I welcome Professor Convery, Dr. Cathy Maguire and Mr. Eoin McLoughlin. I invite Professor Convery to make his presentation which he has kindly circulated in advance of the meeting.
Green New Deal Recommendations: Discussion with Comhar Sustainable Energy Council.
Professor Frank Convery
I hope it is a cheering sight. It is a privilege to attend the committee and we are very pleased to be here. I am chairman of Comhar Sustainable Energy Council. Mr. McLoughlin is the lead author of the Green New Deal document and Ms Maguire heads our research effort but specifically she has been leading on the green infrastructure and on the indicators ideas.
The mission of Comhar Sustainable Development Council is to promote sustainable development effectively. By this is meant sustainable environment, sustainable economy and sustainable social life. We are the only people who try to tie these three together. The operation of this idea is quite complex as there are conflicts. It is not a simple platitude. Our job is to give real substance to it and move it forward. This is achieved in three ways.
The first way is to get the key stakeholders involved. We have a partnership model. The Comhar council table brings together the key actors in Irish society. We succeed in getting them to agree an approach that will represent the key strands. This is very important because it makes the politics of moving issues forward a little easier because the difficulties and issues will have been thrashed out in advance. We aim to have everyone's support or at the minimum, an agreement not to oppose what is being proposed. It is time-consuming but it is very helpful. It is a two-way process. The executive proposes and the others react but they also make proposals to which we give serious attention.
The second strand is to give a voice to people who are relatively voiceless in this area. A nice example of this is our local sustainability quarterly newsletter which was launched recently. This aims to give a voice and a platform to people at local level who are doing great things. There is a big gap between people on the ground doing things and people up higher who are pontificating. We aim to bridge that gap. The intention is that people learn from each other and we will all become more efficient at working with what works successfully and not avoiding things that have been tried and failed for good reasons.
The third strand is to provide information and evidence-based analysis of choices and their implications. We take the evidence-based concept very seriously and we try to look forensically at the choices and how to move them forward. We look at conventional models such as carbon tax but also more adventurous ideas such as cap and share and road pricing. The recalibration of VRT, vehicle registration tax and the annual road tax was an important piece of work which informed the Department of Finance when it was developing its policies in that area. I write a bi-weekly commentary in which I try to pick up on relevant issues.
The Green New Deal is the big project. Led by Mr. McLoughlin we have produced the document, Towards a Green New Deal. The basic proposition is that we have to turn challenge and obligation into opportunity. We have hugely demanding and legally binding obligations to meet by 2020, as the committee members will know. It will be very expensive to meet those obligations and the notion of business as usual will not help get us even close. At the same time, there are many smart people who are either unemployed or under-employed. It is a question of joining those two ideas on how to create a dynamic, green economy that meets our obligations so that we do not have to buy our way out of our commitments.
We put this document together under Mr. McLoughlin's leadership. It is a very good document and I recommend the members read it. Mr. McLoughlin lists who is doing what, the relative scale of what is being tried in different countries, what seems to work and what does not work, the kind of instruments and mechanisms for moving this agenda forward. The basic proposition is that if we do not take this by the scruff of the neck and go with it, then we will end up carrying all the costs without any of the benefits. Mr. McLoughlin will talk more about that.
I have listed the prerequisites for getting this agenda in shape and making it feasible and sustainable. The first prerequisite is to get the prices right. The proposition is that once the price for carbon is decided, businesses providing a business opportunity in reducing carbon will gain an immediate cash opportunity. If one does not have a price, then probably one will not have a business or a business that will be sustainable. This also applies to other resource areas. Our recommendation in this regard was actively debated at our council. A key prerequisite or condition of our support was that the significant piece of that revenue would be recycled to give strong support to poor people who would be adversely affected by the tax and also to support businesses as they seized this opportunity.
The second strand is embedding innovation so that we can generate export-led business. This is critical because we could imagine ourselves turning Ireland green because we have tonnes of renewables and make ourselves super-energy efficient but then what would be the outcome. We do not want to end up like the construction industry, where there is nothing to offer once the building is over. We must innovate as we develop our own infrastructure and our own greening, so that we have export-led businesses that can move to the next stage.
The third strand is putting in a long-term framework for this transition. It is a case of providing a strong policy framework for investment because it will be a case of the public and the private sector investing real money at hazard. We have to give them as much assurance as we can that this will pay off. We think the important Green New Deal framework we are proposing contains the key elements that will make that happen. Unless members want to ask questions at this juncture, I invite my colleague, Mr. McLoughlin, to speak about the Green New Deal itself.
Mr. Eoin McLoughlin
I will focus on what we intend to do to advance the Green New Deal. It is worth noting that since we published our report in October 2009, other initiatives aimed at making progress with various aspects of policy in this area have been announced. The most notable of these initiatives has been the Government's establishment of a high level action group on green enterprise, which has published a report on the development of the green economy in Ireland. Comhar has focussed on adding value to these initiatives and filling some of the gaps identified in its report which need to be addressed if we are to successfully deliver a low-carbon and resource-efficient society.
Comhar recognises the valuable work that has been undertaken by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and some of the individual political parties in this area. The committee has produced a number of key reports on areas of policy like electric vehicles, the climate change law and Ireland's post-2020 electricity needs. Those reports add real value to the evidence base in this area. Fine Gael has proposed its vision for the Irish economy, NewERA, as has the Labour Party in the Energy Revolution. Both policies are consistent with the Green New Deal objectives of reducing our dependency on imported fossils fuels, increasing our capacity to meet climate change targets and generating new and sustainable employment opportunities for this country.
