Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Mar 2007

Vol. 186 No. 14

Carbon Fund Bill 2006: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche)

I am pleased to be back in the House for Second Stage of the Carbon Fund Bill. I am here so often I am more frequently before the House than I was when I was a Member. I hope it is not a portent of things to come.

Second Stage of the Carbon Fund Bill will provide an opportunity to develop issues raised in yesterday's debate in Private Members' time. The Bill was amended on Committee Stage in the Dáil, and benefited from a detailed examination and debate in that House. As I stated in my contribution to the Private Members' debate, the Government is committed to meeting Ireland's Kyoto Protocol commitments, and we will do so on a basis which is both transparent and fully consistent with the principles underpinning the protocol.

Ireland will reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 15.2 million tonnes each year during the protocol compliance period from 2008 to 2012. This will be achieved by means of a combination of emission reduction measures which have been implemented across the economy, including participation by approximately 109 of our heaviest-emitting installations in the EU emissions trading scheme. These measures will be supplemented as necessary through use of the three flexible mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol to purchase allowances arising from emission reductions in other countries.

For the benefit of the House, I will reiterate the fundamental international acceptability of purchasing carbon allowances on the international market. The purchase of allowances is a legitimate, practical and logical option which is explicitly provided for in the Kyoto Protocol. As well as being part of the Kyoto arrangements, carbon trading is endorsed in the recent report by Sir Nicholas Stern on the economics of climate change and by the European Commission.

Within the European Union, it is central to virtually every member state's response to its Kyoto commitments. It is also supported by the former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and by Al Gore whose film "An Inconvenient Truth" contributed so much to the increasing awareness of global warming. Our policy on the purchase of carbon allowances to supplement domestic actions is not unique. At least ten other EU member states, namely, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Slovenia are expected to purchase up to 550 million units to meet their commitments. To date budgetary commitments of €2.8 billion have been made by these member states.

An important point often overlooked is that the importance of the flexible mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol, particularly the clean development mechanism, are not confined to parties who wish to purchase carbon allowances to supplement domestic emission reductions. They are also hugely important to developing countries in terms of attracting investment in modern clean technology. At the meeting of the parties to the protocol in Nairobi last December, there was much discussion about the value of this investment for development and the reality it might not otherwise occur.

Why commentators in Ireland put themselves outside this debate and seek to deny the advantages to Ireland of using the mechanism and its evident advantages to the developing world is difficult to understand. It seems to be a classic example of ideology clouding out logic. An interesting comment on this matter was made by Mr. Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the recent Paris meeting. He spoke of the purchase of carbon credits as a device which allows developed states to be ambitious about the carbon burden they carry and supports developing countries, particularly those who wish to use and develop clean technologies.

To illustrate the major importance of the mechanism to developing countries, the point can be made that it is the only way many of them will be able to fund a move to clean technologies. Examples of clean development mechanism projects include an energy conservation and greenhouse gas emissions reductions project in Moldova; a low-cost urban housing energy upgrade project in Cape Town; a hydroelectric project in Honduras; a hydropower plant in Bhutan and a biogas support programme in Nepal.

Regarding economic competitiveness, we must face up to the full economic and social consequences of not buying credits to supplement domestic action to meet our Kyoto commitments. Often, this is not done by people who make commentary in this country. The alternative for Ireland is that industry would be forced to carry the full burden, the consequences of which could be very severe. In other debates, I mentioned high-energy users such as Aughinish Alumina would face bills which would close them down.If the ESB were made bear the full cost of the credits it has, which is suggested by other parties, it would face an additional bill of €750 million. This is ignored and brushed aside in discussions.

Existing Irish industries would have to carry huge economic burdens. Ireland would become an even more costly place to locate business and jobs. The cost base of all industries would rise, electricity prices would be inflated and domestic producers would face undercutting from imports. The significant point about this is that global warming is a global problem and wherever in the world a tonne is saved it will have the same effect in terms of the overall project.

I heard arguments that Ireland should not use the protocol flexible mechanism to purchase carbon allowances, even when it is the most cost-effective way to do so. At an estimate price of €15 per unit over the Kyoto period, the Government would have to add an additional burden of at least €270 million on to the companies in the EU emissions trading scheme. The question arises of why we should impose this when a variety of measures can deal with our Kyoto targets?

Should there be any misunderstanding about the Government's position, let me set it out very clearly. Ireland will comply fully with its Kyoto Protocol target sensibly and honestly, without compromising economic growth or jobs. In short, we will take a responsible and effective approach that is fully consistent with the Kyoto Protocol. In the process, we will also put Ireland on a firm footing in anticipation of more challenging emission reduction targets in the longer term.

The Government has capped the State's purchasing requirement at 3.6 million allowances per annum, or 18 million allowances in total over the five-year period. The announcement in the budget that €270 million will be provided between now and 2013 establishes a definite financial basis for the purchasing requirement and builds on €20 million provided by the Minister for Finance in 2006 to begin the process.

In addition to providing financial resources, it is essential to put in place appropriate institutional arrangements. In his 2006 budget statement, the Minister for Finance initiated the process of developing these arrangements by announcing the establishment of a carbon fund through which the necessary financial resources will be managed, and he designated the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, as the purchasing agent for the State. The provisions of the Bill will, inter alia, give a statutory basis to both the carbon fund and to designation of the NTMA as purchasing agent for the State. It is therefore a piece of framework legislation.

The Bill has been drafted in close consultation with the Department of Finance and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure the legislation provides for robust checks and balances in the expenditure of public funds. I will briefly outline its main provisions.

Section 1 provides for the definitions, which are generally quite straightforward in nature. The Bill introduces the term "Kyoto units" to capture the different types of carbon credits and allowances available under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. Section 2 addresses the main functions of the Bill, establishing the carbon fund, leaving control and management of the fund with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and delegating management of the fund to the NTMA.

Section 3 provides for the funding required for the acquisition of Kyoto units. My Department engaged in extensive consultation with the Department of Finance and the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure the most efficient and cost-effective means of providing for the acquisition of Kyoto units. This provision in the Bill enables the NTMA to draw down funds directly from the central fund on an ongoing basis as needs arise.

I am conscious the NTMA should not carry out the acquisition of Kyoto units without Oireachtas scrutiny, and therefore the Bill provides that moneys drawn down from the central fund for this purpose must be repaid in subsequent years through moneys voted to me by the Oireachtas. This will enable an appropriate level of oversight by the Oireachtas on expenditure of State funds by the NTMA and the policy issues underpinning the use of the Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms.

