Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Nov 2007

Vol. 187 No. 14

Energy Security and Climate Change: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann commends the Government for its commitment to the development of a policy on energy security and climate change and on the establishment of an Oireachtas committee for the same.

The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan is present and should proceed.

I second the motion.

I thank the Acting Chairman, who occupies such an illustrious chair. It is an honour to speak before her and my other Oireachtas colleagues in the Seanad. This is my first time to speak in this House.

The Minister is very welcome.

I am glad to be able to promote and begin what I consider to be a vital debate on the issues of climate change and energy security in the interests of national policy and the people. In particular, I wish to use this opportunity to make comments or put forward some ideas regarding the proposed new Oireachtas joint committee on climate change and energy security, in which the Government and Opposition parties will participate. Hopefully this will take place from next week, subject to the establishment of the committee within that timeframe. I believe it will play a vital role in helping us, both in terms of policy and as a people, to come to terms with these most challenging issues.

I put together the issues of climate change and energy security and it is correct to so do because they are complementary. Climate change provides a strong moral imperative to us to act on an immediate basis. This moral imperative pertains to the future of our planet, the people who live on it and our children. The issue of energy security provides an economic imperative to this society. As 80% or 90% of Ireland's energy comes from imported fossil fuels, we are severely exposed to any international factors that might restrict the availability or increase the price of such fossil fuels. This provides a major economic imperative for us to change our ways. If we so do, it will also allow us to achieve many of our climate change targets because most of Ireland's emissions derive from burning such fossil fuels to provide transport, generate power and heat buildings.

I was honoured to share membership with Senator Fiona O'Malley of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources during the past five years. The committee engaged in highly valuable and detailed analysis on the issue of energy and at its conclusion, I formed the clear sense that further analysis and explanation was required, it would be necessary to reach greater understanding and further decisions were needed on the key policy areas of energy considered by it. I was convinced, as was Senator O'Malley, that this issue transcends normal political dialogue and does not fit into the typical five-year electoral cycle within which politicians tend to operate.

I refer to the investment decisions that one makes in the field of energy. If one builds a road, it will last for 100 years. If one builds a power station, it will be still in operation in 30 or 40 years' time. Even if one buys a car, it will be still on the road in 15 years' time. Consequently, when one makes an investment decision in this regard, be it on a road, a grid, a power station or even a car, cooker or heater, one must consider the long term. In such circumstances, I believe that if different political parties can come to some common agreement and understanding as to what constitutes the best long-term future development for this country in the energy area, it will help us to make those decisions in the correct context.

This means that as householders, individuals, business people or policy makers, we will make investments. Questions arise as to whether we will build roads or rail, a coal-fired power plant or a renewable energy power plant, a bio-energy efficient car or an energy inefficient one. If I have some understanding that political agreement exists regarding the broad direction towards which I wish to go, this could, should and will influence the investment decisions we will make. It will make it easier to change to a renewable future and switch from use of fossil fuels because there will be a common understanding that regardless of election results, the direction on which we are travelling is set. Such a background understanding spurred me on in recent years to state consistently that the issues of climate change and energy security do not belong to a single political party and are far too important for that. In the past, our best responses to similar strategic threats have been made when we acted collectively with a common understanding and general agreement on the broad parameters of the requisite policy response.

Consequently, I look forward to the work of the proposed new Oireachtas joint committee, which will tease out some of the key policy issues faced by Ireland to ascertain whether common agreement and understanding can be achieved, regardless of political ideology. If this is the case, it will send a powerfully strong message to the administrative organs, the business system and to people at large that this is the direction in which this society wishes to travel.

The challenge should not be underestimated. I was interested to note the launch today of the International Energy Agency's latest world energy outlook report. Four or five years ago, I was engaged in rows with this agency. While I raised concepts such as peak oil, whereby we face a peak in global oil production if this position has not been arrived at already, the International Energy Agency, which represents more than 20 of the largest developed countries, asserted that this was nonsense and that there was not a problem as plenty of oil was available until 2030. However, the agency now has executed a 360° turn. Its report states: "...the consequences of unfettered growth in global energy demand are alarming . . . if governments stick with existing policies . . . the world's energy needs will be over 50% higher in 2030 than today". China and India account for approximately half of that growth.

The report goes on to state that vigorous, immediate and collective policy action by all governments is essential to move the world to a more sustainable energy path and that to date, there has been more talk than action in most countries. Such comments from an organisation that, in common with most such international organisations, is usually highly moderate and constrained in its statements should sound a major alarm because I believe we are close to a peak in global oil production. In fact, global oil production has not actually expanded in the past two years and is stuck at the same level despite the fact that oil prices have doubled. Today the price of a barrel of oil is $98 or $99. That has major consequences for a country such as ours as 60% of our energy comes from imported oil. Had there not been a devaluation in the dollar which almost matches the increase in oil prices, we would now be paying €1.60 to €1.80 per litre at the petrol pump and that would be the leading debate in the House and in every home in the country today. We have been shielded somewhat, but we cannot shield the people forever from the geological realities that are associated with the peak in global oil production — the year-on-year relentless decrease in the availability of oil when we move away from the current plateau and into the decline phase that will follow, as night follows day, in oil production on this planet.

The exact year of peak oil production is not of particular consequence. We know it is coming, and we know that we must prepare decades in advance. Because of the long-term investment decisions which I mentioned, such as power plants, roads and vehicles, even if the peak is in the future, we must act now. According to the latest studies by the US Department of Energy, we need to start changing our investment decisions two decades in advance to prepare for the peak. However, we are well past the two-decade warning signal. We need to make changes now. Unfortunately, if we consider the energy statistics produced by the agency within the remit of my Department, Sustainable Energy Ireland, even taking into account elements introduced under the national climate change strategy and projected increases in renewable energy use, it is predicted that by 2020, in a business-as-usual scenario, our use of energy will have increased by a further 30% over today's levels. This is a fairly accurate model for forecasting energy use.

The committee on climate change which we are setting up must consider urgently how we can save energy. The scale of the change required should not be underestimated. A response of this scale will require a substantial degree of political will and support to achieve. We should make these changes for sensible economic reasons such as protecting ourselves from rising gas and oil prices. As a country we are equally exposed in terms of gas supply. A total of 85% of our gas is imported, mostly from the North Sea, where supplies are being depleted by 7% to 8% per annum. If people are looking for reasons for the recent spike in energy prices, it is primarily because of our dependence on imported gas. In the UK in 2006, gas prices shot up to more than £2 per unit, compared with 40p or 50p today.

We may become used to this, because as UK gas is depleted it — and Ireland, because we have an integrated market — will become increasingly dependent on Norwegian gas. Two weeks ago the Norwegian Government decided not to connect the Troll field, one of its largest gas fields, to the UK market and by extension to the Irish grid. Although this is of major strategic importance to Ireland, it went largely unnoticed in the media and in political circles owing to the complexity and technical nature of the subject. However, it is of huge significance to the Irish people. In the short term — which I think of as the period to 2020, because we must think long-term in this area. We will probably use up whatever gas we find in the west or south west of Ireland, and we will then be reliant on Russian gas, because Norwegian and British gas will at that stage be depleted. Thus, in the short term we are very exposed. Just as for oil, we must reduce our dependence on this imported fossil fuel.

The connection between the two subjects of peak oil and climate change is that if we manage to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, this will also help us in tackling our climate change targets. Among the three policy considerations that must be taken into account in the matter of peak oil — security of supply, the environment, and competitiveness — none is predominant. The issue of climate change is more dramatic and urgent than that of peak oil. However, scientists have started to be clear and strident about what we need to do, which is to implement a reduction in emissions of at least the amount committed to in the programme for Government. The European Community has set the lead, and we have already signed up to a 30% reduction on 1990 emission levels at European Heads of Government level as part of a proposed international agreement. We must work towards an international agreement as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process, because the prospect of what would happen otherwise is too frightening for any country to consider.

If we are to achieve a 30% reduction in emissions, taking into account Ireland's derogation in the first round of Kyoto emission reductions — an increase of 13% compared with the 8% reduction committed to by the EU — this brings us to an overall reduction that can only be achieved by implementing a reduction of about 3% per annum every year until 2020. This is what will be required if we are to achieve our part of a European and worldwide attempt to reduce emissions. We should adopt the required measures with enthusiasm and agree to go further. We should view this responsibility not as sharing a burden but sharing an effort. It is a moral responsibility for all the people of this planet and for our children's future. If we approach it with a sense of zeal and enthusiasm, as a mission, it will be easier to achieve than if we do it as an obligation due to our membership of the EU or of the UN. As a people, we are ready to step up to the mark and play our part and, indeed, to lead the world.