Since the publication of our report last year, we have been working closely with our stakeholders in a number of areas to further develop the evidence base that will help to make the Green New Deal a reality for Ireland. I will mention some of our current priorities, such as capacity building. It is critical that as many as possible of the substantive proposals in the Green New Deal translate into jobs. If the right skills and training structures are not in place, however, we run the risk of missing out on big environmental and economic opportunities for this country. The Green New Deal cannot be achieved by technical means alone. If we are to successfully make this transition, there also has to be a change of consciousness. We have been working to develop the capacity building element of the Green New Deal by evaluating the ability of the skills and training sector in Ireland to deliver the programmes and courses that will underpin the sustainable jobs of the future. Although some of the Green New Deal proposals can be met by existing capacity, many others will require upskilling and reskilling.
It has been estimated that if we meet the 40% target for electricity from renewables by 2020, we will generate between 4,000 and 8,000 jobs. If these jobs are to be realised, we must be able to deliver people with the required skill sets to be able to construct and operate these renewable technologies. The Irish Wind Energy Association has identified the shortage of experienced staff and the lack of awareness about employment opportunities in the sector as barriers to the industry evolving and meeting the Government targets. The skills and training programme required to implement the Green New Deal is not just a matter for central government. A wide range of other parties including industry bodies, higher and further education institutions, local authorities and civil society organisations have important roles to play. As part of our current work in this area, we will make recommendations on how to advance each of the different elements to ensure an integrated delivery of a skills and training programme that supports the realisation of a Green New Deal for Ireland. The report will be launched in May. We will forward a copy of it to the members of the committee.
The second area on which we have been focussing is green infrastructure. As part of our Green New Deal for Ireland, we have identified the development of green infrastructure as a priority area. Green infrastructure can be broadly defined as an interconnected network of natural and other areas which maintain ecological connections and functions and provide benefits to human populations. Comhar sees green infrastructure, in so far as it protects and enhances the goods and services that nature gives for free — as being as critical for Ireland as our transport and energy networks. Relevant aspects of green infrastructure include recreation opportunities, production of food and water, flood amelioration and climate regulation. We take a broader perspective on the green economy, recognising the role that sectors based on natural resources, such as agriculture, fisheries, food and tourism, have to play along with green technology in supporting the rural economy. The continued degradation of ecosystems will have a direct impact on such sectors, including the water services sector, and will limit our ability to adapt to climate change.
Ireland faces a range of challenging targets with regard to EU directives in this area, including the habitats, birds, floods and water framework directives. The Comhar sustainable development council will launch a substantial piece of work on green infrastructure in June, including a proposal for a green infrastructure planning approach that has the potential to transform how we engage in spatial planning for the environment and how we integrate nature conservation with job creation and green economy objectives. This is timely, as the European Commission has just committed to the development of a green infrastructure strategy after 2010 as a key tool to address ecosystem services. As green infrastructure emphasises management and not just protection, it has particular potential to assist in meeting the requirements of these directives.
The intention of the green infrastructure approach is to effect the development and management of land and resources. Therefore, it has stakeholder involvement at its core. This is essential in enabling the different demands and requirements to be reconciled through integrated and cost-effective actions. Our research demonstrates that approaches like green infrastructure are likely to be more cost-effective in the long run. If we were to try to deal with a plethora of requirements in a piecemeal way, it would cost more and be less efficient. Green infrastructure strategies allow synergies to be identified and funding to be targeted on agreed priorities. We will make recommendations on how progress can be made with this approach and the key opportunities for doing so. Section 24 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009, which is currently under discussion, provides for a wider definition of public infrastructure and facilities. Inclusion of green infrastructure in the definition and interpretation of public infrastructure would increase the use of development contributions to improve our green infrastructure provision and deliver the associated social and economic benefits.
This is the International Year of Biodiversity. A major study, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, which is sponsored principally by the United Nations environment programme and the EU, is due to be completed in October of this year. This has provided clear evidence that investment in green infrastructure offers cost-effective opportunities to meet policy goals, that it is cheaper to make such investment than to restore damaged ecosystems and that the social benefits that accrue from appropriate investment are of a significantly higher magnitude than the costs. Investment in green infrastructure delivers benefits in terms of protecting biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation and human health. On 24 June next, we will host an event on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, at which key members of the team preparing that study will present its findings. We will also examine the opportunities that may exist for Ireland. We will invite committee members to attend this event.
The third area on which we are focussing is the measurement of progress. In any process of transition, it is essential that a set of robust indicators are used to set the baseline and objectively measure progress. The document on building Ireland's smart economy highlighted the need to integrate the environment into measures of economic progress. Recent international efforts, such as the work of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, which was chaired by Professor Joseph Stiglitz, have reiterated the shortcomings of macroeconomic indicators like GDP, which has become established as a measure of economic well-being.