Section 4 stipulates that the carbon fund cannot be used for any other purpose. Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, provide for the provision of proper accounts by the NTMA in managing the carbon fund, audit of the accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the accountability of the NTMA to the Committee of Public Accounts. The NTMA will also be required to provide to the Minister an annual report of its activities in managing the fund, which will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Section 8 provides that the activities of the NTMA will be guided by direction from the Minister for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in consultation with the Minister for Finance. I intend that the purchase of Kyoto Units by the National Treasury Management Agency will be guided by the following principles. These are that the units contribute to the ultimate objective of the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change, the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In addition, there will be no investment in projects related to nuclear power; investment risk will be minimised, particularly with the timely delivery of credits; and good value for money will be obtained.

Section 9 provides that the Minister may revoke some or all of the functions assigned under the Bill to the NTMA following consultation with the Minister for Finance. The House will be aware that the European Commission recently made a decision on Ireland's national allocation plan, the so-called NAPS II, for the emissions trading period 2008-12. This plan provides the framework for participation by 109 Irish installations in the EU emissions trading scheme in the relevant five-year period.

Although it accepted many aspects of our plan, the Commission took a certain view which is interesting in light of some of the commentary we heard in the other House. It indicated that we have not yet shown sufficient progress on the purchase of Kyoto units to supplement domestic emission reductions. I do not agree with the Commission and I have challenged its view in a detailed response. For the purpose of confirming Ireland's determination to meet our Kyoto commitments, I have already finalised arrangements to invest €20 million in a carbon fund operated by European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and a further €20 million in a fund operated by the World Bank.

These investments are a significant step in demonstrating progress towards meeting our Kyoto commitments and enactment of the Carbon Fund Bill is an essential next step. In addition to designating the NTMA as purchasing agent, enactment of the Bill will enable the agency to complete the full purchasing programme for the 2008-12 period. Finalising our compliance arrangements will also provide essential support for the Kyoto Protocol and its objectives.

This is important legislation for Kyoto compliance purposes but also to ensure the future competitiveness of Ireland's business sectors. I trust it will be supported by all parties as its logic is clear. The provisions this Bill underpins are set out in the Kyoto Protocol and all the states which have signed up to it accept those principles. The principles we are using in this country have been underpinned by the United Nations, and the then Secretary General, Kofi Annan, spoke about them. Others, including Stern, Gore and Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, spoke in favour of them.

I am somewhat mystified that so many commentators are taking the opposite view. It seems to be a classic example of the whole world is out of step with my Johnny.

Mr. Bannon

In thinking about the Carbon Fund Bill I have a mental picture of the Government as a large, disgruntled ostrich with ruffled feathers reluctantly removing its head from the sand because of an assault to its exposed rear end. By this I mean no disrespect to the ostrich.

This is exactly the position of the beleaguered Government, facing continuous assault on its very exposed position vis-à-vis carbon emissions. What exactly is its response to the criticisms and outcries but to throw money at the problem, of course. This is the Government that has had more money at its disposal than any other in the history of the State and its knee-jerk answer to most problems has been to throw taxpayers’ hard-earned money at them.

I believe Rupert Murdoch stated that the person who holds the cheque book calls the tune. The Bill before us is calling the tune and asking us to dance to it. It is telling us to endorse the cheque to buy the Government out of the mess it has made with regard to carbon emissions and to save it from failing to meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

There should be no mistake, this Bill is not a solution to our appalling record on carbon emissions but is rather the forcing of our hand to rescue the Government from a major mess of its own making. It is testament to the total lack of action taken by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as well as the Government as a whole, over the last decade on carbon emissions.

The behaviour of the Government and the contempt in which it holds this House by scheduling this legislation in the dying days of this Oireachtas term is appalling. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, have trumpeted this Bill as bold, radical and, amazingly, "best for the environment and best for the economy". They forgot to say it is best for the dying Government.

In his press release at budget time, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government welcomed the budget's commitment to long-term funding of €270 million for Ireland's planned purchase of carbon allowances. He continued by stating, "This budgetary commitment underlines Ireland's support for the Kyoto Protocol and to developing countries. It provides us with the means to meet our Kyoto target, without damaging the Irish economy."

The public is being deceived, as it is wrong to say the Bill is of economic benefit to the people or the economy. It is the product of an economic and environmental systems failure in the Minister's Department. We are paying for the failure to tackle carbon emissions during the past ten years. Nowhere is that failure made clearer than in the report from Sustainable Energy Ireland, which showed CO2 emissions from energy production increasing at a higher rate than energy growth. The recoupling of CO2 emissions to energy growth is phenomenally worrying and shows that the Government's approach to climate change is wrong and that a new aggressive approach is needed.

In 2005, Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions were approximately 70 million tonnes, representing a rise of 26.3% since 1990 and seven tonnes above our annual Kyoto target for the period 2008-12. The European Commission believes Ireland will not meet its target. As such, Ireland will need to use the Kyoto mechanisms to meet the overspill. The Government has committed to purchasing 3.6 million tonnes of carbon credits annually in the period 2008-12. Even with these carbon credits, Ireland is not expected to meet its target without further measures. Ireland is one of seven EU-27 countries not projected to meet their targets. The others are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Even with the use of Kyoto mechanisms and carbon sinks — planting permanent forests — the European Commission expects the gap to be approximately 3.6 million tonnes per annum.

This month, the EU committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 20% below their 1990 level by 2020. If other developed countries agree, this target could be increased to 30% and more than 60% by 2050. It is unclear at this stage what this means for Ireland in terms of a national target, but it should mean that Ireland will need to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels by 2020 and further after that time.

Currently, Ireland has one of the highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in Europe. If these levels continue, Ireland will continue to need to buy carbon credits from lower emission countries. While the current cost of carbon is low, partially due to overly generous allocations within the European trading system, the price may rise and, without emission reductions, the cost of purchasing carbon credits will be an ongoing burden on the taxpayer. According to the Government, the difference between Ireland’s level of emissions per capita and the EU-25 level can be attributed to, among other factors, a high reliance on fossil fuels for power generation, high per capita cement production and a relatively high level of international fuel storage.

