The European Commission has responded to last March's invitation by EU leaders for proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions with a broad-ranging document that stakes a convincing claim for global leadership on the issue. Clear and ambitious targets for reducing them are laid down for each member state and individual industrial sectors.
The plan does indeed "raise very serious economic and social issues for Ireland", as the Government said yesterday. What has up to now been a rather abstract issue will be brought home to individuals as they adapt to these new realities. It has become so easy to talk the loose Green talk without outlining the political and economic consequences of action.
Inevitably initial reactions concentrate on the costs involved, whether at national or EU levels. Turning around habits developed over decades in the wasteful and unsustainable use of energy will certainly not come easily. Many industrial and everyday practices will have to change. And there will be intense bargaining of national and sectional interests with the commission before the plan is approved next year by the EU member-states and the European Parliament. There are undoubtedly legitimate cases to be made about the plan's fairness - among which Ireland's case that gross national product rather than gross domestic product is a better measure of per capita wealth here is surely one of the most valid.
The EU system is good at this kind of transnational negotiation; it enjoys widespread support from ordinary citizens throughout the member states who believe global warming must be handled at EU level if it is to be addressed effectively. The talks should also be informed by a growing public understanding that once the difficult transition to more sustainable policies is made there will be many benefits for all concerned. Among them at national level is the prospect of reduced energy import bills once renewables come on stream, or the economic stimulus flowing from technological and entrepreneurial innovation in the fast-developing field of environmental economics. These have genuine competitive advantages for Ireland and other member states in a world that badly needs such breakthroughs.
Inevitably, too, there are real grounds to criticise the commission's package as too cautious and unadventurous. The more ambitious target of a 30 per cent cut in greenhouse ambitions was dropped in favour of the 20 per cent one adopted, since there will be pressure to reduce it further in these talks. The scientific evidence is clear that at least the higher target is essential given the commission's aim to give a global lead on this matter. The decision to aim for a 10 per cent biofuel target is also questionable given its unproven effect and the diversionary effect on food supplies and prices for the world's poorest peoples. But tighter regulation of heavy carbon-emitting industries is welcome and should not be conceded.