What role will be played by the new committee? If the Irish people are to agree to that level of enthusiasm, support and commitment, there must be an understanding of the relevant issues which, as I said, are complex and technical. According to a recent MORI poll in the UK, a country in which the science of climate change is very advanced and where the national newspapers regularly lead with stories on the reality of climate change, roughly two thirds of people believe that the science of climate change is uncertain. It is the same in Ireland. Around two thirds of our people are still confused. They instinctively respond to documentaries such as Channel 4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which was broadcast earlier this year and which I believe was a swindle of true science rather than anything else, by thinking, "Thank God, it is not really a problem." We need to move beyond that and understand the problem, and perhaps through understanding we can move on to determination.

The proposed Oireachtas joint committee has an important role in helping people to achieve that understanding. It could also help in teasing out some of the technical complexities of the issue. One of these is the issue of bio-fuels, which has been much discussed in recent years. It is difficult to get a firm grip on the best approach. There are many variables in the policy issues associated with this area. Bio-fuels are traded on the international market under World Trade Organisation rules. In some areas, bio-fuel production may have environmental consequences or effects on world fuel prices, and these also interrelate with existing market variables. It is a complex and difficult subject. It behoves the Oireachtas to lead the people by teasing out these issues. What is the reality? What is the best opportunity or strategy for us? What is the truth about biodiesel, bioethanol and all the other second generation fuels?

It would also be useful for the committee to bring in people from outside the Oireachtas to explain their views or to conduct an analysis and present the findings in a report. This would be of interest to those involved in the agriculture industry because farmers could find out about the opportunities presented by climate change. It would also be of interest to people in the area of transport to consider what forms of transport could be provided if we suffer from an oil shortage. Maybe that is one subject that could be discussed and teased out in such a committee.

Likewise, in the use of biomass in heating, there are different factors at play — whether we use it in power generation, in heating or in industrial processing, and what crops we grow and how we support it. There is still an entire policy issue in the biomass area which would benefit from examination by an Oireachtas committee. This might provide certainty for farmers or business people who want to invest in the area. If they got back a clear message from an all-party Oireachtas committee that there is a real opportunity in this area in particular, that might help us make the correct investment decisions and have the courage to develop a strategy response which delivers for the Irish people.

There must be an honest debate in this Parliament about our use of energy in transport. At a time when oil prices have doubled, our use of oil in transport increased by 6% or 7% per year. We are so addicted and tied into that type of transport system that we are willing to pay the high costs involved and suffer the congestion and accidents that result from such an inefficient transport system.

I would dearly like to see an honest debate in an Oireachtas committee on our future transport policies in a world where oil will become more, not less, expensive. That honesty, on a non-confrontational and non-party political basis in an Oireachtas committee made up of Seanad and Dáil Members, could be of significant benefit. Electricity, which tends to get all the attention, is also important. The future for this country will be in the development of renewable energies and energy efficiency which will help us to easily meet those targets of which I spoke earlier, if we are dedicated to the task.

There are, however, other views. Rather than denying a forum for people with different views, it is better to have a debate because out of a debate one gets certainty. An Oireachtas committee is the appropriate forum in which to debate the way forward in terms of renewables, coal or whatever power supply might be the way forward. We should bring in experts, let them have their say and draw up a report. If we can reach common understanding that, for a variety of reasons, nuclear does not make sense, that will give much greater impetus to those who provide the alternative because they will know that we are going down that route and it will make more business and planning sense for them to provide the alternative. A joint Oireachtas committee can play a vital role in that sense in helping us, as a people, make this considerable and important change to a new renewable energy efficient future.

As I am conscious I have probably gone over the time available, I will finish by saying this Government is utterly committed to the task ahead of us. It will take time to achieve certain of the changes one might want. One does not change matters in energy overnight. It takes time because those investment decisions have a legacy period. We will take into account the future interests of the Irish people in making a switch from our use of fossil fuels. We are moving towards an all-Ireland market because that would bring about a much more transparent and competitive energy system. We are doing this in co-operation with our neighbour by having greater and wider interconnection into the rest of Europe and being part of an open European energy market system. We will introduce the likes of LNG facilities, which give back-up supplies when main pipelines can no longer feed us. As announced last week, we will put smart meters into every home. This will start with 25,000 houses in a pilot scheme and then every house in the country will be provided with a smart meter in order that people can play their part by monitoring their use of energy, cutting down and saving money. We will build renewables on a scale which will make us an international leader, particularly in wind energy but also possibly in other new areas, such as biomass, ocean and microgeneration, where all that is holding us back is imagination and political and business commitment. We will do this, but only when there is clear political leadership and there a clear understanding on the reasons for doing it, and the reality of the challenge facing us. That understanding will come from discussion and from teasing out the issues in Cabinet, in the Oireachtas and from there to the rest of the country.

I commend this House to that task.

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is his first time here and I wish him well as Minister in the Department.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"recognises that

Ireland failed to meet its responsibilities under the Kyoto protocol and its greenhouse gas emissions are twice the overall target;

only 4.5% of Ireland's primary energy supply comes from renewables;

fossil fuels still account for approximately 92.5% of all energy used in Ireland; and

consumption of fossil fuels in the transport sector grew by 150.7% from 1990-2005 while energy efficiency in this sector only improved by 0.8% since 1995 and the sector was responsible for 33% (15,273 kt CO2 ) of Ireland's energy related CO2 emissions, higher than any other sector

and calls on the Government to

amend the National Spatial Strategy to include major renewable energy infrastructure projects and ensure that renewable energy infrastructure constitutes an element of Regional Development Plans;

build the necessary interconnecting infrastructure with other electricity markets to allow for a significant increase in generation from wind and increase research and development funding in the offshore hydro-electric sector to ensure established targets are met;

set clear targets for the wood energy sector in Ireland in order to reduce Ireland's dependence on fossil fuels;

make Ireland less car dependent by fast-tracking high capacity commuter public transport services into the capital and other cities;

reform Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) through the establishment of a system of energy efficiency labelling for motor vehicles, with lower rates of VRT for those cars with more efficient engines; and

publish annual reports to analyse progress on its commitment to reduce by 3% per year greenhouse gas emissions and to produce one third of all energy from renewable sources by 2020."

I also welcome the Minister to the House. I do not doubt his commitment to all he has just said and to improving Ireland's role on a global scale in the issue of climate change.

We, in Fine Gael, also believe there should be cross-party support on an issue such as this. Only a few weeks ago, the Independent Senators, in fairness to them, moved a motion on climate change that won cross-party support in the House. Their motion set the bar high, as they stated on the day that it will require the Government to achieve what it says it will achieve. We, as Opposition parties, will work with the Minister because climate change is an issue for the planet, for Ireland and for the people who we represent, and it must be taken seriously.

I do not want to have to quote statistics because we all are clear on the matter. It is important that we debate issues such as climate change, not only here in the Oireachtas but at every level in society. Whether in the schools, the playgrounds, the pubs or the shops, the more we talk about it, the more awareness of it we create and the more education will be disseminated on the challenges that lie ahead for us all. We accept that.

There are some stark facts we must examine. Only 4.5% of Ireland's primary energy supply comes from renewables, which alone is a considerable challenge, and fossil fuels still account for approximately 92.5% of all energy used in Ireland. It is easy to come in here and state what we will do, but we must also look back and ask what has the Government done for the past ten years. It has propagated an economy driven by a heavy overdependence on fossil fuels, construction and on many areas that contribute to the evident climate change.

While I welcome the formation of the new Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, it must work in a tangible and practical way to deliver results. To date we have seen many policies on climate change, whether on wind energy or renewable energy, but we have seen few resources or tangible supports to drive those policies. The challenge is there for us all. I am looking forward to sitting on an Oireachtas committee that will drive the policies the Government will bring forward and to which we, as Opposition, can add. I hope the Minister will listen to what we have to offer because we represent a large constituency in this country. We will bring proposals to committee that will be tangible and workable and we hope the Government can take them on board.