Late last year, the European Commission criticised the Government's climate change plan for its heavy reliance on purchasing carbon credits, but the Government's response was to place further reliance on this policy in the budget. Its failure to tackle vehicle emissions is unforgivable and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's botched adoption of Fine Gael's VRT plan has provided a 12-month window for a significant increase in sales of vehicles that emit considerable amounts of CO2. Most damningly, Ireland's over-reliance on oil and the lack of emphasis Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have put on alternative energy in the past decade has resulted in today's figures.

A brand new approach is needed, with aggressive policies focusing on reaching local targets to reduce overall emissions. Fine Gael in government will give significant new responsibilities to local government in respect of climate change and energy conservation. We will put in place a comprehensive strategy that will make local government integral in all green policies and will see every planning application vetted for carbon proofing and energy conservation. Each local authority will be compelled to conduct a full inventory of CO2 emissions and produce a plan of action to reduce them. Targets will be set in each local authority area requiring a percentage of each new home to come from renewable sources and there will be a serious drive on green procurement.

I wish to put on record the facts regarding the cost of carbon trading. The national allocation plan of carbon allowances published by the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the Government has allocated 3 million tonnes of excess emissions to the non-traded sector and 2 million tonnes to the traded sector. This means that, in practice, the Exchequer — effectively, the people of Ireland — will buy 3 million tonnes of credits annually and the electricity consumer, those same people, will pay for two million tonnes. At €15 per tonne of carbon, the annual bill would be €75 million between the taxpayer and the consumer. However, the NAP is hoping for unspecified savings of 1.5 million tonnes in the years to come. If those savings are not achieved, they will need to be offset by the purchasing of more carbon credits. If the price of carbon were to increase to €30 per tonne, which is not an unreasonable suggestion, the national bill would be a staggering €213 million per annum. That is the cost of failure. During the five years of the NAP, the total bill would come to more than €1 billion.

Last December's budget paid lip-service to the need to end Ireland's unsustainable dependence on foreign oil and will do little or nothing to help Ireland meet its Kyoto commitments. Thanks to the lack of any political will from the Government, Ireland's CO2 emissions have risen by almost twice the allowable level under the Kyoto Protocol since 1990.

I welcome the Government's use of Fine Gael's policy to reform vehicle registration tax——

Mr. O’Toole

Hear, hear.

Mr. Bannon

——through a system of energy efficiency labelling for vehicles, but why is the Minister for Finance delaying the implementation of this reform until 2008? The structures in place to promote the growth of bio-fuels are minimal and the Government has failed to exploit our potential for renewable energy to make the blending of fuels compulsory. If the Government was serious about renewables, it would have put in place legislation to ensure that bio-fuel is blended into petrol, diesel and home-heating oil. Had the Minister implemented Fine Gael's proposals, as contained in our Energy for the Future document, real progress could have been made.

Among our proposals are those to legislate to compel all fuel retailers to blend bio-fuel into fuels such as petrol, diesel and home-heating oil and to remove all excise duty on bio-fuels produced from renewable energy crops. In practice, this would mean producers would not need to pay excise duty on the bio-fuels they produce, with the knock-on effect of consumers enjoying cheaper fuel at the pump. An open public competition should be organised for those who wish to avail of capital start-up grants, or to establish and operate bio-fuel processing plants. The Government should require all public transport and public service vehicles to convert, where practical and feasible, to forms of bio-fuel in its pure or a blended form. The Minister's refusal to adopt our proposals means the environment and the economy will suffer for another year.

This Bill is not good news for Ireland, the environment, the Exchequer, the developing world or anyone else. It is the end result of the Government's refusal to take the environment seriously. It is the product of ministerial thinking that sees anyone with an interest in protecting the environment as extremist, anti-progress and utopian. The Minister should be ashamed of himself, his record and the record of the Government.

Mr. Brady

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Roche, to the House. He rightly commented that he comes to the Seanad more often than most Ministers. Can Senator Bannon tell the House whether Fine Gael will refuse to use this mechanism if it gets back into Government?

Mr. O’Toole

In fairness, I do not think the Senator said that.

Mr. Bannon

Senator Brady should get his facts right.

Mr. Brady

That is what I heard.

Mr. Bannon

He should not be as twisted as the Government.

Mr. Brady

Would Fine Gael dismiss the Stern report?

Mr. Bannon

I ask the Senator not be to be as twisted as the Government.

Mr. Brady

Would it dismiss the other experts who have agreed that this mechanism, as it is structured, represents one of the most effective ways of dealing with this global problem and challenge? Ireland is no different from any other country. We have to take responsibility for the carbon emissions we produce as a country and as individuals. That is exactly what we are doing.

Mr. Bannon

It is ten years late.

Mr. Brady

I pointed out during last night's debate that a great deal of progress has been made in this area in recent years. It is great that this country is able to afford to have a strategy for dealing with this issue. We could not have afforded to have such a strategy until approximately ten years ago.

Numerous attempts were made in the past to improve the environment. The Government oversaw the introduction of smokeless fuel, for example. We have progressed enormously in recent years by putting a levy on plastic bags, for example. The steps we have taken will ensure we continue to reduce our emissions. The economy grew by 150% between 1990 and 2004, but our emissions increased by just 25%. It is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain such a balancing act. The strategy and policies pursued by the Minister and the Government will ensure we will continue the progress we have made.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill. We have been speaking about this issue for many years. The joint committee has discussed the matter on numerous occasions, as Senator Bannon is aware. We have talked around the subject.

The steps we are taking to ensure Ireland remains competitive in the global market do not seem to be acceptable to those in the Opposition who often slate us for our supposed failure to maintain this country's competitiveness. As I said last night, "the reality of life is that we cannot all cycle everywhere". We have to take responsibility for the use of cars, electricity and various sources of energy. We are taking concrete steps in these respects.

I am pleased the National Treasury Management Agency is being given responsibility as the State's purchasing agent. The agency has proven over the years that its talented and committed staff can pursue extremely successful policies and strategies. The agency's role in this regard will ensure we get value for money and continue to work to meet our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

This legislation has been framed following a long period of consultation with many interests, including the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It will prove to be very effective. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government commented on the various sections of the Bill.

I wish to refer to last night's discussion on the improvements which have been made. I spoke about competitiveness during that debate. We need to strike a balance between continuing to provide jobs and improve the economy for the people, and allowing ordinary citizens to enjoy their lives in the same way as their counterparts throughout the world. We can hold our heads high in this respect. Our prudent policies have helped us to avoid many of the problems which are being experienced by our European neighbours.

