First, I wish to raise the accusation levelled at me last week by the Taoiseach when he stated I was telling him a twisted pack of lies. In order to prove how mistaken he is, I will give him the letter from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that urges Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council not to adopt the standards it subsequently adopted. Second, I refer to the two articles, one from The Sunday Tribune and the other from a construction magazine, Construct Ireland, stating that less than 2% of all houses comply with Part L of the Building Regulations 1997. This follows a survey conducted by Sustainable Energy Ireland, which has not been published even though it was carried out in 2005. I look forward to its publication.

The Taoiseach might reflect on this point as it does not simply pertain to people being cold in their homes, paying exorbitant heating bills and in some cases being obliged to take out loans to pay the bills. This pertains to heating, which in terms of the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, constitutes approximately one third of energy use in Ireland. The proportion caused by heating requires serious attention, particularly as the Taoiseach had no difficulty last weekend in telling his followers in Galway that Ireland would have no problem in meeting its Kyoto Protocol targets.

I take it that the Taoiseach did not actually mean reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but paying the estimated €700 million per annum in carbon credits. This money, which should be invested in hospitals or other essential services, will leave Ireland.

I seek clarity in this regard because today's newspapers report that, yesterday, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, pledged with other EU Ministers to cut climate change gases by 20% below 1990 levels. A 20% reduction from 1990 levels presents a sizeable challenge for Ireland.

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Essentially, this constitutes a 35% cut in Ireland, even without any growth. However, the Government's policies are causing a 2% rise in climate change gases per annum although it must put in place reductions of 3.5% per annum.

There is a mismatch between the Taoiseach's policies and his rhetoric. Is the Government committing Ireland to a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020? Apparently this commitment has been made at a European Council of Ministers meeting. Is the Taoiseach making such a commitment in the House, where national accountability dictates such commitments ought to be made? What actions will he take to ensure that measures to effect a 3.5% cut per annum will be put in place?

On the first point, and I will reply to Deputy Sargent if he gives me the papers. We need not debate it here. Some 97% or 98% of the houses had a problem and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government told the local authority not to involve itself. I since looked at the papers and Deputy Sargent is incorrect. However, I will answer him for the record.

It is written in black and white.

Ireland strongly supports the leadership provided by the European Union on this issue.

The Taoiseach will not follow it.

Deputy Sargent is right that it is an important issue. Regarding a new international agreement to continue progress made under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in the medium to long term to 2020 and beyond, environment ministers met yesterday to agree a position whereby the European Union would propose that developed nations agree to reduce greenhouse gas production by 30% in the post-Kyoto period after 2012. Failing to reach agreement with other developed nations which will be difficult the European Union suggests it would agree unilaterally to a 20% reduction target. The position was strongly supported on behalf of the Government by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, at yesterday's meeting.

The point I made at the weekend is that we successfully decoupled our greenhouse gas emissions from economic growth in this country.

We had a 2% increase in emissions last year.

From 1990——

How will we go from 25% above to——

Allow the Taoiseach without interruption please.

How will we do that?

Deputy Ryan's leader submitted a question and is entitled to hear the answer. If Deputy Ryan does not want him to hear it he can continue to interrupt and I will ask him to leave the House.

I am entitled to know how he will tackle the issue.

He does not have an answer.

The Taoiseach without interruption.

In reply to Deputy Sargent, Ireland has successfully decoupled its greenhouse gas emissions. From 1990 to 2005, emissions grew by 25% whereas our economy grew by 150%. This is reflected in the emissions intensity of the Irish economy. In 2004, emissions per unit of GDP were 48% of their 1990 level. The equivalent figure for the European Union is 78%.

The actions we must take include setting a steeply ambitious target to deliver one third of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, making maximum uses of new technologies for co-generation in Irish power stations with biomass, planning for the use of carbon capture, clean coal generation technology with which Deputy Sargent will agree——

A new Merc.

——creating new opportunities for farmers in bio-fuel production and creating new bio-fuel industry in the country——

Support the bio-fuels.

——the details of which I spelled out at the weekend, and introducing minimum requirements for the use of bio-fuels in State-owned and public transport vehicles, starting with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann which the Minister announced recently. Both companies are being instructed to move all their existing fleets to a 5% bio-diesel blend and plan to achieve a 30% bio-diesel blend in all new buses.

Will the Taoiseach buy his way out of this?

Our transport emissions are——

Be serious.

——going up by 7% per annum.

If Deputy Ryan wishes to leave the House——

The Deputies are not serious.