Comhar has developed an integrated national and local sustainable development indicator set, which includes key indicators for measuring the performance of the Green New Deal and the progress being made towards its objectives. The proposals have been developed in an open and transparent manner, involving many stakeholder groups beyond the membership of Comhar's council. The indicators measure different aspects of human, physical, social, natural and financial assets and relate to relevant policy areas. This ensures the proposals are in line with recommended international best practices, while remaining relevant to policy. I will mention some of the key questions that the indicator set aims to answer. How well are people's needs be met? How efficiently are we using resources to deliver economic output and well-being? What is the status and potential of our resources and assets? How fairly are resources being distributed? What measures are being taken to address sustainable development challenges?
The indicator set will support the policy process by benchmarking performance, through use in monitoring and evaluation, and identifying and prioritising policy measures. Comhar is working with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to determine how the indicators can be included in the next national sustainable development strategy. The indicators also have an important role to play in communication and raising awareness. We are developing an Internet resource that can be used for education and training purposes. We will publish an annual assessment of progress, based on the headline indicator set. The first report will be launched this September. Comhar views the development of indicators as a process. We intend to continue this work with our partners over the coming years. I invite ProfessorConvery to make some concluding remarks.
Professor Frank J. Convery
We are working on the Green New Deal that has been proposed. Many other people are also working on different aspects of it. Our main message is that we hope the joint committee, in the next phase of its recommendations, chooses to pursue this strand of the climate change agenda. We have discovered that if our efforts are to work, they need to be supported by different strands of the bureaucracy, the policy system and society in general. For this reason, securing the support of the joint committee is crucial.
In terms of the specific barriers, as I indicated, some of the challenges are extremely difficult. The grid will be one of the biggest challenges in terms of public buy-in because to make this work, especially the renewables agenda but also our micro-generation and energy efficiency objectives, it will require investment in interconnection. This is a highly charged issue politically in terms of public perception and opposition. If the infrastructure is not put in place, the ambition of achieving a figure of 40% of electricity generation through renewables by 2020 will not be fulfilled. It will be critical in moving forward to give much thought to design issues, mechanisms, public engagement and other issues across the whole spectrum. This process should start now because if we drift along, we will be blocked.
On the capacity issue, it is a little paradoxical that we have encountered skill constraints in a period of high unemployment. What we have discovered in our capacity study is that the skills required to drive this agenda differ from those available to us. Although we have many smart people and adaptation is not a problem, we need to get organised in that respect.
We will develop the green infrastructure idea more completely in June. It is a powerful idea which we would like the joint committee to take up. As Mr. McLoughlin outlined, we view our many legally binding obligations in areas such as biodiversity, the water framework directive, birds, etc., as patches of things to be done by different people. They are not integrated with the planning system or economic development template. This presents us with an opportunity, as well as a challenge.
As I stated, innovation will be critical if we are to secure sustainable jobs. This means a partnership between the universities, other research interests, business and the wider community. Deputy McManus chaired a session in the series last Friday. Unfortunately, I was unable to welcome her as I was ashed out, as it were, although I gather the session went very well. Every Friday from now until December, with the exception of July and August, we, that is, UCD with Trinity College Dublin anchoring the process as part of the innovation alliance, will bring business people and academics together to discuss a particular challenge opportunity in this area. Over time we will build this drumbeat of evidence of interaction. We hope members will chair these sessions to get a feeling for what happens. It was exciting to discover when I was putting together the programme that, even though we had 50 or 60 slots, many more people from the corporate sector wanted to present than we had space for. We need to support the tremendous entrepreneurial energy and capacity available.
On another point discussed by Mr. McLoughlin, the old GDP measure for measuring progress is very incomplete. That is the most charitable way of describing the position. Dr. Maguire has done substantial work on advancing a model that will, essentially, parallel the GDP approach, as obviously we cannot do away with it. It would be welcome if the joint committee was comfortable in endorsing this broader approach to run in parallel with the conventional measures.
I thank Professor Convery and his two colleagues. As Deputy McManus is under time pressure, I will invite her to put questions before she departs.
I apologise but I must leave shortly. I congratulate the delegation on the Green New Deal report which is an important element of public policy in this area.
Members are conscious of Professor Convery's point that we cannot take a business as usual approach. It is this awareness that has inspired much of our work, including draft legislation sponsored by the Chairman on offshore renewable energy projects. Notwithstanding the Green New Deal, we need a different type of government, not in the political sense but in the governance sense. We are building substantial information and expertise on what needs to be done, but the system of implementation has not changed. Unless it changes, we will be highly informed but completely impotent in making the required changes.
I am concerned about climate change legislation. The joint committee produced a report on the issue and the Government intends to produce the heads of a Bill. While I appreciate it may be difficult for Comhar to become involved in the issue, if this legislation is not forthcoming, we will not be able to crack the nut. While we can talk until the cows come home — I hope there will be fewer in the future — we cannot ignore this key issue. Business also needs certainty. It is not only a matter of ensuring politicians do their job but also of creating an important context. I ask the delegation to comment.
On the indicators being developed by Comhar, this is an interesting approach to adopt. While the Environmental Protection Agency does an excellent job, we are not getting the data we need to drive public policy. Is that not the case? For example, when I sought to find out whether Ireland was making progress in reducing carbon emissions, I was dismayed to learn that the most recent figures were for 2008. I do not know when we will have figures for 2009. The absence of basic data limits our ability to make progress.
Will Professor Convery comment on carbon offsets which appear to be a great cop-out? How can we ensure Ireland will not depend on carbon offsets and do great things for China, India and other countries — I would not begrudge them this — and fail to meet its responsibilities at home?