We have to compete globally. We are moving away from manufacturing and agriculture, to a certain extent. We are now concentrating on high-end technology and pharmaceuticals. We have to safeguard such jobs, protect the environment and respect the way these companies do business. We have to maintain our growth and continue to provide for growth.

I will comment on what has been achieved in recent times. Last night, we discussed many of the developments which will help to reduce emissions from traffic. Many projects are being rolled out under Transport 21. We have not heard a squeak about the success of the Dublin Port tunnel, which is up and running. The only reaction we got resulted from a slight malfunction yesterday. As a direct result of those problems, everybody now recognises the value of the tunnel, about which we have been speaking for ten years. We also spent ten years trying to introduce the Luas system, which is now a massive success. We do not hear a dicky-bird about the fact that it is used by millions of people every year.

Projects like those I have mentioned form part of the Government's long-term strategy. We are showing foresight by acknowledging what will have to be done in the future. The Government and its predecessor have a proven track record in planning for the future. We are making sure we fulfil all our obligations, particularly in relation to the environment. We have made huge strides in that regard.

The Dublin Port tunnel has made a huge difference to people in parts of my constituency like East Wall and North Wall. Before the tunnel opened, there was a constant flow of heavy trucks through the area from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. each day. The opening of the tunnel has reduced the number of hours that drivers spend stuck in traffic. It has also improved the quality of the air in many parts of Dublin. Schools which had huge problems with fumes, etc., from heavy traffic have been transformed. When one considers such basic matters, one sees how effective the Government's achievements have been.

We will continue to invest in public transport to encourage as many people as possible to use it. We have made a great deal of progress in that respect. That work will continue.

I would like to speak about the greener homes scheme, which encourages individuals and families to take responsibility. Grants and other incentives are provided under the scheme. Anything that can be done in this area should be encouraged. The Government has proven its willingness to support people to make certain choices. We will have to continue to assist groups and individuals who want to make an effort in this regard. There has been a major change in the attitude to environmental issues of young people on leaving school. The green flag scheme operated in many schools has proved to be a great success. It is an educational tool which students carry into adult life. It has brought about change and we must encourage such initiatives.

We now accept that the generation of emissions and the way we treat our environment is a matter of individual responsibility. Probably the most effective campaign to date has been the Power of One. It comes down to the individual and requesting individuals to switch off lights, turn off taps, put controls on heating systems, etc. That is the way forward. We have to bring down this issue to an individual's responsibility. We must all take responsibility for our actions. The Power of One campaign in particular will prove to be very successful in the long run.

The more we continue to educate young people in schools and make them aware of environmental issues, the better. Films and television programmes on global warming have been produced and there is also the Internet, which are resources into which young people tap. We must ensure the right information and as much information as possible is disseminated to people. It is easy to scaremonger about such issues. People sometimes pick up wrong information because some individuals and groups have a vested interested in disseminating misinformation. We must be aware of that, particularly in the case of young people. As is the case with other issues, young people can be susceptible and easily led in terms of information disseminated.

We will continue to research and develop renewable resources. We are concentrating heavily on the provision of renewal sources of energy. A great deal of money is being invested in such research and development, which is necessary. We need to modernise our energy networks. I wholeheartedly agree with the decision not to go down the nuclear road. I had the dubious honour of visiting Sellafield last year and it brought back memories of the threat posed by that plant given that it is still dealing with the result of what they did in the 1950s and they will continue to deal with that waste for the next 50 years. They have materials that will be in the ground for 1,000 years and nobody is sure what to do about that, yet they continue to go down the nuclear road.

We have to examine the question of alternatives and sustainable renewable sources of energy. The Government and the previous Minister for the Environment have made huge strides forward in this area and will continue to do so. We have talked and danced around the subject of this legislation for a long time. The legislation is very welcome. It is great that at last we are getting to the point where we, as a country, are taking responsibility for what we produce and the emissions we produce. This Bill together with a framework of legislation and policy will ensure we continue the good work. I wish the Minister well with the passage of the Bill.

Mr. O’Toole

I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the legislation. I want to put a few matters straight. I was one of the people who was critical in my contribution on the budget debate about the €270 million allocation but that did not mean I am opposed to emissions trading. I was one of the people who criticised the Power of One campaign but that does not mean I am opposed to any of the measures suggested in that campaign. It is the imbalance that bothered me.

The Minister referred to team development mechanisms in various places around the world and he gave an example of a housing estate somewhere in South Africa. I lay a bet with him that the installation requirements in those houses are closer to Gerard McCaughey's view than to the views of his Department.

Mr. Roche

The Senator should not put all his faith in a lobbyist.

Mr. O’Toole

I do not depend on lobbyists. They might give me an interest in something but I do not depend on what I get from them.

The Bill is welcome but minimalist. It does not deal with the issues. I regret the Bill was not introduced in this House, as I would have made a number of amendments to it with which I believe the Minister would be in agreement.

In regard to section 8, the Minister said, "I intend that the purchase of Kyoto units by the National Treasury Management Agency will be guided by the following principles..." and so on. If I thought there was a chance of it being accepted, I would table an amendment to include that section of the Minister's speech to a relevant section of the Bill. That is necessary. There is a gap in the Bill in that respect and that part of the Minister's speech should be included in it.

I note the Minister's reference to the Kyoto units, which I consider is also minimalist. I am amazed that the Parliamentary Counsel did not develop that aspect further. To my certain knowledge, there are four kinds of Kyoto units. The better known ones are the certified emission reductions, CERs, the emission reduction units for the sink units that would be put in place, and the European Union allowances.

I criticised the budget in terms of the money being put aside for this area, as it is the only action being taken. In reply to a point raised by Senator Brady, I say that purely on the basis that it was not being balanced with other aspects. If the Minister said to me that he intended to introduce legislation in this area, I would advise him it should deal with the following measures and the Minister might indicate with which ones he disagrees. It should provide that from now on every local authority will have no choice but to charge for waste on the basis of per unit, per volume, per weight or per lift, rather than the position that still prevails in some county councils which charge householders for the year and allow people to put out barrowfuls of waste every weekend. Why could that not be done? Why would we not insist that every new house being built would have triple glazing and solar panels, which has been included in new houses in two areas of Spain? In moving forward matters, why would we not insist that old fashioned light bulbs would be phased out and banned within 18 months? None of those measures would cost money or pose a charge on the Exchequer. It could be argued that they might add a minor cost to the price of houses but it would not add 1% to the price of them. Why could that not be done? I would love to be in the Minister's position for one week and I would put in place four or five of those measures and I would not hear of any arguments being made against them. No lobbyist approached me to convince me of that; that is my view.

