Vol. 400 No. 9
17 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Energy the improvements which have occurred in Irish energy efficiency as measured in terms of energy units per unit of GDP over the past three years; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The measure of energy efficiency referred to by the Deputy is usually referred to as the "energy intensity" of an economy. This is defined as the ratio of total primary energy requirement (TPER) to gross domestic product (GDP) at constant prices and is measured in tonnes of oil equivalent per £1,000 of GDP. Based on data for 1986 to 1988 and estimates for 1989, this ratio has improved by 6.3 per cent over the past three years.
Will the Minister agree that this rate of progress is a considerable slowing down on what was achieved in the past? Will he also agree that there is a need — not only for reasons of efficiency but also in relation to the environment — to dramatically improve our energy intensity? Will he further agree that the Government should introduce a special conservation programme to achieve that?
The improvement of 6.3 per cent is a decrease in the energy intensity and it means that we are generating the same level of gross domestic product with less energy, which contributes to improving the environment and the problems related to it. I agree that it is important to continue to improve in this area. Any improvement is welcome but it is not appropriate to look at movement in energy intensity on an annual basis because it could disimprove in some years, which was the case in 1988 and 1989. During those years, although the GDP is estimated to have grown by 5 per cent, the total energy consumption grew by over 7 per cent. Clearly, the ratio of energy consumption to GDP rose in that period and this phenomenon was clearly illustrated in the mid-eighties when energy prices fell dramatically. For example, between 1984 and 1986 energy intensity increased — that is, disimproved — by over 8 per cent and during this period energy consumption grew at an average annual rate of almost 5 per cent. At the same time economic growth was sluggish at only 0.5 per cent per annum. Clearly, GDP growth is not the only factor which influences energy consumption and the general fall in energy prices in the mid-eighties induced increased energy consumption, with the result that energy intensity increased. The underlying trend in Irish energy intensity is, however, downwards and is, therefore, welcome.
The Minister missed the point of my supplementary which was in relation to a new conservation programme.Will he agree that, compared to Europe, we are still high in terms of energy intensity? Will he further agree that we have a very poorly developed combined heat and power sector, that house insulation is very poor compared to Europe and that a very high proportion of people use open fires as their main heating system? In the light of that, will the Minister agree that there is a need for a Government conservation programme as a matter of urgency for environmental and efficiency reasons?
The level of consumption domestically in relation to open fires reflects a small percentage of overall energy consumption. Measures are being taken — I think they are the subject of another question — in relation to conservation measures and conserving heat in houses has been listed as a matter which needs attention. It is included in the short conservation programme which we are undertaking at present. There is, of course, need for a very positive conservation programme to be implemented at national level. The Government committed £500,000 this year to enable us to make a start in that area, which is the correct way to tackle the problem. It grieves me to hear so many informed and concerned people talking about the effect on our environment and the consequential global warming which threatens us arising from the consumption of fossil fuels while at the same time they do not speak of the need to conserve energy and to strive for greater efficiency in energy usage. That area needs attention and some kind of programme will have to be established to bring home to the public the need for each individual to see his or her responsibility in this area to reducing the dangers arising from global warming resulting from excessive and inefficient use of fuels.
I am somewhat confused by the Minister's reply. Is the Minister disputing the statement made last month at a conference in Dublin that we have an 18 per cent higher energy use in terms of GDP than the EC average, that we are the worst, in other words, in terms of energy efficiency?
I did not dispute a figure that was given at the conference to which the Deputy refers.
Some figures indicate that we are well in line with the EC.
I thought I emphasised the need for greater efficiency in the use of energy in order to reduce our levels of consumption from the point of view of our own economy, our environment and the global environment.
Will the Minister agree that the provision in this year's budget for renewal energy was nothing short of pathetic? Is he going to try to push for a greater allocation for renewable energy in next year's budget?
I hoped the Deputy might have added that it was a great deal more than in last year's Estimate and that there is obviously a greater awareness in the Department now of the need to promote renewable energies. I personally give my commitment to that. I cannot be seen to make dramatic progress in this regard in the short term. It is going to be a long, hard slog, but work has commenced. There is a need to increase our renewable energy sources. We are operating from practically a standing start in this matter because since the oil crisis there has been no great emphasis on the need to achieve these ambitions.
I welcome the Minister's agreement that there is a need for people to look at conservation more seriously, but I submit he is the one who must offer the leadership. Will we see a conservation programme from the Minister covering a number of years in the near future?
That would be my intention.
