clean infrastructure projects. But similarly, climate campaigners are also using the courts to challenge government policies. A group of 22 young activists filed a lawsuit in Montana this week arguing that President Trump's executive orders suppressed climate science and slowed the transition to renewable energy sources in favour of fossil fuels, "thereby worsening the air pollution and climate conditions that immediately harm and endanger Plaintiffs' lives and personal security". The spokesperson for the plaintiffs 19-year-old Eva Lighthiser said in a statement that the president's fossil fuel directives were "a death sentence for my generation". "I'm not suing because I want to, I'm suing because I have to," she said. "My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line. [President Trump] is waging war on us with fossil fuels as his weapon, and we're fighting back with the Constitution," she said. Earlier this month, 17 states and Washington DC sued the government over its ban on wind power projects. The White House accused the attorneys general of the states of using "lawfare" to thwart President Trump's agenda. 'Spherically senseless' But whatever the final legal outcome of the various cases before the courts, cuts to climate research have already caused "an enormous amount of damage," that will outlast this administration, according to John Holdren. The National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy have all seen their budgets slashed, he said. Key offices that are responsible for climate change monitoring, maintaining the nation's databases related to climate change and for a large fraction of climate education in US schools, colleges and universities have been closed. Research programs cannot be revived overnight, he said, noting that staff who have been fired may have moved on to other jobs of even other countries. That early research was the "seed corn" from which future practical advances grew, he added. "When you cut that off, you're basically killing the future of innovation in all these domains, in terms of environmental and public health and in solutions for climate change," he said. This was "absolutely a case of shooting the country in the foot," he told RTÉ News. "It is what the energy analyst Amory Lovins once called 'spherically senseless,'" he said. "No matter how you look at it, it's crazy".
RTÉ News
3 days ago
- RTÉ News
EPA report lets cat out of the bag on greenhouse gas emissions
Confirmation from the Environmental Protection Agency over the past few days that Ireland has gone backwards on its greenhouse gas emissions targets is hugely disappointing. People are blue in the face, listening to government ministers and policy makers constantly highlighting the important of climate action and their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Now however, the EPA has let the cat out of the bag. Despite all that talk, the gap to where Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions must be by 2030 is widening. And it is not widening by a little. It is widening by a lot. The legally binding target is for Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions to be 51% lower, in 2030, than they were in 2018. A year ago, EPA analysis suggested that if every realistic climate policy in the Climate Action Plan was delivered on time, ahead of 2030, it might be possible to cut emissions by 29%, at most. Now, after receiving updates from Government departments and agencies, the EPA says the maximum reduction achievable, is only 23%. Either number - a cut of 23% or 29% - represents a massive failure. There is the global warming potential, and the climate damage, caused by not cutting emissions fast enough. But there is also a huge cost to the taxpayer. Recent analysis from the Irish Fiscal Council and the Climate Change Advisory Council suggested it could cost the taxpayer up to €26 billion for carbon credits by 2030, to make up the shortfall envisaged last year. But now that the emissions gap is bigger, the bill to the taxpayer will be bigger too. This feels like some kind of disaster unfolding in slow motion. The focus must shift from policy aspiration to practical implementation The key reason is that despite all the talk from politicians there is not enough focus on implementing and delivering the climate-related policies the government has signed up to. That is what Laura Burke, the Director General of the EPA, said when she launched the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections Report last Wednesday. "This highlights the economy-wide effort needed to decarbonise our society and the focus must shift from policy aspiration to practical implementation." That was how she put it. A key paragraph on page 10 of the EPA report, goes right to the heart of why we are going backwards. Know first, that these latest emissions projections were done on the basis of the official "Climate Action Plan 2024", published at the end of 2023. On page 10 the EPA report explains that: "Climate Action Plan 2025 is not specifically referenced in this report as it had yet to be published during the preparation phase of the 2024-2055 projections. A review was undertaken and there are no significant additional measures in CAP 2025 therefore no major omissions in these projections." What this paragraph is saying is that, with so few years to go before the crucial 2030 deadline, an entire year has been allowed to pass without a single important climate initiative, or effort, having been added to the policy mix. Yet there is no time to waste. Notwithstanding the need to constantly come up with new policy initiatives, the number one thing should be to deliver, as quickly as possible, on the climate- related commitments already made. Delaying difficult but inevitable changes only makes them harder to implement. It will not make them go away. 'Sustainable transport' Climate Action Plan 2023 introduced a so-called "Avoid-Shift" policy on transport. The aim was to introduce behavioural change and sustainable transport measures to save 2 million tonnes of carbon emissions. Central to that was a commitment to increase the price of petrol and diesel out to 2030 to encourage people to choose other modes of transport. So far there is no sign of any willingness by Government to follow through on that. But if they are not going to do it, what are they going to do instead to deliver the promised emissions reduction? Last year the target was 945,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2030. This year the EPA says the maximum possible is 640,750. Many observers doubt even that amount can be achieved - especially since tax incentives to encourage electric vehicle purchases have been reduced in recent years. What will the Government do to address that? There is also a commitment in the Climate Action Plan to use behavioural and sustainable transport measures to engineer a reduction in total vehicle kilometres travelled. We are still waiting for that, and very much more. Time is running out for climate action. We have one year less to go to an immovable deadline in 2030. The clear message from the EPA this week is that government inaction is the core of the problem and the potential bill for the public, which is already enormous, is rising by the day.