I will take the Minister further in terms of why I support this Bill. I decided in January that my election campaign would be carbon neutral. As Padraig Flynn, one of the Minister's predecessors, said long ago, "You should try it some time". He should try to be carbon neutral, get his emissions audited, obtain an authorised certificate to indicate it is balanced and be able to prove that. It cannot be done. At what price does the Minister think one CER is currently running? I checked it in January when a carbon credit, 1 metric tonne of carbon, was €25. If the Minister multiplies that figure by whatever number of million he mentioned in his speech, he will find that the sum works out at €450 million.

Mr. Roche

No, it does not.

Mr. O’Toole

It does. I was a primary school teacher and I can multiply.

Mr. Roche

The Senator is using the wrong figure.

Mr. O’Toole

Some 18 million allowances multiplied by €25 works out at €450 million but the Minister has allowed for a figure of only €270 million. I am not making a big issue of this.

Mr. Roche

On a point of information, the Senator is talking about CER.

Mr. O’Toole

Yes.

Mr. Roche

He is not talking about government to government trading.

Mr. O’Toole

I will talk about government to government trading. Let me go through it. In the Kyoto agreement, that would have been done through an IT transference system. I do not know where in Ireland the international transaction log of those is being kept. I cannot find that out. It should be there but it is not mentioned in the Bill. It is required to be registered for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. I presume the registration body is the Environmental Protection Agency, but I am not certain and it is not written down in the Bill. I have listed two items that should be written in the Bill.

I refer to the different units used to measure emissions and the trading of emissions. The European Union allowances are already being traded even though they do not exist. Ireland cannot trade the allowances. I note from last year's departmental accounts that €5,000 worth of CERs were purchased and I wonder how this was done and by means of what broker. I will send the Minister a note on that information and I will double-check that it was his Department's accounts.

It seems that the EPA will operate the scheme and I agree with Senator Brady that it has a proven record. However I question how these units will be audited and this is not explained in the Bill nor does the Bill state that they are required to be audited. However, the Bill correctly states that the Minister may give directions or guidelines to the agency and this should be done. Is it possible to purchase emission units in Ireland? I ask the Minister to answer that question.

Certified emission reductions, CERs, are produced in the five examples given in the Minister's opening contribution — the hydropower plant in Bhutan, the other projects in Honduras, Nepal, Cape Town and Moldova. They are all clean development mechanisms which produce units tallied in CERs. Another element of the Kyoto Protocol are the joint implementation projects which will be undertaken in non-developing countries, non-Third World countries, where projects are put in place to create certified emission reductions. Each unit is the same; one CER equals one emission reduction unit which also equals €1 union allowance. They are also equal to one carbon tonne or one tonne of carbon emissions.

I have a suggestion to be considered by the Minister and by Senator Brady and it explains why I am critical. A third unit of the Kyoto Protocol is called a removal unit, an RMU. All these units are equal. The RMU is for dealing with sink projects, meaning that if something is creating a problem because of emissions, it is taken away and credit can be earned. I suggest this could be done in Ireland by putting in place a project to solve the problem when it is identified. If the Minister took this decision tomorrow morning, he would put a plastic sheet over every sewage treatment plant in Ireland and this would capture the methane. This methane is worth 20 times carbon emissions as it is 20 times more powerful and more dense. The capture of one cubic tonne of methane is the same as 20 cubic tonnes of carbon and this is being produced with our landfills and our sewage treatment plants. Once the methane is captured we will not need to buy the carbon credits and we can use the methane so it is a winner both ways. I am not talking about tweeds and green wellies but rather about a serious commercial proposition. The problem could be dealt with from start to finish, emissions would be removed, the Kyoto Protocol commitments would be met, carbon emissions would be reduced and it would be a win in every way. I would like to see this achieved.

I am concerned when I see a reference to Kyoto units because I am not certain if there is any unit called a Kyoto unit as it is a term used to describe the various units to which I have referred. They are all equal to each other and they are all tradeable and are being traded somewhere in the world. The purpose of the Bill is to allow for European trading and I note there is a trading in Chicago. If I came to the Minister with a project and proposed putting a roof over a huge landfill site in north Dublin in order to capture all the methane escaping from that site and this will be measurable by volume, this would help the country under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. This would be an RMU, a removal unit.

Mr. Roche

The Senator's contribution is fascinating for which I compliment him. Without being patronising it is by far and away the best contribution in either House. The steps we have taken in waste management alone will save 700,000 tonnes. The capping of waste is illustrated by the point made by the Senator. He has illustrated in a most eloquent way that this is a very serious topic that requires serious rather than fatuous analysis and I compliment him on his analysis.

Mr. O’Toole

I thank the Minister. This is an issue of interest to me. There is much nonsense spoken on this topic. I am putting forward practical proposals for dealing with this issue and I suggest every step should be a practical one and no step should be over the limit of stupidity while at the same time the balance must be maintained.

When the Minister directs the agency, the NTMA, I ask him to request a mix which will include removal units, CERs and the others so that they would all be included. We would then do three things, namely, involve ourselves in the clean development mechanisms in Third World countries to undertake superb projects as outlined in the Minister's contribution; agree joint initiatives in other countries where Ireland would undertake similar projects in order to create and gain; and rid ourselves of some of the emissions through the elimination of what are generally referred to as sink units, if that is the correct term.

If this balance was being achieved I could look Gerard McCaughey in the eye.

Mr. Roche

The Senator still owes us both a lunch.

Mr. O’Toole

I have written to him and I will adjudicate at lunch between the Minister and Mr. McCaughey when we will discuss these issues.

Mr. Daly

I suggest the Senator bring Kevin Myers with him.

Mr. O’Toole

There is much we could do.

I will tell the Minister a story. Last week the energy regulator attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. I was embarrassed with the lack of knowledge shown by the officials. They were not aware that Sustainable Energy Ireland offers grants for solar panels but not for wind generators. This is a basic piece of information in their line of country.