We need to build the necessary interconnecting infrastructure with other electricity markets to which the Minister referred. There needs to be a significant increase in generation from wind energy and an increase in the research and development funding in the offshore hydro-electric sector to ensure established targets are met. We also need to set clear targets for the wood energy sector in order to reduce Ireland's overdependence on fossil fuels. As the Minister stated, we need to make Ireland less car dependent by fast-tracking high capacity commuter public transport. This is something that has not happened to date. One can travel on any road in Ireland and see the congestion with cars and heavy goods vehicles. We need to do more in the area of public transport to improve matters in this area.

I ask also that we examine reform of the vehicle registration tax through the establishment of a system of energy efficiency labelling for motor vehicles. We should provide people with incentives to drive cars that are more energy efficient. As there are many such cars available, it should be relatively easy for the Government to do so. I ask that we examine that as a way of tackling, in a small way that could have a major impact, the climate change issue.

Ireland is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, according to the EPA. An establishment of a carbon fund of €270 million, managed by the National Treasury Management Agency, was announced in Budget 2007. A fund of €270 million for indigenous renewable energy could have a massive impact. We need to reverse our thinking on how we apply our funding to provide incentives for renewable energies rather than buy our way out of trouble which seems to be the way we are going. The €270 million investment in Kyoto credits does nothing to secure energy supply; it just serves to let the Government off the hook regarding its responsibility to cut CO2 emissions. Neither does it do anything to ease our overwhelming over-dependence on oil as an energy source. This is most worrying, especially when one considers the International Energy Agency's announcement today regarding oil prices, a point to which the Minister referred. This is a stark warning to us all which we should not even need at this stage.

In its election manifesto, Fine Gael called for the establishment of a centre for excellence, incorporating Sustainable Energy Ireland, a body which does marvellous work with limited resources. The greener homes scheme had a good impact in terms of promoting renewable energies for domestic dwellings. However, I picked up on some negativity regarding the scheme. The pioneers of renewable energy in homes who invested in this area when no grants were available were left behind when this scheme was introduced. The Minister may be aware of the feelings on this matter also. These people did not qualify for grants because they had already installed renewable energy technologies in their homes. They were left out in the cold when the grants were introduced, even though they were willing to take a risk and invest in renewable energies when nobody else was doing so.

Sustainable Energy Ireland is doing good work and creating awareness in communities and it needs all the help it can get. A centre of excellence incorporating Sustainable Energy Ireland should be attached to an institute of technology and this centre would encourage, incentivise and develop the alternative energy sector with the objective of replacing a major percentage of energy imports and securing supply.

If we wish to address issues of climate change and energy security such a base of research and innovation is imperative and has the potential to form a lucrative component of Ireland's knowledge economy. David Taylor of Sustainable Energy Ireland believes the market for ocean energy may be worth up to €2 billion for the Republic if developed properly. It is certainly worth looking into this option. The Irish company, OpenHydro, which designs and manufactures marine turbines which are used to generate renewable energy from deep-sea tidal currents, was awarded almost €2 million in grant support from the Scottish Executive. The aim of this UK Department of Trade and Industry's initiative is to become a world leader in supplying marine technology. Only a few countries such as Portugal and Ireland have the potential to rival Scotland's marine and wind energy resources. Ireland has significant potential in terms of this natural resource. We are surrounded by water and we have rolling hillside that could support wind farms if managed and developed properly. The potential is significant if we are serious about exploiting this area.

We should support and invest in our own green entrepreneurs. I hope the Minister takes on board this point. We can have all the policies and committees we like but it is crucial we must support entrepreneurs to promote renewable energies both economically and in terms of a mentoring system. We must provide support for their drive to achieve. Currently we have policies, but support on the ground is lacking. This is an issue worth addressing in more depth in committee.

I accept there will be other opportunities to discuss the range of other issues I wish to address. A proper feasibility study needs to be carried out on the east-west interconnector. The Minister has proposed the installation of a 500 MW interconnector. A feasibility study must be carried out on an interconnector. For very little extra investment we could install capacity for 1,000 MW without building the stations at both sides. We could install the cable to carry that capacity and leave room for expansion that may be required in the years ahead. We can then import and export electricity at a better rate and we will not be as constrained as is currently the case.

This debate has provided much food for thought. We in Fine Gael are serious about green issues such as climate change and energy security and we always have been. We will work proactively in the committee system in this regard. The measures outlined in the Fine Gael amendment are tangible and practical ways for the Government to achieve results in terms of climate change. I thank the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, for attending this debate.

I second the amendment. I join with my colleague, Senator Coffey, in welcoming the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, for his maiden speech in the Seanad.

It is clear from the thrust of the two previous contributions, and from all reasonable debate on this area, that in future there must be a push for increased use of geothermal energy in housing and on a larger scale in power stations. There should be an increase in grants to entice developers in the construction industry to use the greener home scheme as much as possible in new projects. The Government must provide a combination of grants and tax allowances in an imaginative package to incentivise developers to go down the road of using geothermal energy in new housing schemes. I am proud that some of the largest developers in the country are from my county and operate there and in Dublin. I hope they will take on board this approach. This would also incentivise other people and get the public involved and help to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels.

The Italian transport service has tested and validated the use of solar panels on trains. I urge the Minister to examine this possibility here. It appears solar panels can work well and this technology could be used here on the Luas and in other rail systems to conserve energy. This approach could have great potential.

A push is required for more re-use of waste from the construction industry. Waste materials should be re-used when old houses are being demolished or refurbished. A study was carried out in Wales which showed such an approach could be successful. Building rubble can be used for roadways and a variety of other uses. I urge the Minister to examine this option, perhaps in a committee.

It is likely that the environment committee of the EU is about to introduce legislation to cap carbon emissions from cars. It appears it will adopt a similar system to our vehicle registration tax system which would, in effect, mean it will not be possible to use cars above a certain power. We must examine this area.

The major issue which I would urge the Minister to examine is the re-introduction of a national railway network. I accept this is a national debate rather than a parochial one but I wish to use an example from my area as I know it best. I refer to the possibility of the establishment of a Navan to Dublin rail link. There is already a commercial line from Kingscourt to Navan and one could provide park and ride facilities in Navan. This would allow people to travel also from the commuter belt of Cavan and north Meath to Navan and from there to Dublin by rail. The rail system should be extended all over the country as it is a critical mode of transport. The public does not see enough of a commitment to rail services by the Government. This issue is so important it should be more high profile in the Government's objectives.

We have an abundance of wind as a resource in Ireland. Generating electricity from wind results in no CO2 emissions and can thus make a valuable contribution to meeting our requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. The Minister spoke at the opening of the Bindoo wind farm at the Mountain Lodge near Cootehill in County Cavan, the area where I was reared. This was one of the most pleasant exercises we had enjoyed in a long time. The wind farm is marvellous in terms of what it will contribute to the grid in terms of renewable energy. It is also marvellous in a secondary way. The delight of the local farming community that day was palpable in terms of the income it will provide to small farmers, the farming community in general and other landowners in this area. I welcome this income, especially given the difficulties in the cattle trade and so on. It is important that this be done.

I share the concern that grants are not adequate for the introduction of solar panels and the use of wood chip burners to provide geothermal options in houses. I note the Minister has recently reduced the grants, the argument being, as I understand it, that these technologies generate their own activity and no longer need to be supported. I argue that to achieve a proper culture with regard to the use of such technologies and to achieve proper change, the premature reduction of the grants should be reconsidered. Those who take the alternative route need an incentive. This would make good economic sense in the long run and is worthy of serious consideration.

Increased use should be made of small wind turbines for private houses and communities of houses. Yesterday, on the invitation of a friend and in preparation for this debate, I visited some of the old flax and corn mills dotted throughout counties Cavan and Monaghan. These traditional mills were powered by water and it seems a reasonable supposition that they could now power alternators and generate electricity. The Minister should investigate this suggestion, which I commend to the attention of a future committee. We must think outside the box in this regard. Water is a natural, God-given resource so why not use it? I cannot believe such a project would not be sustainable.

I commend the amendment to the House. It underlines the gravity of the threat of carbon emissions and the lack of emphasis on renewables.

I welcome the Minister to the House. We have observed him in Opposition and since he came to ministerial office as one who has quite a grasp of this subject area. I fully subscribe to his request that the issue should be approached on a non-party basis. It is a pity an amendment to the motion has been tabled. I appreciate that the phrase "commends the Government" probably invited an amendment but it strikes me——

It is a very good amendment. Did the Senator read it?

