The Taoiseach earlier talked about a difficult international climate. I want to return to the issue of climate change because the Taoiseach needs to clarify to the Dáil something he said in his last exchange with me on that matter in late April when he said that the Moneypoint plant would be changing to gas generation. Subsequently he wrote to me and included a copy of the Adjournment debate contribution by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. It seems that the ESB and the Minister are not of that view and would be more inclined to say that there would be no change to gas in Moneypoint. That said, would the Taoiseach agree that at that point he may have inadvertently misled the House?

How is his Government going to respond to the serious findings of the European Environment Agency that Irish emissions in 2001 stood 31% higher than in 1990, well over double the increase legally allowed between 1990 and 2008? Given that Ireland is at the rock bottom of the league, the dirty man of Europe, is it possible for the Government to face reality and recognise its climate change strategy is not working? Will it scrap that strategy and recognise that, in the interest of Irish competitiveness, as IBEC has said, the fine of €1.3 billion on Irish taxpayers and Irish industry, according to the Department of the Environment and Local Government's annual figures, is going to severely dent competitiveness and will open this Government to further ridicule and discredit if it is not prepared to tackle this issue urgently?

The Taoiseach keeps saying he is going to engage in emissions trading, as does the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, who is trying to speak at the same time as me on this question. Are there any other serious plans, apart from emissions trading, which will work because the current plans in regard to the built environment are failing. The Government is putting five times more money into roads than into public transport and is underscoring seriously in delivering on wind energy compared to other EU countries. We can have some impact on all of these issues if the Taoiseach is serious about it. Apart from emissions trading, what is the Government's plan to tackle this serious international issue?

As Deputy Sargent correctly states, we had this debate on a previous occasion and I said I would give the additional information which I have now passed on to him. That showed that while the ESB is looking at all other options as to what precisely it is going to do, it is involved in a €200 million programme to take the nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide out of the Moneypoint plant and to see where it will progress in that area. At the same time it has to be conscious of maintaining security of supply.

Deputy Sargent is correct that our Kyoto emissions growth limitation target of 13% over 1990 levels by the end of this decade reflects our need for development against the 1990 base line, and the need to look at environmental emissions in addressing climate change. It was always expected that our greenhouse gas emissions would increase in the medium term. Preliminary indications are that emissions growth is peaking. Deputy Sargent is aware of those figures and we have published a figure of 31% growth for 2001 which was the last figure. That means we have the furthest to go among EU member states to meet our target. Ten of the 15 states within the EU burden sharing scheme are now off target. Most significantly our emissions growth rate has been considerably slower than our economic growth rate and our performance in decoupling emissions and economic growth is the best in Europe apart from Luxembourg, which has a better record than us.

Total rubbish.

That does not relieve us of our obligations.

Emissions per unit of GDP are now 62% of what they were in 1990 compared to 78% for the EU as a whole, and I cite the European figures. Our national climate change strategy set a ten-year policy framework to achieve our target and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is now reviewing it to intensify its implementation, which he has announced recently in this House. Our progress report on the first year implementation which was published at the end of last year showed measures under way capable of achieving 20% of our target, which is substantial.

Nonsense.

We will be moving forward in a determined way over the rest of these decades with a range of actions at cross-sectoral levels.

Nonsense.

There are no measures.

The strategy also provides for carbon energy taxation which we have agreed to introduce.

When? That is the first ever budget to refer to energy taxation.

Talk is cheap.

Deputy Sargent may ask a supplementary question.

It has already been referred to in the budget and the Minister made a clear statement about it in the budget. New EU legislation is nearing completion as regards carbon dioxide emissions trading.

It is amazing to listen to the fiction from the Taoiseach.

The fiction is all on the other side of the House.

It is not.

Allow Deputy Sargent speak without interruption.

Does the Taoiseach agree that a couple of the things he has said are not tenable? We have not decoupled economic growth from growth in greenhouse gas emissions. The European Environment Agency has stated that in black and white. I would like the Taoiseach to agree that the European Environment Agency knows what it is talking about. Would he agree also that we have not peaked by all the indications? We are continuing to grow our greenhouse gas emissions, in accelerating terms.

I would ask for a scrapping of the climate change strategy. What is the Taoiseach going to do to address the clear failure of the strategy to date? Is he, for example, going to amend the national development plan in any sense, based on the predictions for climate change and the stated fallout from that climate change in terms of various difficulties including water scarcity, difficulties with farming, storm damage or floods, or is he simply going to buy waders to replace the wellingtons that served him so well when he was standing in the floods in Drumcondra? Will he give waders to everyone in the country if he is going to be so blasé about the whole issue.

I was certainly not being blasé, and I apologise to Deputy Sargent if he thought that. I was merely quoting the position as outlined by Commissioner Wallstrom. I gave the figures for Ireland, stating that we were over the baseline, and outlined the difficulties. I reported factually that our emissions growth has been at a considerably lower rate than our economic growth.

We are the worst performer.

Mr. Ryan is not the leader of the Green Party. He will have to find another way to ask his question. Only Deputy Sargent, who is the leader of the party, is permitted to ask questions.

Our performance in decoupling emissions and economic growth has been the best in the European Union apart from that of Luxembourg. Emissions per unit of GDP are at 62% of the 1990 level compared with 78% for the EU as a whole. I did not claim that the problem was resolved but gave the factual position. Deputy Sargent asked what we are doing. The Minister and his officials have been engaged, not only with the Environmental Protection Agency but with all sectors, obviously including the ESB and the energy sector, as well as the IBEC and the farmers, in work on the issue. We are aware of our responsibilities and our position after the first year, and we will continue to deal with that. No one is failing to acknowledge the issue. I gave Deputy Sargent information on nitrous and sulphur oxide and said that the €200 million investment in Moneypoint is significant. That is continuing and represents major progress in dealing with the issue.