The ESB must wait for smart meters which can judge the time of the day at which a consumer uses electricity and charge accordingly. However, in most of Europe, if a consumer creates more electricity than he or she uses, for instance, by using a wind generator, this energy is given back into the grid and the consumer is paid for it. This is not rocket science and it is happening 60 miles up the road in Northern Ireland and in the UK. It is only small money but it is a clear incentive. Rather than wait for smart metering I would allow consumers install a smart meter.

Energy conservation is being portrayed as being out of reach of people. A passive house is portrayed on television as being almost impossible but 75% of the effort is very easy if a house is being constructed by direct labour. I spoke to a young teacher who is building a house near Kinvara. I met him in Senator Daly's constituency but he was building his house over the border in County Galway. He is putting in geothermal heating. He has triple glazing with Pilkington glass. He has got sheep's wool insulation. Every piece of sheep's wool in Ireland is exported. It used to be exported to Bradford and now it is exported to India. The spin offs in these areas are superb. Creating a whole new industry for sheep's wool insulation would be very welcome in the Minister's own constituency.

Mr. Roche

There is a company marketing sheep's wool insulation.

Mr. O’Toole

Let us broaden its market by making this an essential part of what we are doing. These are just simple things that can be done.

I have not seen Al Gore's film, but I believe it is very good. There was a big debate on Channel 4 about whether global warming was based on nonsense. We should tell those people they should go into a corner and continue their debate. Whatever about the arguments about global warming, taking action on it stops waste, makes us more efficient, productive and prudent. The important people can discuss the connection between carbon emissions and temperature increase. In the meantime, we should do what we think is practicable and sensible.

I do not have a problem with the Bill, but it should deal with the question of audit and the instructions that the Minister might generally give. It should also deal with the various different types of Kyoto units. It does not help ordinary people like myself. If I want to stamp my election campaign as being carbon neutral, and I plan to do so, I will have to invent a way of doing it myself. I may get some commercial value out of it afterwards. This Bill is important and we need it, but my problem is with how we move forward from there and use it in balance with other things.

Mr. Daly

I do not want to intervene for long in this debate. I welcome the Minister and the Bill. As far as it goes, it is meeting the public demand to deal with these issues. Not that many years ago, the big issue was the ozone layer. If the ozone layer was not going to de dealt with, then we were going to be wiped out by cancer and God knows what. Has anybody heard about the ozone layer lately? Is it still around? Has it vanished into the solar galaxies? There was doom and gloom about it at the time because there were gaps in it, but all these gaps have vanished. In some respects——

Mr. O’Toole

On a point of information, the Senator's own Government took measures to deal with Chlorofluorocarbons in order to stop the things that were creating the problem.

Mr. Daly

It worked very quickly.

Mr. O’Toole

The point is that measures were taken.

Mr. Daly

A measure was taken to deal with it. Certain measures need to be taken now to deal with this, but we should not lose the run of ourselves. There needs to be a certain balance and the dire predictions about global warming are disputed by others. It is a bit like going to the Supreme Court. One will find an equally valid argument put forward by other experts that there is no serious problem and if a certain amount is done, the worst effects can be averted.

There are certain controls over what the Minister can do with the funds in Section 3. I have not studied the Bill in great detail, because we have seen it only recently. There was a proposal a few years ago for a wave station in Kilkee. A licence was granted to connect it to the national grid and a company was interested in doing it, but due to a lack of £1 million, a decision was made on whether it was a research and development project or an economic project. As there were no funds in the research and development fund, the project collapsed. This was an internationally recognised company that had located a site, had done research work with the University of Limerick and had identified the prospects of getting this wave station put in place. It had obtained a licence from the ESB to connect to the national grid. The issue that arose when EU funding was being decided was whether it was an economical proposition to build the station, or whether it was a research and development project. While money existed in the economic fund, there was no money in the research and development fund. It collapsed for lack of money.

In such a situation, can the Minister draw down the necessary funding to put that station in place? Another company from Scotland was involved, but is no longer interested as it went off and did it somewhere else. I presume it received funding under EU regulations. Due to the technicalities that arose here, we lost that project. From what I can see at present, these wave stations can generate a great amount of electricity. Can the wave station be put back in place with funding from this fund? If it cannot be done, then we need to have an amendment to that section.

Clean coal technology has worked in Europe. A huge investment has been made by the German and French authorities, as well as the British to some extent. The British are building large coal burning stations in the knowledge that clean coal technology, which is expensive, will be coming into play as there is a plentiful supply of coal. If there were a proposal to operate clean coal technology in this country, for which coal supplies would have to come in from abroad, could funding be drawn down from this fund to deal with that? In that situation, the Minister might go a different way about meeting some of the requirements raised.

It is important to raise these issues when we are putting down the framework for a number of years. It is important that we do not find in a year's time that we are losing a viable project to Scotland or elsewhere due to technicalities, as has previously happened. We should be able to deal with that under this fund and get such projects underway.

Work was done at the Marine Institute in Galway to identify a site for a wave station. I am particularly interested in wave power because I am surrounded by enormous waves which could drive all of Europe if it could be properly harnessed. It seems to me to be an opportune time to raise these issues. I hope the Minister can deal with them now or on Committee Stage.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche)

I thank the Senators for their contributions. In particular, I appreciate the contribution made by Senator O'Toole. I say this in no patronising way. It is a stunning example of the paucity of thought in our Opposition. In all of the contributions made in both Houses, there has not been a single thoughtful or incisive contribution by the Opposition parties. The only party that made an honest contribution was the Green Party, which wants, as its answer to global warming, to shut the country down.

I have a certain sympathy with Senator Bannon who was obviously handed a script by the person who writes them for Fine Gael. I intend no comment on the Senator's character but I felt sorry for him having to read it into the record of the House. His contribution was a reiteration of the same old nonsense, half truths and innuendo. In short, it was derisory. I intend no disrespect to the Senator and, to be fair, the same script was read into the record elsewhere.

Senator Bannon stated that the European Commission stated that Ireland would not meet its Kyoto target. That is simply not the case. No such statement was made by the Commission. The Senator also stated that the Commission had criticised Ireland's open reliance on carbon credit purchases. Again, that is untrue. In its response under the national allocation programme — NAPS II — the European Commission criticised Ireland for not making provision in this regard. It is not the Senator's fault that he was given a script to read but what he said was appalling.