On fuel poverty and the ploughing back of the carbon tax into measures to assist people being hit directly by fuel increases, I am sure the delegation is aware that the cost of heating oil will increase from 1 May. The Government has failed to produce any safeguards for old people and those living in council houses who pay for heating oil. In fact, the fuel allowance ceases to be provided at this time of year. As a politician, it is worrying to have Comhar provide such a coherent and well thought out presentation when we do not have the equivalent expertise and intelligence to produce the smart government measures we require.
Dr. Cathy Maguire
I thank the Deputy for her questions. Comhar has met the stakeholder representatives and there have been initial discussions on the climate change Bill. We intend to do considerable work whenever the heads are published. There is broad support among all of the council members for the Bill which they regard as key legislation that will set the framework for Government policy and actions to reduce emissions. It will provide long-term certainty for businesses and investors.
We would like to focus on the issues of carbon budgets, governance, the international dimension and climate measures financing. While we are still at a very early stage of deciding what we are going to do, which process will be informed by the publication of the heads of the Bill, we are thinking of conducting some research on what a carbon budget for Ireland could look like in terms of its architecture and related governance arrangements. We had initial discussions on governance issues and the role and composition of a climate change committee.
There is a strong consensus among Comhar members that the climate change committee would need to be independent and transparent in its operations and communications with the public. It should be a technical committee rather than a stakeholder committee, thus providing the right level of expertise and advice. It should provide real added value and power and subsume some of the existing panels or groups currently working in this area in order that it would not be viewed externally as just another layer of bureaucracy or governance.
Does Ms Maguire believe the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be driving the project?
Dr. Cathy Maguire
Comhar has not taken a position on that matter. What I am expressing is my personal opinion. Given that we represent a wide range of stakeholder groups, we would like to achieve consensus on the issue.
On the question of indicators, the Deputy is right to point out data efficiency is a real barrier to much of this work. We must do the best we can with what we have got. In our proposals we started with a data driven approach. We have looked for data that are already available and that have been reported on. We work on the issue with the Central Statistics Office which produces many economic and social indicators. We are also working with the Environmental Protection Agency which produces many environmental indicators. No one is really joining up the data in a framework that addresses the real long-term challenges to sustainable development. That is what we have been working on.
There is no such thing as a correct set of indicators because it will always be a work in progress as new data become available and new problems arise that one wants to address. What we have is the most robust set we can produce with the data available. Where there are gaps, we have been working with the Central Statistics Office and other organisations on identifying the most needed indicators, their definitions and means of calculation. What we use is the best available set of data. The areas where improvements to data are required are clearly flagged. Most countries do this because it is a way of driving indicator development.
Professor Frank J. Convery
On the timeliness issue, Deputy McManus is right. The most recent year for which full data are available is 2008. The economic shock changed matters. Better data are obtained on the trading sector, in respect of which we have data for 2009. I refer to the power sector and heavy industry. Emissions in the trading sector dropped by 17% in 2009. As a rough proxy of more up-to-date information, that is not a bad place to look.
I was not aware of that; it is very useful to know.
Professor Frank J. Convery
In terms of offsets, the Deputy is right. Interestingly, up to now we have spent just over €100 million in buying offsets to meet our Kyoto Protocol obligations. It is interesting to ask what reduction and business development we could have achieved had we spent this money locally. We have accepted the current approach because it is easy in that one just buys the offsets. Current circumstances are such that, by virtue of the €100 million plus we have spent, we will meet our Kyoto Protocol obligations for 2012. We will not need to buy more offsets for the period up to then. However, we have a legally binding obligation to cut emissions by 20% by 2020. It would be very useful for the joint committee to ask what could be achieved by allocating the money domestically rather than buying our way out of the problem again. This is a very important point.
With regard to poverty, it is not just the cost of oil but also the cost of all fossil fuels that will increase on 1 May. Coal and peat will be included. Poverty will be more acute among those burning coal. There are not many but they generally tend to be poorer or the poorest. They usually burn coal in open fires. That is the bad news.
In that regard, Professor Convey knows the position on the cost ofimported coal from Scotland. Is that not the problem?
Professor Frank J. Convery
Yes. The good news is that on 1 May the tax will only apply to heat production and the use of the fuels for cooking. The use of electricity is not included in the tax. As we enter the summer, this will not be a big issue, but it will be crucial as we enter the autumn because people will then be suffering from serious stress.
There is a balance to be struck. For somebody involved in the carbon reduction business such as a provider of home insulation, the more people who roar and shout about the carbon tax, the better. Companies are already stating they will solve people's carbon tax problem if they hire them to install double glazing, for example. The council's view is that we must deal with the poverty issue because customers, especially users of solid fuel, can become stressed.
With regard to governance, it would be great if the joint committee gave broad indications on which we could do research and provide feedback.
The Bill seems to be the starting point.
Professor Frank J. Convery
The governance provisions in the Bill are what we should focus on.
As I am an independent chairman, I can say anything without blow-back.
A comparison was made between our proposals, presented as subheads of the Bill, and those referred to by the Minister. I have asked the clerk to send the council a copy.
Professor Frank J. Convery
That would be great. I agree totally with the Chairman on the issue of implementation.