——that it is the collective wisdom of and the cross-fertilisation of ideas across the House which will bring the suggestions we need to harness to tackle this serious challenge.

The Minister referred to the three related areas of security of supply, environment and competitiveness. This is a global problem and the target is to cut global emissions by 70% over the course of this century. This is a very challenging target which requires significant world leadership. When the major economy in the world, the US, does not fully embrace the Kyoto Protocol, this raises concerns. It is probable that within the next quarter of a century we will have a new world economic leader in China. As it grows, it will undoubtedly add considerably to emissions, as is happening at present. Real issues and challenges arise in this regard.

There have been interesting programmes on this topic on television and other media. It is interesting to note that experts will often differ. Some set out the seriousness of the problem and what needs to be done to address it. Others, however, will point out that in the millions of years the planet has existed, change has been cyclical and there has been tremendous climate change, as we know from our school days when we learned about the ice age. The gases to which we refer were always in the atmosphere but industrialisation has significantly increased their concentration. We know also of the harmful health effects of ultraviolet radiation which is now getting through as a result of damage to the ozone layer.

Television programmes show us images of glaciers melting near the North Pole and polar bears stranded on icebergs in the middle of the sea. I found on the Internet that experts believe the largest glacier in South America, the Upsala glacier, which is 870 sq. km., is retreating by 60 m per year, and has been doing so for the past 60 years. This underlines the rate at which climate change is having a serious effect on ecosystems as well as on rainfall.

The impact of this will be negative, with serious consequences for every continent. It will have an effect on northern Europe, which will be more vulnerable to floods, while southern Europe will become more susceptible to drought, with a consequential effect on agriculture. The northern region will experience increased yields while there will be decreased output in the southern region. While we could, given our situation, take a selfish view that our temperatures will increase by a couple of percentage points in the next 50 years, this would be very short-sighted because the effects will have such dramatic adverse consequences for countries and peoples across the globe as to ensure we will also be seriously affected.

Coastal erosion and flooding are further issues. We have witnessed an increase in flooding in all continents in recent decades with the serious consequences this brings. In Europe, the Netherlands will be particularly susceptible given that much of the country is below sea level. Many islands, such as the Seychelles, will be in danger of severe flooding, as will parts of Asia. A recent report stated that all of Bangladesh and much of Vietnam would be completely covered by water and many coastal cities in Japan will suffer the same fate.

Climate change in Africa will be severe. Desert areas will increase in size and the loss of productive land is expected to accelerate, which will have an impact on food production. Given the problem of famine in Africa, this change will only accentuate it.

The case for taking effective action is incontrovertible, which brings me to the question of what action we have taken in this regard. Ireland has embraced the Kyoto Protocol. It was to reduce its emissions by 13% by 2012 and, effectively, it is on target to achieve this. Nonetheless, much more can and should be done. Senator Coffey decried the fact we were buying credits as a means of meeting our targets. There is nothing wrong with that because this is a global problem and a global challenge. We are a small island and we must play our part but it is only through all nations coming together in partnership and focusing their efforts on a common goal that we can hope to make the significant reductions that are necessary. It is a complex area, however.

To some extent the reductions to be achieved challenge policies in other areas. All of us in these Houses are supportive of our overseas development aid programme. We recognise that Asia, Africa and many other Third World countries need economic support to allow them achieve a sustainable economic level and support themselves. That, in turn, will lead to a significant increase in CO2 but it is not within our remit to advocate that they should minimise their goals and objectives of developing their economies in order for the international community to meet its targets.

An aspect that has not arisen in the debate so far is the need for a real emphasis on improving technology and investing in scientific research to ensure the technical changes can come about as well as trying to reduce emissions in that area. It is only in doing that that we can cut our emissions from fossil fuels and the like.

I was in China in 2000 and had no difficulty driving through the centre of Beijing. There were not many cars to be seen. I returned to China two or three years later, however, and there were traffic jams everywhere in Beijing. Apparently, that arose because of the SARS epidemic where people opted to buy cars to move about rather than use public transport because of the danger of contracting SARS on public transport. It was interesting to see the different influences that can be brought to bear that can skew the efforts being made in that regard.

As Senator Coffey said, we have much to do in this regard. We talked about that this morning in the office. The heating was on but it was too warm and we had to open the windows. There is a certain contradiction in all of that. Likewise, as Members leave their offices this evening I have no doubt they will see televisions and computers on in empty rooms. Good housekeeping starts with ourselves and if we do not take personal ownership in the first instance, and that comes back to generating awareness and people seeing it as the partnership the Minister identified, the progress we seek will not be achieved.

I concur with the comment made by Senator O'Reilly about the national rail line, particularly in the commuter belts, but as someone who served as president of the Irish Road Haulage Association and would have examined rail transport, I believe our country is too small to generate a transfer of major tonnage from our roads to railways. We need a good road network. That is why I welcome the building of motorways. We need much better traffic management. If one wants to see bad traffic management one only has to go out to the roundabout at the Red Cow Inn. That was designed not too long ago but international practice has superseded what was done there. All those delays in traffic give rise to many of the emissions. I would not deny that we need better public transport also.

I mentioned investment earlier. Wind energy was mentioned also and in my county and on the Arklow bank, many wind farms have been erected. There is a limit to what they will contribute but none the less they are an important component in getting from 15% to 33% sufficiency by 2020, although wave energy must have real potential. I believe it was Senator O'Toole who said in the House recently — I saw the report in the newspaper — that somebody was developing a machine in Galway. We must support that type of research to ensure that kind of modem for generating energy is developed. Given our pivotal position on the west coast of Europe, the potential for us as a nation is strong in that regard.

With regard to the issue of bio-fuels, should we be looking at set-aside? Bio-fuels will now have an effect on food prices. Why should we be setting aside land if there is a demand in terms of other crops for doing that?

While nuclear energy is clean and may help us on reducing emissions, we do not have the right — I opposed this from the first time I was elected to Wexford County Council in 1979 — to give a legacy to future generations of a waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years. We should look to alternatives. It would be a last resort and one that I would find difficult to support.

I wish to share time with my colleagues, Senators Quinn and Norris. I will speak for three minutes.

I welcome the Minister to the House. All of us recognise and appreciate his genuine commitment to developing an effective policy on energy security and tackling climate change. However, the Fine Gael amendment deserves our support because it recognises, realistically, the true extent of the challenges we face in developing that sort of policy.

In that regard, I want to mention a Bill I introduced in the House on 3 October that Senator Coffey has already mentioned, the Climate Protection Bill currently on the Order Paper and for the debate on which the Minister's colleague, Deputy Gormley, was present in the House. I am delighted to say the Bill got general cross-party support and will be debated again in Government time in the House in December.

The idea of a Bill would underline and emphasise the Government's commitment to policy in this area. An Oireachtas committee is one thing, and it is welcome, but it does not go as far as legislation and does not go far enough to secure binding commitments from this and future Governments to meeting what the Minister has described as both our short-term and long-term commitments to reducing climate change. The Bill sets an ongoing statutory goal of reducing emissions by at least 3% per year, starting from 2010, and also includes the long-term goal of reducing emissions by at least 60% in 2050. All of those relate to Kyoto commitments to which Ireland has already signed up. It is not a radical proposal but it is one that would secure a commitment beyond the security provided by the political promises in a programme for Government.

This programme for Government is to be welcomed. It is radical in its approach to climate change and energy security yet we have seen in the past political promises being made and broken on vital issues like hospital waiting lists and road safety. We have seen promises not being met because they are not underscored and emphasised by a legislative commitment and sanctions. That is what the Bill, which I commend to the House, represents and that is why I ask the Government to support it. I support the Fine Gael amendment.

I thank Senator Bacik for sharing her time. The Minister is welcome here as are his words. The aim of every Member here is the same as that of the Minister. It is a question of how best we achieve it.

I am a great believer in the marketplace. The market driven economy achieves a great deal, sometimes much more than legislation. I am on the board of the Food Market Institute in the United States and chairman of EuroCommerce in Brussels. It is interesting that in the past, the battles between supermarkets for competition was based on price and range. The battle is now based on how green one is and whether one is effective in that regard. It is interesting to see that in Europe and throughout the world.