Senator Bannon referred to bold decisions being made on bio-fuels. It is interesting that mandatory addition levels relating to bio-fuels were in place in Ireland from the 1930s to the 1970s but that these were struck down by our joining the then European Economic Community. Such addition levels were a very good idea.

I point out to Senator O'Toole that this is a framework Bill designed to deal with the purchase of carbon credits on the international stage. The climate change strategy document I will publish on 2 April will deal with the specific issues raised by the Senator. The latter is, in effect, a synthesis document which draws together all of the other documents and policy statements that were published recently. The Bill before the House is framework legislation and does not set out the policy. The latter will be set out in the climate change strategy document. The Bill deals with specifics and is meant to give control of the carbon fund to the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, to purchase credits on the international market.

I agree with Senators O'Toole's and Senator Daly's commonsense observation on incentivising. If we all subscribed to the Henny-Penny or Chicken Little school of public policy discussion, we would make no progress on this matter. There are good, solid and practical things that should be done, irrespective of the side we take in the global warming argument. I am of the view that the science regarding global warming is clear and that the economic imperative was dealt with and outlined in the Stern report. The logical and moral arguments have all been made. There are those who take the view that carbon emissions are not the big issue and that sunspot activity is responsible for global warming. This argument was put forward on the recent Channel 4 television programme.

We should not become involved in what is a sterile debate because we will not know who is right and who is wrong for 100 years. However, Senator O'Toole is correct. We should take these steps because that is the correct way to proceed. For example, it is the right thing to do to insulate our homes, replace incandescent bulbs with CFL bulbs and attenuate the methane that comes from cattle and waste disposal. Those things should be done because they are intrinsically correct and they make economic and environmental sense. Moreover, by doing those things, we put ourselves into a win-win situation. By replacing incandescent bulbs with CFL bulbs, we will make a stunning——

Mr. O’Toole

Let us impose a date in that regard.

Mr. Roche

The Senator should be patient and wait for the launch of the strategy on 2 April. I have already made an announcement in this regard. Ireland was one of the first countries to examine this issue. This is one of the areas in respect of which we were considering taking action but the problem is that it is not possible to take action which could be regarded as restraint of trade within the EU. We must wait until the EU makes its move before we can act. The Senator will see my response in detail on 2 April.

I disagree with the lobbyist to whom Senator O'Toole referred several times because insulation standards here are among the highest in the world.

Mr. O’Toole

Let us not go there.

Mr. Roche

Let us not do so, but the reality is that we have already committed to increasing those standards by 40%. We are doing so not necessarily on foot of climate change but because it is the correct thing to do. The Senator is correct about the need to build in efficiencies, particularly in light of the rate at which houses are being built here.

We have taken specific measures in respect of climate change. For example, the afforestation grants will make a significant contribution. Forests are very efficient carbon sinks. The afforestation programme will remove the equivalent of 2.8 million tonnes of emissions. How will this be paid for? The State is providing grant assistance in respect of forestry and the payback will be that we will not be obliged to buy carbon credits or impose a further penalty on industry.

Mr. O’Toole

I agree with the Minister. However, is an account being kept of what is happening in this regard?

Mr. Roche

The schemes in Ireland are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency. There are also international standards. One might ask how the calculation relating to transport is made. Carbon emission figures for transport are calculated on the basis of the country's throughput of diesel and petrol. The intriguing thing in this regard is that in Ireland, a significant proportion of diesel is sold to out-of-State fleets by means of so-called fuel tourism. This is never factored into the debate. In the Lower House yesterday, the Labour Party made the extraordinary and ludicrous proposition that we should increase our tax rates on petrol and diesel to match those in the North of Ireland to prevent drivers from that jurisdiction from purchasing fuel here.

Mr. O’Toole

We could change our audit system. One cannot pursue a degree in this country in, for example, environmental economics. We are not dealing with these matters at academic level.

Mr. Roche

That is a fair point. Why does the audit system relating to transport not take into account all of the issues? The point is that the system in place was established by the United Nations and applies equally across the globe. I am of the opinion that aviation fuel should be included under this system. It is anomalous that such fuel is not included. Ireland pays a penalty because fuel tourism increases the size of our carbon footprint. The other country that pays a penalty as a result of its low-tax economy is Luxembourg. The spike in transport emission levels outlined in the recent EEA, EPA and SEI reports came about because there are huge sales of fuel to non-domestic customers in both Ireland and Luxembourg.

We could do what the Labour Party wants and increase the tax on fuels but that is not an attractive proposition. We are obliged to buy the equivalent of 2 million tonnes of carbon credits to deal with out-of-State sales of fuel. However, this cost is infinitely offset by money we accrue from excise duties imposed on out-of-State sales. We receive of the order of €350 million to €370 million from such sales. The total cost of purchasing carbon credits over the entire Kyoto period will be €270 million. We are, therefore, in profit every year.

Senator O'Toole inquired about other actions that might be taken. The nitrates action programme and the Common Agricultural Policy reform programme will contribute carbon savings to this country of 2.4 million tonnes. From where will the payback come in this regard? The State is providing support for farmers who are moving into schemes which deal with it environmentally. It illustrates the point the Senator made, that the debate is at a wrong level in Ireland. We are focusing too much on one aspect of the debate rather than focusing on all of the aspects of it.

For example, the changes in the building regulations are worth 300,000 tonnes per annum and also are relatively cost free. In the transport area, as Senator Brady pointed out, Luas is making a phenomenal contribution to us in this regard. In the first 12 months of operation Luas carried 26 million passengers. The DART has been upgraded by Government through significant investment to the point where it now carries 90,000 per day. The 80,000 passengers per day from the Luas together with the 90,000 per day of the DART amounts to a significant saving.

Senator Bannon's point about transport was quite correct. If one looks at the statistics for carbon emissions, one will find that transport has generated a phenomenal increase in carbon emissions. In fact, in 1990 the carbon emissions from transport amounted to 9% of our total carbon emissions. This figure had risen to 18% by 2004. There is a simple enough reason for this: the fleet has more than doubled. Our employment has doubled. There are 2 million employed in Ireland now and there was 1 million employed in 1987. There are more people travelling to work every day and they all cannot be expected to use public transport because the public transport system in this country still needs much investment.

