Our current economic systems are, as a result, dangerously incompatible with our survival in future centuries. The Government has recently suggested that we need to take painful medicine to change how we live and how some of us, especially farmers, make a living.

However, such moralistic language from politicians misses very important aspects of the climate change debate: The practical benefits of the new economy for current voters.

Embracing these aspects could lead to greater success in convincing people of the need to act on climate change. It is in our own self-interest today to make the necessary investments to develop a sustainable economy.

How so? Consider the three largest sources of emissions in our economy:

• The electricity sector, fuelled mainly by imported gas, is responsible for around a fifth of our emissions;
• Transport, fuelled mainly by imported oil products, accounts for another fifth;
• Agriculture contributes almost one- third of emissions, mainly in the form of methane from cattle.

There are strong, locally self-interested reasons for us to act in each sector, and a by-product of these actions would be reduced climate risk at a global level.

The first reason is to improve our energy security, ending our dependence on the world’s most unstable regions and redirecting saved expenditure on domestic needs.

Ireland currently spends around €4bn every year on imported fossil fuels. This helps keep the lights on at home and power our industries.

However, we have the renewable technologies today to bring an end to this unnecessary expenditure — and use it to pay for important projects here.

The Government struggles to fund the national broadband scheme, to build quality homes, and to pay nurses well. The additional billions of euro every year could be a game changer for many of the most pressing problems in our society.

To achieve this, we need to invest in renewables and ensure the power system is as flexible as possible.

Connecting our power grid with France, in addition to our existing connection with Britain, would mean that we could import energy when necessary, such as when the wind isn’t blowing.

We could also export energy when we have a surplus, and potentially generate earnings on a net basis.

Economies of comparable size are already seizing this opportunity. In Scotland, wind energy supplied 98% of domestic electricity demand for the entire month of October.

The country, which for so long has funded the UK exchequer through its North Sea oil resources, is now successfully transitioning to a clean power future. Scotland is now selling surplus wind energy to England, and using the revenue raised at home.

The second reason to act is to improve local air quality and develop a better transport system. Emissions from diesel and petrol cars not only drive climate change globally.

They also have serious health implications at the local level, especially for children, due to sulphur dioxide and dangerous particulate matter entering our lungs.

Even short-term exposure to particulates increases the likelihood of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. When children are exposed to these toxic pollutants, they are more likely to grow up with reduced lung function and develop asthma.

However, once we have a developed a renewable power system, we can address these dangerous problems in the transport system. The solution is already available: Electric vehicles are no longer an oddity.

In every respect, they perform better than the internal combustion engine: Greater acceleration and higher top speeds, less noise on the streets, and improved local air quality.

Falling battery costs means that soon electric vehicles will be competitive with diesel and petrol ones even without Government subsidies. As soon as 2025, families will save money by buying an electric car, plugged into a renewable power grid.

At this point, the only remaining barrier to electric vehicle uptake will be a behavioural one.

Voters will have range anxiety — the risk that they will lose power in a remote area due to limited battery capacity.

However, the agenda for politicians is clear here too: Investment is required today to ensure the charging network needed for the future is ready.

The lessons of the national broadband fiasco can be brought to bear to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

With our transport and the power sectors on a sustainable path, agriculture’s methane emissions will remain a key challenge. But here too there is an opportunity.

With growing global populations and increasing demand for Western-style diets, Ireland could become a hub for low-emissions food.

The country is rightly an adopter of technologies such as renewable power and electric vehicles. In agriculture however, we could be a technology leader and export our expertise around the globe to address the difficult problem of methane emissions.

Irish emissions per kilo of food product are already relatively low. Investment into research and adoption of prospective technologies, such as methane inhibitors in cattle, hold the potential to make us a global leader in low- emissions food exports.

No one wants to decarbonise our society if it means shipping jobs overseas or wrecking the economy. The moral case for action on climate change does not suggest this will happen, but nor does it give today’s voters a pragmatic reason to act in their own local self- interest.

The practical case for climate action offers just that, with clean power, better transport, and vibrant agriculture.

Politicians should thus make both the moral and the practical case. We should embrace climate action not only because it means a better life for future generations, both here and in far flung countries.

We should do it because it also means a better life for us today.

Paul Sammon is a climate change economist with consultancy Vivid Economics