We are concentrating on trying to link the local with the national and the necessary mechanisms for doing so. The model is imperfect but two-way interaction is beginning.
I thank Professor Convery and his colleagues. Comhar is a very credible body in the giving of guidance on policy in this area. We are having an interesting discussion.
I refer to a concern that is slightly different from those expressed. We have built up a lot of expertise in Ireland on the green economy and an understanding of its potential. We have a Minister who paints pictures very well of what Ireland could look like by 2025 in terms of electric transport, offshore and onshore wind projects, wave energy and the exportation of power supplies. However, we have been really weak at putting in place a road map to get us there, which road map would have us start tomorrow. The talk about the need for a change in mindset and transform the country never focuses on the nitty-gritty. There are structural changes that we must be brave enough to make such as the break-up of semi-State companies to prepare for the new economy. How can we put a grid infrastructure in place to get around genuine health or visual amenity concerns in communities? Will we still have to bang our heads against a wall in trying to build a grid infrastructure through counties Meath and Cavan? Will it be replicated in Cork, Limerick and across the country? If we are to become the green energy Arabs of Europe, we will need a significant energy infrastructure linking the west and the east to harness renewable resources where they are most powerful and undertake ambitious energy storage projects. The developers proposing many energy storage projects are enormously frustrated by problems in grid connection and seeking planning permission. Wave energy companies are leaving Ireland, although they are financed here, and moving to Portugal and Scotland to test their generators because they cannot perform basic tests here owing to the lack of infrastructure. That said, there are many good projects such as those in Galway Bay.
Will Comhar speak freely about where Ireland wants to be with its green economy by 2025? Is there a bridging plan to get us away from spending €7 billion a year in importing fossil fuels and spending €500 million a year in heating public buildings when we could spend 70% of that figure on green energy production companies in Ireland which could heat and power these buildings in a more sustainable way? Most people are convinced about where Ireland should be with renewable energy production in 20 years time. What is in dispute is whether the existing energy generation structures will do this efficiently and cost-effectively.
I was disappointed with some of the terminology used in the presentation. For example, it states, "Investment in Green infrastructure delivers benefits in terms of protecting biodiversity, climate change mitigation and adaptation and human health". While I agree with this, there must also be a financial return. The reality is we are living in a country that is broke. Five years ago we would have had the budget surpluses required to drive the changeover to renewable energy technology, using taxation measures to transform the economy and our society. We do not have that luxury anymore. Financing renewable energy production must primarily be achieved using private capital sources or by raising funds to meet shortfalls in funding. That is why I am happy the presentation deals with the issue of financing in some detail, which the Government still has not done. Instead, it is proposing to spend on water infrastructure through general taxation when it should be changing the structures entirely, linking water charges with paying for new infrastructure and new delivery systems. Fine Gael's NewERA document states it does not make sense to try to deliver clean water through 34 local authority systems. While I am not asking the delegation to endorse the NewERA document, what is Comhar's view?
Does it make sense that the ESB is such a dominant player in the energy generation markets while it remains the owner and manager of the network grid? We aim to decentralise energy production and attract investment by companies which do not feel threatened by one dominant player in the energy production market. What has happened to the Government's commitment to separate grid ownership from power generation? It will never happen. My concern is that we are all agreed on what we want to achieve, but no one wants to take the hard decision to grasp the nettle or upset the sacred cows. Changing the structures of delivery in the energy generation market would show people we were real about driving change.
In transport, for example, the State encourages people to buy electric cars by giving them grants, but there is no such direction for public transport. Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann have not been directed to have their fleets carbon neutral in two years time, as is the norm in most other countries. In Hong Kong every taxi runs on gas. In Copenhagen every bus is run on gas. In nearly every other European city buses and trains are electric.
There is Luas.
Yes, but Luas is different. We talk in abstract terms but no one is rolling up his or her sleeves to change existing structures, upsetting people in the process, particularly the State-owned delivery systems. A decision will soon be made, something over which Comhar may have had an influence, on new export tariff mechanisms for microgeneration and the distribution of power produced, say, on farms and in businesses. What approach should be taken in this regard? Should it follow the British approach which would make a lot of sense or the French or German approach which is very high export tariff orientated? There is the potential to create a massive renewable energy industry in Ireland. Many companies are waiting for the starting gun to be fired in order that they can sell their renewable energy products both here and abroad, yet there is massive frustration at the lethargic approach to putting in place the financial structures that would allow them to move ahead.
I agree with Comhar's work, but as a pragmatist, my focus is on what we will need tomorrow to ensure we reach the targets set to be met in 20 years time.
Professor Frank J. Convery
I thank the Deputy for his comments. He has given us a wake-up call because we have been talking for some time about a road map for renewable energy production.
We have a strong line in getting the prices right. We strongly support the water pricing approach. I have a strong intuition that the structure in place for the delivery of water services is less than optimal. We have not used the river basin approach in thinking through this matter, even though we have a legally binding obligation to do so. We must try to organise our investments in order that the whole river basin system makes sense. We agree the issue of water services delivery should be revisited. We have studied pricing and we know that without that, the revenues and so on, one really cannot have a policy. However, there are other complements to be considered such as the institutional arrangements, who does what, the scale and the scope. We do not have a shared position on that.