One cannot decide, as Stalin might have, to interfere with those people's rights to use whatever mode they need. What one must do, as the Government is doing, is invest heavily in public transport. One could make the valid criticism that over the history of State, there has not been enough investment in public transport, and that would be true, but one cannot change the past whereas one can change the future. A sum of €16 billion is being provided for public transport in Transport 21 and that will produce phenomenal savings, as well as improvements in the quality of life.

Senator Bannon did not take the extremist view taken by other parties that we should not be buying carbon credits, although I noted he was careful not to answer Senator Brady's question on this. His party spokesman, Deputy O'Dowd, indicated that he did not oppose this in principle. I can well understand why that would be the case. It is logical and makes sense because cement production, which is important in Deputy O'Dowd's constituency, contributes significantly to carbon emissions.

If we were to go the route proposed by the Green Party and the Labour Party, we would impose a vast carbon penalty directly on all the emitters and would force them to bear the full cost of all emissions. On the question of who would be the beneficiaries of such a route, the best example to take is the aluminium plant at Aughinish in Senator Daly's constituency, about which he has spoken to me on several occasions. If we were to force Aughinish Alumina to carry the full cost of all carbon, one would add approximately €50 million over the indicative period to the company's costs, close the company down, put 500 in the plant out of work and put at least another 500 elsewhere out of work. The worst aspect about it, however, is that one would gain nothing. Fine Gael does not propose this, but Labour and the Green Party do. One would gain nothing because one would simply move the production of that material to another country, as has happened in some parts of Europe where cement companies have transferred their production offshore to north Africa with the result that the cement is imported, is produced in a less environmentally friendly way and adds to global emissions, because it is a global problem.

This is why I am so taken by Senator O'Toole's analysis because it is the first analysis in the debate in either House that I have heard which looks at this issue in a holistic way. One must remember that if one drives industry out of the European Union and especially out of Ireland, not only does one impose the penalty on the workers in those industries, one imposes a further penalty on the world because one drives industry to countries where there are lower standards and which are not signed up. The reason so much industry is going offshore to China is because it still has a regime which allows irresponsible forms of production and China, to be fair to it, will make the argument that those in the western world caused the problem to date and will ask that it be given a few years to catch up with us. It is a complex issue and it was well illustrated by Senator O'Toole.

The Senator also asked about the determination of the price. It was independent international consultants who established the price at €15 for government-to-government trading. It was mentioned by Senator Bannon that it could be double, treble or quadruple that figure. The reality is that the cost of carbon credits has come down.

On the purchasing arrangements which we have made to date, to answer another question by Senator O'Toole on who certifies the validity of the schemes into which one is making the investment raised, because we have bought through the European Bank for Development and Reconstruction, EBDR, and through the World Bank, we have certification by those agencies as to the validity. Senator O'Toole is quite correct. One of the big dangers in this area is that one will get a grey market. If Senators will excuse the pun, there is a so-called hot-air market coming out of Kazakhstan or Belarus due to collapsing economies rather than carbon saving.

Mr. O’Toole

There are three levels of certification and they are not equally reliable.

Mr. Roche

The international schemes in which we are involved are certified by the agencies through which we will make the purchase. Senator O'Toole's point is well made. It would be a matter of policy, which would be established by the Minister, to do that and the arrangements made already are through the EBDR and through the World Bank. Those are very good schemes.

To illustrate again one of the reasons we need this framework legislation, we got the opportunity just before Christmas to make a bid for €20 million in carbon credits from the World Bank. It was a superb scheme and it was difficult to take that opportunity because of our current inflexibility. I was fortunate to get a period of time in the Dáil where I could get its agreement to purchase the €20 million in credits. We need the arrangements set up in this framework to allow the NTMA, within the public policy parameters which will be determined by the Minister, to purchase carbon credits. Although long, that is the answer to a most interesting question. It is the first time the question had been asked and I thank Senator O'Toole for giving me the opportunity.

I mentioned that the EPA runs the registry here in Ireland where the units are operated on and the NTMA will register the units with the EPA. That is where one will find the registration.

The international transactions are all logged with the UNFCCC. That is why I am so struck by how perverse the debate in Ireland is. The executive secretary of the UNFCCC, Dr. Yvo de Boer, spoke about carbon credit purchases at the recent conference in Paris when the scientific report was published. His contribution was amazing and I wish people from Ireland had paid attention to it. He stated that carbon credit purchasing was a way that developed countries could be ambitious about their targets to remove carbon from the atmosphere in a way which was not inimical or damaging to their industry and which would meet the best of all worlds and be positive from the point of view of the developed world.

The House should remember what I stated in the other House, which sadly was not listened to, that one of the big losers in this entire debate is the developing world. There is a moral imperative on us in the developed world to remember that in Africa, the issue is not concerns about the nature of the generation station but the reality that they have no energy system. There is a real danger that the developed world will decant some of its dirty technology into the developing world at this stage because it will be getting away from the older, dirtier technologies. Instead of tying the developing world to buying second-hand technology which the rest of us have got rid of because it is obsolete, the benefit of the clean development mechanism, CDM, is that it gives the developing world the opportunity to buy into clean technologies without a cost to them. They have spare carbon because they are at a particular point in their development and that allows us to make the necessary transition from high dependence on carbon to a low-carbon economy.

For Senators who have not had the opportunity to read it, I wish to plug the White Paper, Developing a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland, which outlines hundreds of specific actions. The White Paper has not yet been discussed in the Seanad but a debate on the measures it proposes may be worthwhile. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, deserves congratulations for producing the document.

Senator Daly made a valid point in respect of nuclear power. As every Member of this House knows, I have often bored people by saying that nuclear power is the worst way forward. It is madness and will inflict the problems of this generation on the generations to come over the next thousand years. If a nuclear power station was operating in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, we would still be dealing with the dirt it produced. Nuclear power is not a solution. Senator O'Toole touched on the major problem of the vested interests which try to capture the debate, the best example of which is the influence of the nuclear industry on parts of the UK and elsewhere. However, the nuclear lobby is not capturing the debate here.

Senator Daly was correct to point out that the biggest clean energy source in the world is off the west coast of Ireland. The White Paper on sustainable energy makes a significant and courageous commitment to constructing a quarter scale station off the west coast by 2011 and to scale it up to full production by 2015.

I thank Senators, and Senator O'Toole in particular, for their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 27 March 2007.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.