I do not get the sense that we have made the necessary mindset change here to ensure people recognise the challenge. The Minister said that earlier. Any national strategy must take, as a starting point, our overdependence on oil. The whole strategy must develop out of that reality, something the Minister touched on, because that is the threat we face and which we have to work to counter.

In addressing the threat, our policy must rest on two pillars, each of which must be pursued with equal commitment. Most of our efforts appear to be devoted to the second pillar, the production of energy from alternative sources. I concur with Senator Jim Walsh on this issue. Ireland tends to overlook the first pillar, energy conservation. It is not necessary to find or pay for energy which is not consumed. Part of our national energy problem is the reckless profligacy with which we use energy. It is an unfortunate side effect of our current prosperity that we behave almost as if it were a virtue to waste energy. This applies to the manner in which we build houses and use cars and to practices such as not bothering to switch off lights and so on. Everywhere one turns one observes the waste of vast amounts of energy. This may be foolish today but it will be madness tomorrow. The national strategy must address energy conservation before dealing with other matters.

Last week, Ireland and Britain lost an hour of daylight when the clocks were put back. Ireland should take the lead by adopting central European time. If the Minister took this single step and showed no regard for whether Britain followed suit, we would gain a substantial benefit through energy conservation.

I thank my colleagues for sharing time and welcome the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to the House. It is good for the Irish people and the House that the Green Party has entered Government, although I am not certain it is good for the party. I believe the party will act on our behalf while in Government.

The optimism of the Minister is also good, although he may be a little over-optimistic in his view that refrigerators, cars and so forth have a life of 15 years. Unfortunately, planned obsolescence is a concept we must attack because many items do not last for 15 years. With regard to cars, we should consider introducing a tax based on fuel consumption rather than engine size. I and many others have old cars. I walked to the House today, although I used to cycle here. Unfortunately, it has become too dangerous to cycle in Dublin, despite the fragmented cycle lanes.

Addressing these issues earlier today, Professor Frank Convery, a distinguished environmentalist, stated:

Setting targets on climate change and sustainability is painless, but meeting them requires putting in place the right policies; sufficient resources and well-motivated and functioning institutions at national, regional and local levels. To be effective, sustainable development policy must involve many Government Departments and agencies working together and must interact productively with stakeholders in business and the community.

Given the lack of communication we observed in a single area, the health service, it will be a major challenge to the Green Party to develop the type of networking approach required with Ministers from other parties.

I congratulate my colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, on producing the Climate Protection Bill 2007. I will follow its progress with great interest. The Green Party will learn that there are harsh political realities, as might Senator Bacik, although she is very much a realist.

Ireland appears to be leading the field in wave energy. For example, some of the technical problems of harnessing the bobbing motion of waves have been solved by Irish scientists. This is a welcome development in which the Government should invest.

I ask the Minister to examine a specific matter. During the debate on Senator Bacik's Bill, I handed a letter to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley. I ask his colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to ensure the issue is followed up. The letter was written by individuals with whom I have had contact in Cyprus and Switzerland who have developed an interesting and sophisticated high frequency ignition system which will save considerable amounts of fuel. I ask that the Government investigate this technology with a view to possibly investing in it or assisting its development. Will the Minister give an undertaking to have the system assessed? In this regard, I am pleased that a large company, Dodge motors, has today announced the launch of a new green car.

I ask the Government to ensure that the media and certain political sources lay off the Shell to Sea group, whose campaign is perfectly right. I am one of the old-fashioned pinkos who believe we should own the wealth of the country and the means of production and distribution. We should take control of our resources, which may increase as we drill deeper under the Atlantic Ocean.

I second the motion.

One of the more interesting features of Standing Orders in this House is that the Government side has Private Members' time to highlight what it regards as interesting developments in specific policy areas, a facility not available in the other House. The side effect of this is that Government motions may sometimes appear self-congratulatory and other Senators may view their role as being to prick this pomposity. The motion is well written, referring, for example, to the commitment to developing a policy, rather than stating that actions taken to date have been done well or things are as they should be. It also points out that we have a considerable distance to travel. As a result of the formation of this Government and the agreements in the programme for Government we at least have an acknowledgement that this is a policy priority and an issue on which the Government and my party's participation in it must be judged. On those grounds, I had hoped for a more generous response from the Opposition than that which I have heard so far in the debate.

While I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the Senators who moved and seconded the amendment, nevertheless, the decision to move the amendment runs counter to the spirit of the motion. Although I do not disagree with the amendment's core elements, the difficulty is that it includes a checklist running to several times the length of the motion. What the House needs is a discussion on how to secure cross-party support for political action on meeting our targets.

I get a sense from the amendment that it is a case of opposition for the sake of it, an exercise in finger-pointing that is meant to imply the Government is not doing its job and the Opposition would do a better job if it was in power. That is not the correct approach to this issue.

It is certainly the case.

The Senator is proving my argument. The nature of the problems confronting us are serious and require more than Government action alone. The motion is an attempt to engage in a public debate on the issue.

Senator Boyle did the same while in Opposition.

The Senator is welcome to read my contributions to debates.

I have the Minister's contribution from 7 March this year.

Allow Senator Boyle to continue without interruption, please.

I welcome the debate, even if it might lead us down some dark alleys. In moving the motion, I set out to acknowledge the direction of Government policy. While we have not yet achieved anything in some areas, some Government initiatives are important in their own right. For example, the establishment of the committee on climate change and energy security and the existence of a Cabinet sub-committee on the same subject demonstrates that this policy area is a Government priority, one on which we will be judged.

The targets in the programme for Government are ambitious and require a political price to be paid if implemented directly by the Government. It is easy to oppose the effects of trying to reach these targets and I have listened to some of the comments on the construction industry and access to private transport. If we are to reach climate change targets we must make dramatic changes in the way we live. The figures cited in the amendment, for example, that fossil fuels account for more than 90% of our energy consumption and that more than 80% of our energy requirements are imported, do not make environmental or economic sense. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. If we take collective action, it must benefit the country socially, environmentally and economically. As yet, this is not understood. As we go deeper into the debate and use the new mechanisms available to us, such as the Oireachtas committee, understanding will permeate political discussion.

Other measures are worth acknowledging. Nothing has been achieved because it is early in the Government's life, but new building regulations — 40% to 60% to 80% towards totally energy efficient houses — have been drafted. This week, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources announced that 25,000 homes would receive smart meters. Such is the poverty of information in and the quality of this debate that, when these measures were introduced, some of those who debated against them, including members of the media, purported that energy efficient building regulations would increase the cost of housing. They ignored the fact that people would spend less on the running of their houses.

When the smart metering announcement was made today, a national newspaper carried a story from the Commission on Electricity Regulation and claimed that installing smart meters would increase the price of electricity. This is nonsense because the meters will give people the opportunity to determine how much electricity they use so that they can work towards reducing that amount and offer them the opportunity to sell electricity to the grid. When there is such misreporting or misunderstanding, some of it deliberate, one sees how far there is to go to put together a coalition of the willing in respect of the environment. I am almost afraid to use that term.

Against an axis of evil.

I am prepared to take language tainted elsewhere and put it in a better and more positive context. We are dealing with ignorance and vested interests, to whose advantage our continuation in this way would be. Without the ability to tackle the issue collectively, we will make our problems worse.

I disagree with statements to the effect that the paying of credits alone is a sufficient policy measure. In the programme for Government, it is no longer the sole measure. We must work together on an agreed policy to ensure the use of credits is minimised to the smallest extent possible.

The main Opposition party should reconsider tabling its amendment, which does not add to the motion. The list of individual measures is too small, as hundreds more should be included.

It adds much. The measures are tangible.

We would welcome the addition of more.

The best place to introduce them would be at the Oireachtas committee. Some of the measures listed in the amendment are also listed in the programme for Government.

In which case the Senator should support us.

I support the amendment in spirit——

——but it does not add to the motion. If the Opposition wants this area to work, everything should be on the table and the policy should be supported by everyone in political life.

Often, Government motions are amusing and this motion is no exception. Senator Boyle believes it might be pompous to raise this subject, but asking us to support and commend the Government on its commitment to develop a policy is amusing.

A Government must be real. Rather than promising to do something in future, it must do something now. Ireland produces too many greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas emissions in the northern hemisphere must be considered. While the United States of America is the largest producer of CO2, Ireland and Europe do not fall far behind. We should not be proud of our record. Every year, each EU citizen produces 11 tonnes of greenhouse gases and households produce 16% of our emissions. The production of energy accounts for 61% of Europe's greenhouse gas emissions and transport accounts for 21%, half of which comprises freight, to which Senator Walsh referred. The other half comprises private car usage.