As regards the grid I could not agree more. The whole project will collapse unless the grid can happen. At the moment if one proposes to locate a grid anywhere, one will get massive opposition. I chaired what was called the renewables summit, which was something of a grandiose term. Mr. Peter Brennan was supposed to chair it, and obviously he went off to Tenerife or somewhere, and I ended up doing it. In any event, that amounted to a key message and there was a presentation about the "do's and don'ts". There is a better and a worse way of doing it and we have not thought that through.
At the best of times it will be difficult, but we should give ourselves the best chance we can of succeeding. We need to take that very seriously in a professional sense, and not drift into a Corrib-type situation where essentially everything gets gridlocked. I strongly support that proposal.
As regards the ESB and the power sector generally, perhaps I am wrong, but my sense is that matters have improved. The ESB's share has been squeezed. It will keep being squeezed until it is below 40%. In theory, at least, that should give rise to a much more competitive playing field. A year ago or so, grid ownership would have been a major issue. Some companies would not come into the market because they believed they would get squeezed one way or another by the dominant player. Since the ESB's share has shrunk, things are different. I am not certain that this is as big an issue now as it was a year ago and one can only find out by talking to new entrants and asking whether they are being kept out by the current arrangements. In the event that they are, what new arrangements in terms of grid access, management and so on would make things better? That is just an observation, but as an organisation we have not looked at it.
The question of who should do the heavy lifting as regards the things that need to happen over the next 12 months is worthy of our serious attention. Would Dr. Maguire like to add to that?
Dr. Cathy Maguire
I have just one comment as regards Deputy Coveney's point about public transport and why our fleets do not run on renewable energy. This is something we do not always do very well here and it is of major interest, namely, identifying the synergies between policy areas.
On the one hand we have a review of waste policy at the moment, with very pressing targets as regards biodegradable waste. We only have to look at cities such as Lille and Stockholm to see that they run their bus fleets on gas generated from biodegradable waste. We have looked at and identified a whole range of these, where action in one area can help meet targets in another. Very often we are not taking an integrated and joined-up look at examples such as these.
This is one of the great opportunities for us to send a signal to those running the public transport fleet in Ireland, to say, in effect: "You've got 18 months or two years, but after that all fleet replacement must be on the basis of carbon neutrality. Go and solve the problem."
There are multiple answers to that problem, but it is a question of doing it. Likewise, we could do the same with the taxi industry, but there does not appear to be a mainstreaming of the thinking and that is my problem. This is the preserve of Deputy Eamon Ryan, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and Deputy John Gormley, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the areas they control, namely, incentives for electric transport, but Deputy Noel Dempsey, Minister for Transport, is not in on the discussion when it comes to public transport. We all have to move together on this and if the State leads on it, and people see buses running on batteries, they will start to believe their cars can run on them too. If they see the entire An Post fleet, which the State owns, doing this and local authority fleets, it could lead the way. What is this nonsense about 3,000 electric cars on the road by the end of 2012? It could be ten times that figure if we decided to use all the assets the State owns to give leadership.
Comhar's added value as a politically neutral body could be to try and push the Government. I would not dare suggest that it should be supporting the Labour Party's position, Fine Gael's position or whatever, but Comhar should be stating the obvious, namely, putting the Government on the hook and saying, "If Ireland is committed to the green or the smart economy, for God's sake use the assets you already own to show some leadership so that other companies will follow."
I have often used the example of Johnson & Johnson in Cork which has a CHB plant run on wood biomass that is grown in west Waterford. It is a fantastic initiative, giving farmers income and providing heat and power in that plant as a cost effective and sustainable project. Then one looks at what is happening in hospitals and schools and other public buildings around the country, including libraries. No one is doing anything. It is a question of the State giving leadership and I would like to see Comhar putting those types of issues to the Government. It would be a really useful exercise.
Professor Frank J. Convery
There is strong policy, of course, on reducing energy in public buildings, but the conversion of that to action on the ground is another question altogether.
This is the problem. This committee has been in existence since November 2007. It is a new all-party committee, and we have never witnessed any party political angles being taken on any issue in all the time I have been the Chairman. We have endeavoured to approach matters on an all-party basis.
We produced our own legislation, an offshore renewable energy development Bill. That was a massive opportunity for the Government to grasp it and run with it, given the all-party support. We produced a report by Deputy Coveney into electric cars, which had all-party support. We produced a report by Deputy McManus on climate change – and the heads of a Bill. However, our Government structure is not capable of dealing with a massive opportunity such as this as long as people adopt this individual attitude to the effect that, "This is my territory, mind your own business". The defects extend even to the committee structure.
I have pointed out to Ministers who have come before the committee that this was a glorious opportunity for them. If I was a Minister at this time I would like to have a committee that could feed me stuff such as this, on an all-party basis. It makes basic common sense. If one is talking about offshore renewable energy, or the development of offshore wind power, whether wave or turbine, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not a suitable agent to manage that. I am a former Minister for Defence and the Marine and I have some idea as regards marine matters.
What is needed is a development authority. If one is thinking of planning on land, a local authority draws up a development plan, for example. It indicates where one can and cannot build or whatever. It is a similar situation as regards the sea. Somebody has to draw up a spatial plan and do a development plan so we can know where it is possible and desirable to develop, how this fits into the grid connections, etc. For that reason a somewhat boosted Marine Institute would be ideal agency to do that because it has so much experience as regards mapping the ocean bed and such matters.