If we are not serious the Government is comical.

I do not understand why Deputies Boyle and Ryan call on people to take these issues seriously. When people do so and announce it rather than talk about it they ignore it.

Exactly.

Because the Government is doing nothing.

The Taoiseach is moving backwards.

I appeal to members of the Green Party to remain in silence and hear the answer to the question. If they do not wish to do so they should leave the House. If they do not leave the House the Chair will facilitate them by using Standing Orders.

We require the public sector to lead the way on energy efficiency. We are improving the energy efficiency of new Irish homes by up to 40% and more and the use of solar energy and other microrenewable technologies in homes and businesses. None of those issues should upset the Green Party. They should receive its support.

What about the 2% increase?

I am not convinced by the Taoiseach's reply. He mentioned decoupling of economic growth. As was stated before, a decreasing rate of increase is not a decrease. Let us be clear. As was already stated, a 7% increase per annum in transport emissions is unsustainable and goes in the wrong direction. Does the Taoiseach accept this?

Does he accept a need for annual targets which he can live by which means 3.5%? If we are to reach a 40% cut which is what we are discussing overall when the European figure is in place we will need a 3.5% cut per annum. Currently, we are going the wrong way. We are going over2%. The Taoiseach mentioned leadership from the European Union. The United Nations states the EU is becoming complacent in comparison with the US and Asia.

New Zealand is a country not unlike our own. It is non-nuclear, of similar size and with a large Irish population. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, stated New Zealand will become the world's first carbon neutral country. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development welcomed it as a sea change in the way the country will handle climate change and protect its trading position for long-term success.

A great deal rests on what the Taoiseach decides. I ask him again to be absolutely clear that the message he gives to everybody in society is that he will be intent on cutting our emissions by 3.5% per annum. That will at least comply with the minimal rate which the EU set. It is not world leading but at least it is a start. Will the Taoiseach undertake to bring this about?

And less hot air.

That is what I said in every way——

Not by the Taoiseach's actions.

I do not believe——

The Taoiseach never stated that.

I outlined for Deputy Sargent some of the areas. In our plans we included €16 billion for public transport. We have electrification, bio-fuels——

Will the Taoiseach buy his way out of it again?

If one more member of the Green Party interrupts——

Deputy Cuffe should go off and buy some shares.

The Chair is speaking.

Deputy Cuffe should buy more shares in oil.

Did Deputy Cuffe sell those shares yet?

The Green Party is entitled to submit a question through its leader——

What did the Ministers do?

What about every tree in north Dublin?

One more interruption from any member of the Green Party and I will ask him to leave. They cannot come here week after week and have their leader ask a question while heard in silence and go over time——

The Taoiseach comes in here and waffles.

Deputy Cuffe will leave the House——

Climate change is a serious issue——

Deputy Cuffe will leave the House if he does not behave. We must have some sort of order on Leaders' Questions. The Taoiseach or member of Government responding to a question is entitled to be heard. Leaders are going over time and are heard in silence and then the Taoiseach——

A straight answer——

It appears to the Chair that Deputy Cuffe wishes to leave the House. He will leave the House because of disorder and not because of the issue being raised.

I will shut up so.

I have already given the straight answer——

I wish.

——but it is clear that Deputy Cuffe's total knowledge of green issues is that within the facility one can purchase carbon credits and every comment he makes is around that. He ignores all the other points. It is disappointing that as a person who is elected on a green ticket he does not understand either what the issue is or what we are trying to do——

He read too many books.

His leader, who does understand these things, asked me a question and I was trying to answer. Deputy Cuffe said I was not giving an answer. He usually starts interrupting before I say anything and he did it again this morning. Now he is silenced by the control of his party leader I will again repeat that we are putting resources into public transport——

Divide and conquer.

——electrification and bio-fuels and it is our commitment to achieve these issues. Regarding renewable energy we have a number of things which I spelled out at the weekend in great detail which we have to do.

The Government had ten years to do them.

We have also achieved a high number of these issues. We do have problem areas. We have a high reliance on fossil fuels in power generation stations. I will not say that is not a difficulty for us. Renewable energy contributed only 5.2% of electricity needs which is too low. We committed ourselves to one third. I am not saying that is not a big challenge.

As a result of livestock numbers compared to our population, agriculture accounts for 29% of greenhouse gas emissions here compared to an average of 10% in EU countries. These are challenges but we have set our targets. In policies across all ministries we are doing everything we can to endeavour to do that and will continue to do so. I am committed.