The EU is racing to change these figures, but Ireland is lagging behind. According to the European Union Environment Agency's June figures, EU greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 0.7% and Ireland's increased by 2%. While other European countries are improving, we are falling behind. The agency's report led to a statement by Commissioner Dimas to the effect that many states must accelerate their efforts — it is clear that he included Ireland in this — if the EU is to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I regret that the Minister, Deputy Ryan, is not in the House because I have specific questions. I will put them to the Minister of State instead. Why is Ireland not investing sufficiently in renewable energy sources, why do we remain content to burn so much fossil fuel and how will the Minister get a commitment from his Government partners to do something about climate change? I do not doubt his or his party's commitment, but they have not achieved many of their aims since their involvement in Government.

Senator Boyle referred to the debate going down dark alleyways. If he did so with his Government partners, he would go in green and come out black and blue. How does the Green Party expect to get its policies and commitments on energy, climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gases through the rest of the Cabinet? I would welcome the Minister of State's opinion.

It is not right that Senators must listen to self-congratulatory motions lauding the Government on its commitments for the future when we are lagging behind other European nations. My party and I will support the Fine Gael amendment. It might be distasteful for the Government, but the amendment reflects reality. The 1997 Kyoto Agreement places tight obligations on us. We were not supposed to exceed a 13% increase in CO2 emissions between 1997 and the turn of this decade, but they have increased by 180%. Leaving carbon trading aside, nothing has been done by the Government. It is not fair to tell the House that the Government wishes to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets in some way or another after Ireland has already exceeded those targets.

The Government cannot deny that a mere 4.5% of our energy is supplied by renewable sources and that fossil fuels account for 93%, but its Senators will vote against the amendment. It is not right for them to do so or for the Government to try to deny that the use of fossil fuels in transport has exploded by 150% in the past 15 years. The Government is disinterested in solving the issue. If it were interested, it would support the Fine Gael recommendations.

One sixth of our emissions comes from housing. We must prioritise areas in which we allow housing to develop. There is a great deal of zoned land, but it should be given to developers who will produce and build eco-residential towns and estates rather than monolithic rows of houses. The estates should take into account energy conservation and the recycling of waste water supplies and provide more cycle and pedestrian paths and live-work units so that people need not travel to work. We must examine how we design and prioritise the development of our towns and villages. We must think about how we produce our energy. The amendment calls for a review of the national spatial strategy to cater for major renewable energy infrastructure sources. As 60% of our emissions come from energy production, it is vital that we re-examine how we produce energy. We must examine wind farming and offshore energy.

Transport accounts for 21% of our emissions. We must improve the public transport network and supply to encourage more people to leave their cars at home and take the nearest bus or rail line. Thousands of people travel to Dublin every day on trains. The train service from Dundalk to Drogheda is packed virtually every day of the week. People, including pregnant women, have to stand because the seats are taken. It is also difficult for disabled people to find space. We cannot hope to encourage more people onto transport without first providing facilities for them.

I would like the catchment area for rail services to be expanded. The Navan-Dublin rail line should be prioritised, as should schemes such as the re-opening of stations to make them more accessible and closer to centres of population. I refer the Minister of State to potential schemes such as new stations at Killucan. I would be interested to know his views on expanding the rail network and the number of stations to encourage as many people as possible onto public transport. I will not support this motion because enough has not been done. If we are serious about tackling climate change we must do better and do it soon.

I would like to share my time with Senator Brady, who will speak first.

I agree with many of the Minister's comments to this House. All sections of society have a role to play. I will not repeat what everybody has said. We all know the challenges facing the world due to climate change. State agencies and trade unions must get involved. People will have to change how they behave at home and at work. We cannot bulldoze into this. These people must be consulted and made aware. As a former trade unionist I have discovered many times that Irish people do not like change. If one moved a person from the bottom to the top floor, there was protest. One must create awareness and bring people along.

Senator Hannigan mentioned public transport and he is correct. The public transport in my area is good. However, CIE and other agencies such as local authorities are not playing their part with measures such as park and ride facilities to encourage people to use public transport.

Senator Walsh made a point about waste of energy, particularly where lights are left on in buildings all day. In my house I see the children leaving lights, radios and televisions on all day. We must provide a schools education programme. We can only bring people along if we raise their awareness. I congratulate the Department of Defence, which is inspecting its buildings with a view to having stand-alone systems in each room whereby lights and heating automatically switch on and off when a person enters and leaves. That is welcome. Companies such as Eircom and State agencies such as Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus must be consulted. That involves discussions with trade unions. We could trigger strikes if we embark on changes without making people aware of what we are doing.

I have strong views on pollution, as Senator O'Reilly knows. I am from Cavan and I fish there. Farmers and factories can put rivers and lakes out of commission for years by polluting them. This has a significant effect on global warming and climate change and has a detrimental effect on soil. However, the fines are so small that they make no difference to the polluters. The fine for pollution is approximately €500, which is a pittance. We do not want to take sudden harsh measures but we must teach people that this is no longer acceptable, that we must change how we behave at work and at home. We must involve people.

This is a major problem worldwide and we have to catch up because events have run ahead of us. Ireland must play its part. The Government has outlined what it intends to do, and I will not repeat it, as everybody is aware of it. This demands all-party agreement and an all-party approach. We cannot make this a political issue. This is for future generations as well as this one. If we do not work cohesively we will face disaster.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak but am sorry the Minister is not here. However, if he were here we might have descended into a mutual admiration society. During the last Government he was one of the most impressive members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and pioneered the notion of working on an all-party basis. I am sorry to tell Senator Coffey that while other parties supported this, although the Labour Party was reluctant, Fine Gael opposed it. That was a pity because in the long term it is the one way we can deal with this together. It is an issue for the next generation and there is no politics to be gained from it.

Regarding energy security, the brief could not be in better hands. The Minister is committed to dealing with energy and has tremendous understanding of it.

Is Senator O'Malley thinking of joining the Green Party?

The Minister spoke without notes. He is committed to this issue. We could not have a better person responsible for it. I wish him well and have every faith that he will make a real effort to deliver on the target results. His commitment to diminishing carbon emissions is unsurpassed in the Dáil.

The establishment of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security is welcome, but I wonder how it will operate with the existing committee. I hope there will not be much conflict. As a person interested in the energy future of the country I wanted to see on which committee one would be best placed. I like to think the two committees will work well together. We must examine this issue. The Minister gave good ideas on the agenda of the committee and he will make himself available to both committees. I am very focused on this and am looking forward to the establishment of the committees. When one is not attending a committee meeting every week, one finds one is not on top of an issue in the same way as one is when one is meeting regularly with people and representatives from an industry. However, I am concerned about how the two committees will interact.

The Minister spoke about concentrating on bio-fuels. I became interested in this area roughly four years ago and, in that time, I have noticed that the thinking has moved on and changed dramatically. What people would have commonly believed to be best practice back then has now led to unintended consequences, for example, on the international price of grain. It is having a devastating effect and even causing famines. We must have the courage to think again about what was thought to be the right way forward. The Minister does not lack courage and I believe he will have the courage to do this.

I will conclude by making a small, party political point.

As leader of the Progressive Democrats?

Is the Senator going to join the Green Party?

It is not a point about my party but about small political parties. The Green Party has demonstrated the importance of smaller political parties. I spent my five years as a Member of the Dáil trying, with the help of others, to get the building regulations changed. We worked in the background to get the Minister to change them. We also pursued the issue of smart metering. Within six months of the Green Party going into Government, the change has been established as policy. If that does not deliver a good result for the Irish people in terms of policy focus, I do not know what will. It demonstrates the need for focused, smaller political parties. Long may small parties continue in the Irish democratic system.

I wish to share my time with Senator Doherty. I support the amendment put down by my colleagues. It is somewhat rich of the Government side to laud itself for putting down this motion when one considers that it has been in office for six months and this committee is only now up and running.

There is a great deal we can do in this area. I have a few questions which the Minister might consider. One relates to the grants for renewables. At present, there is no grant for domestic wind turbines. These should be made available. The grant for solar powered and heat exchange systems only covers the insulation costs. The Minister should examine the grant system because many people would be willing to change. As many Senators said, they will have to change. I believe they are willing to do so but the Government can make it happen faster with a small initiative. A large outlay is required to change to wind turbines or solar power systems for household energy so people will require assistance. I hope the Minister will consider upgrading the grant system.