When we decided to submit the planning application, it was apparent that An Bord Pleanála would deal with it through the critical infrastructure Act. We presented that to the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, but then we were told about the Foreshore Act. That Act was passed in 1933. It was never intended for offshore development of the nation about which we are talking. The issue was with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it took two years to transfer it to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. With the greatest respect, that Department does not have the professional expertise to deal with offshore major developments. This is the real problem and we have identified it on several occasions.
I get embarrassed when I am invited to conferences on these issues, because we are just repeating the same thing. Deputy Coveney has pointed out that we are laden down with plans and pictures, but there is no action. We should be training up people now. This is a glorious opportunity to take people off the dole. What about the courses that should be developed to train people to service offshore turbines? What about developing harbours so that we have the ships to go out and service these turbines? This is not like going out to a pond in the middle of a river. We are talking about going out 20 km into the sea. We are so far behind that I cannot understand why no leadership has been provided. We have proposed time and again that this must be driven by the Cabinet sub-committee in the Department of the Taoiseach.
The Minister for Transport was in here two years ago and we pointed out all these things, such as why are there no pilots——
We are trying to achieve a 7% bio-fuel mix in diesel. Is that the level of our ambition towards the green new deal? It is a farce.
Investment is leaving these shores every day of the week that could be providing massive employment here. We can talk until the cows come home about objections to the grid, but that will not solve our problem. Somebody will have to make a decision now. Are we going ahead with this or are we not? I spoke to the senior official in Shell about the development of Corrib gas. A development of that size around the world takes five years from the time of discovery of the gas to the time it is sold to gas purchasers. It will be at least 15 years before any gas starts flowing in this case. What message does that send to anybody? It tells people not to touch Ireland if they are thinking of investing. We have to face up to this.
I congratulate the council on its work and I am delighted it has independence like this committee. I hope we can drive things on together, but there are issues staring us in the face that we should change immediately.
I would like to hear the witnesses' view on the Spirit of Ireland proposal that has been debated in this committee. Do they believe that the Government is focusing on some of the issues that we are raising today? I am referring to efficiencies in private and public housing stock, renewable energy and transforming the national grid.
Professor Frank J. Convery
We do not have a collective view on the Spirit of Ireland proposal. I am inviting the Spirt of Ireland team to present at the "Transforming Ireland" series that is taking place between now and the end of June. We will put a panel together to listen carefully and react to them. My personal view is that it is well worth taking seriously, but we do not know enough about the nuances to say "Yes" or "No" to the proposal. There are environmental, social and technical issues involved. It is very ambitious and is quite complex, but it deserves to be taken seriously. When we have gone through this series, which will be a public meeting as well as a forum for experts, we will have a much more rounded view about it and what shape it should take if it proceeds.
The big achievement in Government policy is to get the carbon tax in place. We have been talking about this for 20 years or more, but now we have a price signal which states that if we reduce emissions, we can make money, and if we increase emissions, it will cost money. That has been done and is a pretty crucial context for almost everything we are trying to achieve. The investment in the grid is critical and it is very positive that it is going ahead. We all agree that there is a big constraint in putting the grid in place and that we need the commitment. Our policy on wind energy is quite effective. We have enough projects in the pipeline so that if we get the grid right, we will have a serious wind-based platform on land.
We have been slow on the microgeneration side. I am not familiar with the Government's new proposals, so we have not been involved, but we had a really interesting presentation during the "Transforming Ireland" series about the potential of grass as farm-based biomass.
Was that given by Gerry Murphy from UCC?
Professor Frank J. Convery
Yes. We have a pretty good understanding now. It is fairly easy for Germany to provide a really high price for feed-in and get much farm-based activity going, as it has done successfully, but that is a very small percentage of its total electricity supply. If we offer a high price and get a huge uptake, then that feeds through into higher energy costs for businesses. We have to manage the quantity to price relationship. We have made good progress on that side of things, but it is frustrating on the energy efficiency side of things. All the data tells us that this is where the big cheap gains are made. I was chairman of SEI for years and we kept doing pilot projects and pretty small-scale projects but we should be saying that every single house built before 1980 should have a proper insulated heating system within ten years or so. The costs of this are high at about €8 billion. We could be smarter than we have been in working that through.
That is starting to happen already. Consider the financing model provided by Bord Gáis for the greener homes scheme or the home energy efficiency scheme; it is a ten-year payback through one's regular energy bill, so people do not even notice it. There is no big up-front capital payment.
Professor Frank J. Convery
That is excellent. We need much more of it.
The ESB is about to launch something similar.
Professor Frank J. Convery
If we did that, the fuel poverty problem would more or less disappear.
The professor can probably sense a certain level of frustration from the committee. It is as though the jigsaw was thrown out on the floor and we have gone through all the pieces, but nobody is helping and no effort is being made to put the jigsaw together. We have examined many different technologies to determine what needs to happen. At this stage, it just needs a trigger.
Professor Convery's prioritisation of policy options includes green procurement, tax and subsidy reform, and skills and training in research and development. Perhaps the witnesses are in a better position to influence implementation than we are.