Senator Brady spoke about education. We can do a great deal in this regard. People often leave lights on outside their houses and, in many cases, those lights are hazards. Motorists on rural roads who see the lights often think it is an oncoming car. There could be more education on such issues. Some time ago the former leader of Fine Gael in the Seanad, Deputy Brian Hayes, put down a motion on the building regulations and the use of hollow blocks in buildings in Dublin. Is this covered in the new building regulations being put forward by the Green Party? I hope so. The Government should act on this matter immediately.

With regard to bio-fuels, a number of licences were allocated in the last year or two. However, in some cases people are already up and running in the production of bio-fuels but they are not licensed, and are unable to get a licence. By contrast, some licence holders and running for the next two years, which is a disgrace. The Minister should revisit this matter with a view to giving licences to the people whose production is up and running. It is codology that people who are already producing bio-fuels are not able to get a licence, while those who are due to put their systems in place in two years have the licences tied up. I ask the Minister re-examine this.

Go raibh maith agat. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Seanadóir Paddy Burke a thug cead dom, agus am dom, labhairt ar seo.

I support the amendment which points out the shortcomings in the Government's strategy to address the issue of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are heavily dependent on imported oil and gas. While there is a European requirement that bio-fuel replaces 5.75% of petrol imports by 2010, the Government has set even more ambitious targets. While I welcome this, I do not believe the necessary measures are being taken to ensure that the target will be met. This could simply mean that dependency on imported fossil fuels is replaced by dependency on imported bio-fuels.

We must build our own strategic indigenous fuel production. That is the reason Sinn Féin has argued not only for the need to promote the growing of energy crops, for which this country is eminently suited, but also for the former sugar factories in Carlow and Mallow to be converted to producing a thick syrup from sugar beet for ethanol production. To build such plants from scratch would cost many millions of euro and there are doubts about the viability of building new plants in the immediate future.

Sinn Féin supports the extension of fiscal incentives for energy crop grants to encourage the development of an indigenous bio-fuels sector. We also support the development of other renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar power, which have considerable potential to be expanded and to increase the share of energy demand that is met from those sources. There is also a need to promote greater energy efficiency in domestic and commercial buildings. Those responsible for the Oireachtas buildings are becoming more proactive on this.

However, I am not satisfied that EU legislation regarding building insulation is adequate. For that reason, Sinn Féin has called for the inclusion of all those in receipt of fuel allowances in the greener homes and insulation grant schemes. While this will involve a considerable initial outlay, it will be cost effective in reducing energy loss, cutting fuel bills and tackling fuel poverty.

As outlined in the amendment, it is important that the national spatial strategy is revised to take into account the need to ensure that renewable energy infrastructure is built. We must also ensure there is annual reporting to track progress in meeting targets for the reduction of emissions. Only in that way can the shortfalls be addressed and action taken to ensure the targets are met and, if possible, exceeded.

Later this month, Donegal County Council will receive a number of lights being imported into Ireland. For the first time, public lighting will be lit, on a pilot basis, by solar panels. Initiatives such as these must be promoted and the technology and research involved must be developed. Incentives should be given to progress that technology.

Government Senators have commented that people should be encouraged to use public transport, with which I concur. However, the Government must provide the public transport. When I became a Member of the Seanad and met some of the Members on the Government benches, they asked me how I intended to make the four and a half hour trip to the Seanad every day and whether I took the train. There is no train service from Donegal, or from Cavan, Monaghan, Tyrone or Fermanagh. If the Government is serious about climate change, it must start investing in public transport. That means not just train services but also rural public transport. Everybody could then collectively take ownership of and responsibility for reducing carbon emissions.

With all respect to the Minister of State, I regret that the Minister is not here. Having served with him on the committee, there is no doubt of his genuine passion and commitment for solutions to the most significant question facing us and the generations to come that will inhabit this planet.

I welcome the opportunity to make some comments on the issue. The motion as put down by the Government commends the commitment to the development of a policy. There is broad agreement on the issues, but such is the nature of debate here that the Opposition must put down an amendment. Notwithstanding that, we have started a process whereby great strides can be made in terms of climate change and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.

Since 1990, there has been an increase of approximately 70% in the number of cars on our roads and with that has come an increase of approximately 160% to 180% in emissions from transport. Transport is now responsible for one third of our emissions. In that regard, there is a significant role to be played in the development of better public transport. I accept Senator Doherty's point on the need for the enhancement of our rail network. If we had a good rail network, more people could use the system. Coming from the west, I think of the proposal to get the west on track. While I acknowledge the Government's commitment in theory to opening the line as far as Claremorris, north of that line is little more than an aspiration. I would like to see a firmer commitment to that. We should look to extending the line into Donegal and make a contribution by encouraging cars off the road.

We need a fresh young Deputy to do that.

Great strides have been made on the western seaboard in terms of renewable energy, where we see the establishment of many wind farms. However, many more farmers have appropriate sites, but they cannot get permission to go ahead with them, some for planning reasons and some because there is no facility to connect them to the national grid. I would like to see this area prioritised. Let us seize the day and get on with the job. Energy consumers are indifferent as to whether their energy comes from wind, wave or elsewhere, but they like to know they are playing a part.

The greener homes scheme has made a good contribution with regard to conserving energy. There are many schemes in existence, but how many people use them? I am one of those guilty of not participating in such schemes. We need to find a way to force the public and people like me to engage in existing schemes that help improve our environment and conserve energy. The power of one campaign is an example of another good campaign.

We all need to become involved in conserving energy and must wake up and educate ourselves on what we need to do to play our part. It always seems to us to be something someone else should do. Everyone else should take the rickshaw, but we should still be able to drive a three litre turbo diesel car. We must engage in a more meaningful way with regard to finding how best we can help to conserve energy. The best way to encourage this is through incentivisation, whether by tax credits or direct grant schemes. This would encourage all, particularly businesses. If it is more financially viable for businesses to engage in conservation practices, we will begin to see a change. This area should be explored. I realise something has been done in this regard in the area of VRT on cars, but we need to expand into other areas. Could we, for instance, provide tax credits to those who move to burning wood pellets or who invest in solar panels? Otherwise, people will be inclined to say everybody else should do it, but they will not.

Some Senators mentioned energy crops. The north west region is conducive to these types of crops and they would serve a useful purpose in making agriculture more viable in the area. We need to focus more on this area. Senator Walsh mentioned he was against nuclear power. I am in two minds about it. I am against nuclear waste, but nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy. We need to have a meaningful debate on the issue to weigh up the pros and cons, albeit if we decide it is definitely not for us.

In terms of dealing with waste that is not recyclable, we need to consider the issues of landfill and incineration. These are not popular issues, but we should debate them and at some stage pick the lesser of two or more evils. We need to be mature and debate issues, rather than be fundamentalist on the approach to take.

Notwithstanding the gas that may be available from the Corrib gas field, whenever that happens, the north west, north of a line from Dublin to Galway and west of Mullingar, does not have the option of natural gas, which is cleaner than oil. We would like that option. Over several Administrations, Ministers have said they are committed to providing it and the extension of the gas national grid to include the region. A number of reports have been prepared by various outlets, including DKM many years ago for Bord Gáis, and I know another was prepared in the past 12 months. Will the Minister of State ask the Minister to check the current situation in that regard? Government subvention will be required, but let us determine the level required and arrange to have it put in place. The people of the north west are entitled to equality of opportunity in terms of energy usage. I am not talking here of Animal Farm type equality, where some people are more equal than others.

I commend the many initiatives under way, but to get to the level of public engagement required to make a difference, we need to focus the minds of our people. Sad as it may seem, to do that we need to have some kind of financial incentive. The reality is that tax credits or some form of reward are required. It may not be pleasant to have to accept that, but it is what we need to do.

I wish to share my time with Senator McFadden.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister to the House and welcome this debate. While some aspects of this issue may be rocket science, others are not. One that is not concerns driving into the city on any of the main highways on the north side — the N1, N2 or N3. For anybody who comes to the city on these routes, there is no place for them to park and ride and use public transport. The car parks of pubs along the N2 are filled each morning, not with people who are in drinking, but by the cars of people who have nowhere to park and ride. This is a simple area that could be addressed and should be considered because it would have an immediate impact.

I wish to re-emphasise the point made by Senator O'Malley. The decision by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the building regulations on insulation, is the most progressive made in this area since I entered the Seanad. Senators are well aware that I and former Senator, Deputy Brian Hayes, have pushed this issue for years. I contend that since 1998 we have built over 250,000 sub-standard insulated houses despite being well aware they did not meet the regulations.The Government invented a new form of measuring heat loss through the roof when the rest of the world measured it on the basis of the amount of energy required to heat a cubic metre of house space annually. I welcome the fact that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has now introduced that system.

I have also been seeking the introduction of smart meters. I was pleased to hear the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources say during the week that if people have wind generators or micro-generators at home they can feed surplus energy back into the grid and be paid for it, however small the amount.

On a number of occasions recently, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has raised the question of waste-derived fuel and variations of it. Effectively, this is a basic scientific idea but it is not rocket science. It captures methane from landfill waste. There is a more progressive method of creating waste-derived fuel, which is being developed at the University of Limerick. A company currently investing in this method is building such plants for local authorities in England, which will involve 100 million tonnes of waste annually. It could replace incineration here were we to opt for it.

Triple glazing should also be grant aided. Senator Burke referred earlier to the need for such grants and he is right. There are no grants for wind generators on a house but I do not know why. I have spoken to Sustainable Energy Ireland about this matter but no one can give me an answer. There is no reason for not providing such grants.

A year ago, I proposed to the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that as well as changing the building regulations, which has now been done, as a second step, every new house should be required to have a wind generator or solar panels. There are many other things that could be done but that would be a simple measure. It has been done in other parts of the world.

We also need to start constructing railways. Many people in Ireland believe that railways are somewhat outdated, old-fashioned and Victorian things. Recently, I drove from Barcelona in Spain to Perpignan in France where they are building a brand new TGV rail line which will cover that intercity route in one hour. They have already built a new TGV line on the eastern side of France. They are still building all the time while we are looking at renovating one rail line. We have been talking about bringing the railway line to Navan for the last 15 years. Two former Ministers for Finance have promised to do so but why is it not happening? What is the problem? We should just do it. It would take less time and space to construct than a road.

Every new motorway should have a railway track alongside it. While it may be too late, I would ask the Green Party to take this proposal on board, which I have been making for ten years. It is a simple thing to do and is undertaken in many countries around the world. The land is already there and such a line would take up little additional space, but it means that new trains could be run there.

We also need to discuss the issue of nuclear energy, although I am completely opposed to it. I listened earlier to Senator Walsh confirm that both he and I had similar views on these matters back in the late 1970s when those in favour tried to wreck his county.

That is right.

Something has changed, however, and it is rocket science. It is the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Fission involves a nuclear isotope running wildly in an enclosed space and is uncontrollable, as we saw in Chernobyl, which will still be causing trouble in 1,000 years' time.

Ten thousand.

Nuclear fusion is different because it is when both are put together. It is much more controlled, less difficult and poses fewer dangers once used. I am not suggesting that we should go into that but we need a discussion on it, if only to rule it out. It could form part of the discussion that the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, suggested we might have.

In the last month, BMW has put 200 hydrogen-powered cars on the market. This is basic science as opposed to nuclear science. Water, designated as H2O, comprises two molecules of hydrogen to one of oxygen. The separation of hydrogen from water produces the cleanest source of energy on the planet, and when used the waste is clean water. It represents the future and while it is possible to do it now it cannot yet be done efficiently. In other words, it takes almost as much energy to extract hydrogen from H2O as the energy the hydrogen would produce afterwards. In real terms, therefore, the game is not yet worth the candle but it will develop as a future energy source. We should be examining that possibility now.

We need more rail lines and park and ride facilities. There is empty space where the M1 and M2 meet the M50, so it would not be difficult to locate acres of parking space there, building underground if necessary. I do not know why it is not being done. If I were Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government I would take such a decision within two weeks. I see no reason why it cannot be done. We have been talking about it for ten years whenever we discuss building standards, yet nothing has happened.

The capturing of methane from landfills also needs to be undertaken. While the building regulations are welcome, triple glazing should be encouraged by grants. All new houses should have an alternative energy source. I telephoned two local authorities recently to ask if they would give any preferential treatment in terms of seeking planning permission for a proposal to build a totally eco-friendly house. The answer was "No" and as far as I know nobody does it. We have had long debates about one-off housing but if somebody proposes to construct something that clearly does not damage the environment, is self sufficient and uses its own energy, we should encourage it.

Any community in any part of Ireland which puts its hands up and offers to take full control and responsibility for all its waste and energy requirements should be given a tax break. That can and should be done because it is not that difficult.

I thank Senator O'Toole for allowing me to share his time. In view of the fact that we have failed to meet our responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol and that greenhouse gas emissions are double the overall target figure, the Minister should undertake a carbon footprint audit of this House. It would be interesting to see what fuel is used to heat the Houses of the Oireachtas and how we damage the environment in doing so. The audit could be extended to all Government buildings and local authorities.

I concur with Senator O'Toole concerning rail transport. There is a rail link from Athlone to Mullingar which is ready to be operated but it has not even been included in Transport 21. I ask the Minister to expedite that route. I also concur with Senator O'Toole on the provision of new park and ride facilities.

We have had a good debate on this important topic. All of us who have contributed to the discussion would agree that it is a challenging and complex area. It covers a range of issues which can be difficult to grasp if one does not have a technical background. Nonetheless, we can all appreciate how essential it is for the future well being of the planet to address this issue effectively.

A number of points have been made which need to be re-emphasised. Senator Quinn referred to energy conservation, which is an important component of the general energy issue. It can make a significant contribution because there is a waste of energy in all spheres. We are all guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree. I cited the example of the heating system in the Houses of the Oireachtas, but it is not easy to regulate such matters and unless somebody is policing energy conservation it tends not to happen. It could, however, form a significant part of our contribution to the overall reduction.

I agree fully with what Senator O'Toole said on park and ride. The amount of CO2 emissions due to traffic jams in cities is very noticeable. Someone once told me that if I wanted to conserve my petrol consumption, then I should switch off my engine at a traffic light and there would be a noticeable improvement in mileage from petrol use. Park and ride is the way to approach that. There is not enough planning done regarding these issues.

Senator O'Toole also mentioned fission versus fusion in the nuclear energy debate. I am not an expert on it, but I remember the debates about it on Wexford County Council in the late 1970s, as the proposed nuclear plant was to be at Carnsore Point. As a consequence, we were more up to speed than other councils and it was a burning issue. Even though the Government at the time was strongly in favour of this happening, I was pleased that it did not come to fruition and we managed to cater for significant economic development in the meantime without having to resort to nuclear power.

There needs to be a debate on nuclear energy and it may well be that technology has ensured that there is less danger. However, I have a principled objection as we inherited a planet Earth in our generation that was relatively free from pollution. The industrialisation of the last century has given rise to much damage to the planet. We have an obligation to pass it on in an equally good condition to future generations. Much of the waste from nuclear plants has been buried at sea, but nobody knows the adverse health consequences of that. Who is to say that any release of radioactivity in the sea is not having an effect on our marine life? Let us not solve today's problems by creating a bigger problem in the future.

Progress is being made in areas such as bio-fuel use. People are involved in this industry in my county and in Wicklow. A new plant is currently being built in my own town that will produce bio-fuel. Production of oil seed rape increased by 50% between 2006 and 2007, from 12,000 acres to 18,000 acres. That is driven by Government policy and there is a new energy crop payment of €80 per hectare, as well as establishment grants of €1,400 per hectare. However, the significant move by the Government was to provide about €200 million in excise relief, which has provided the scope for people to participate in this industry.

It is a pity the House will divide on the motion, because I agree with much of what is in the amendment. I wonder if Fine Gael would be prepared to accept the Government motion and continue with the second part of its amendment.

We cannot accept amendments across the floor. The amendment that is before the House has been moved.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 29.

  • Bacik, Ivana.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Healy Eames, Fidelma.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Prendergast, Phil.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carty, John.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • de Búrca, Déirdre.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Harris, Eoghan.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • McDonald, Lisa.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Donovan, Denis.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins; Níl, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Diarmuid Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Motion put and declared carried.
Top
Share