The witnesses mentioned "gas from grass". In the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, we discussed the different streams of anaerobic digestion — slurry, slaughterhouse waste, organic waste and grass — and heard that unless there is a feed-in tariff that represents an economic return, it will not happen. It will be a long time before we get to the stage at which such technologies have an influence on the price of energy or electricity, because we are starting practically from zero. We could confidently establish a tariff that incentivised this for five or six years, or perhaps more, in order to get it off the ground, and then, as Deputy Coveney said, we could mandate its use in certain areas, such as national fleets of buses or postal vans or within local authorities, specifying that in three years they must have 80% or 90% of their fleets running on renewable ethanol or methane. Thus, outside the realm of electricity supply, we would create an industry. I believe this has major potential to recalibrate our rural economy and achieve other essential targets.
We have worked in an all-party fashion without confrontation, but it is frustrating that nothing seems to be rolled out with any urgency. The Chairman has outlined a couple of areas on which we have focused. It would be helpful if Comhar could consider what we have said and the exasperation it has sensed from this meeting. Perhaps, as it is outside politics, it is better placed to actually make things happen. We sincerely want them to happen. I thank Professor Convery and his colleagues for their presentation.
Professor Frank J. Convery
What we need to do, as Mr. McLoughlin has done, is to go through the committee's recommendations carefully, pick a few that are not happening and that we think should happen, and push them hard.
We put a lot of effort into our consideration of transport about two years ago. The fact that we do not have integrated ticketing in Dublin is a puzzle. The key item we identified — which again is related to the committee's brief — was the issue of rural transport. Most of the focus is on urban public transport. When we interrogated the data, we discovered that greenhouse gas emissions from road transport are fundamentally a rural issue. We can put all the underground electric lines and so on that we want into Dublin and Cork, but it will not have any real impact unless we tackle this. One possibility was to use some of the carbon tax revenue. Rural transport is unknown territory and we do not know what we should be doing. There are pilot projects and other bits and pieces, but it is not serious and it is not working.
From time to time we get requests for people to address the committee about nuclear power. We endeavour to provide a forum for the BENE group, hoping it might generate debate, but it is difficult. Many people are sincere when they talk about nuclear power. However, the best advice we have received to date was that this island is too small for it to be viable. Others will dispute this. Has Comhar done any studies in this regard?
Professor Frank J. Convery
Not as a group, although I investigated it two years ago. I have been watching the Finnish experience carefully because I thought the Finns might be able to make it work. They handled the NIMBY issue brilliantly, by putting out what was essentially a tender and inviting communities to come back to them with their requirements for accepting a nuclear plant. Three communities came back with a package, one of which was chosen. Thus, they got rid of that problem. They then began to develop the plant, but it has run badly over time and over budget. That gives me pause, because I had thought that if the Finns could do it on time and within budget, producing low-cost electricity, it might be viable. It turns out that Finland, in terms of economic size, is not a million miles away from Ireland. However, they have not managed to do this. I do not know what has gone wrong, but there have been issues. That is a negative experience.
On the other hand, EDF, Mr. Sarkozy and the European nuclear industry generally are heavily pushing small plants, which means the problem is no longer one of scale. My guess is that if we went to our council with a proposition, the reaction would be negative. In other words, it would not allow us to recommend it. However, we have not specifically tabled it. As an academic, I believe it should be taken seriously.
The biggest problem with nuclear power is that of proliferation. Every single outfit with ambitions to develop nuclear weapons starts out with a nuclear power plant, and the more pervasive it becomes, the more the resulting materials are floating about. However, we can be pretty certain that if we develop nuclear power, it will not get into the wrong hands. That is my intuition.
Dr. Cathy Maguire
I agree with Professor Convery. Our core business is sustainable development. In seeking solutions, we do not tend to seek those that pass on negative legacies and problems for future generations to clean up.
I am just asking because this is an issue that crops up from time to time when groups ask to appear before the committee. However, it seems a pointless exercise to provide a platform if it will just be a talking shop. It does not seem to fit in.
Professor Frank J. Convery
I would get an e-mail once a week on this issue.
We must consider the cost of developing a nuclear power plant in Ireland and putting the grid infrastructure in place. Unless an entirely new grid system is put in place, probably the only place one could put a nuclear plant would be in the middle of Dublin or at Moneypoint. It would make far more sense to build proper interconnectors to get the benefit of cheap nuclear power from France, potentially, but also to open a potential export market for green power, which does exist in France.
Professor Frank J. Convery
I agree with that latter point. I had meant to make that point in respect of key pinch points. While local infrastructure is critical, import-export infrastructure is equally so.
I attended an Al Gore presentation in Dublin some time ago, at which one of the speakers was the then chairman of the ESB. He made it clear that he perceived the future of energy production in Ireland as being through nuclear power. I thought to myself that if this was the thinking at the top of the ESB, it would have a significant effect. However, it appears to have disappeared off the radar. Someone must have had a quiet word.
I expect it was not so quiet.
Of course, as the chairman has changed it appears to have disappeared. I thank all three witnesses for their contributions and on behalf of the joint committee, I look forward to working closely, as always, with Comhar in the future. We share a similar hope for this country and I am interested in how we can get there quickly. I am sure we will be in touch again and will pass on for Comhar's information anything the joint committee considers would be of interest to it.
Professor Frank J. Convery
I thank the joint committee on our behalf and that of our council. We wish to be as helpful as possible to the joint committee and as its work evolves, we would be delighted to pick up on any issues and elements members wish to raise. I thank the members and wish them luck with their work.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 May 2010.