The next item for discussion is the Copenhagen conference on climate change.
Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: Discussion.
I had the pleasure of being in Copenhagen with a number of colleagues who are here today. The official who accompanied us was very helpful, not only with travel arrangements but in trying to get briefing documents together for the group when we were there. He could not have been more helpful and it is extremely useful to have an official like that with us on such a trip. The scale of the conference in Copenhagen was enormous and it literally took a day to get one's feet on solid ground in terms of knowing how the conference worked and where the action was.
On the whole, the conference was a total failure and it should be recognised as such. The expectations in the build-up to it were enormous and those expectations were significantly dampened politically by many world leaders in the build-up to the conference. Even with those dampened expectations, people expected more from those two weeks. One of the factors we need to recognise is that the European Union, as an entity, was shown to be quite ineffective at trying to exert pressure to get its own way in order to make significant progress on climate change. Although the conference was held in the middle of the European Union, the Union was sidelined politically when the deal was done at the end. The European Union should have rejected the accord agreed by the five or six states, including the US, Brazil, China and South Africa.
Instead, the European Union decided on a damage-limitation exercise and that it was better off recognising an accord that at least had some positive elements to it which recognised that we needed to limit global warming to 2° Celsius to avoid irreversible climate change. There were a number of other elements as well but this was to be the basis for the next year's 16th COP in Mexico.
The big powerhouses came to Copenhagen but did not compromise. The US and its President, who so much of us have so much hope in, dictated to the meeting what the US would accept; the process was not negotiable. Its delegates left after cobbling a deal together. The European Union would have been better off politically to have deliberately caused a political crisis by not accepting the outcome and indicating it did not agree with the US or Chinese approach. That would have at least forced a political rethink and a crisis that may have triggered a different outcome to what we now have, which is stagnation in the climate change debate.
Having spoken to the Minister off the record today I know he is extremely concerned. Europe's environment Ministers and Prime Ministers are totally divided as to how the European Union should proceed, and whether we should try to set a target of a 30% reduction by 2020 or stick with 20%. I understand the European Council meeting was very divided in that respect. The momentum that was building in advance of Copenhagen was lost, even with the dampened expectations that we were not going to achieve this legally binding agreement that those who are really committed to climate change are looking for.
Even for the realists who did not accept that it was likely this time around, the conference was a massive disappointment. Europe has used up much of its bargaining capacity on climate change and we are seen by other parts of the world as a group of countries that does not need to be negotiated with aggressively. We are seen as willing to accept almost anything on climate change as long we inch forward all the time. The politics of the process showed Europe to be very weak at the end of it, which is very disappointing.
Decisions that now must be taken by governments in the European Union — which are very genuine about leadership and climate change — will now be difficult. If Europe proceeds, as planned, to up the stakes and make expensive sacrifices, we are in danger of making the European Union a much less competitive place to do business than other parts of the world. We are also in danger of allowing for carbon leakage outside the European Union.
For example, if we set up a carbon market as planned after 2012 that will have an active trade in carbon credits or allowances within the emissions trading system, it will become unworkable if the value of carbon in the European Union is $23 and is only €5, $10 or does not even exist in other parts of the world. We are in a very difficult place if we are to try to achieve global agreement on an emissions trading market and climate change policy. That is very frustrating.
The upside of the conference for me was that I learned much, as I did in Bali, about the politics of climate change. We must focus on that because we are politicians. We must consider how enormous the challenge is to get global agreement. Ireland is a tiny cog in the overall engine of climate change and to be fair to the Minister, he did his best. It is an uphill battle and after the conference, the European Union and the world in general is in a poorer position with regard to climate change. That is a depressing but true statement.
I thank the people who prepared the briefing note for all the discussions today as it has been very well prepared. I am grateful for all the work that has been put in and we were very well served in Copenhagen.
I will make a couple of practical points first. I was shocked at the way in which the NGOs were treated. It seemed obvious that we must consider in the future how delegations from Ireland are organised. I am not saying the treatment of the NGOs was perpetrated by any Irish people, but I am referring to the way the conference dealt with accredited NGO representatives. The UN was completely disorganised when it came to managing the numbers.
A couple of good things came out of Copenhagen. I would not be quite as negative as Deputy Coveney. The fact that there was such an overwhelming interest and engagement by governments, national representatives and NGOs was in itself an indication of progress. I do not want to be naive, but there is something impressive about sitting in a room with representatives of more than 190 countries — both civil servants and politicians — all saying we must do something about climate change. However, they did not have any basis for a global agreement of the kind we need to see.
I mentioned the organisation of our delegation. It was the first time, I understand, that the Irish delegation did not include the NGO representatives, which meant they were on the outside, waiting and queueing for considerable lengths of time. I submit that we should propose to the Government that this be prevented from happening again. I was shocked at the fact that our leading academic, John Sweeney, was out in the cold for eight hours two days running. I know he was not formally part of an NGO group, but whatever his status was, he should not have had that experience. In view of his importance in representing our interests, he should not have been left in that situation. There was an effort towards the end to look after him, which was welcome. However, it should never have happened and it should never happen again. That is a practical point.
Another practical point, which I note is mentioned in the report, is that we should not have gone to Copenhagen without having an Ireland pavilion. I was dismayed to see that we did not have one. I appreciate that we have had some financial difficulties but, in the past, when Ireland was on its knees, we always made an effort to be represented at any global forum we could possibly find. However, there was no Ireland pavilion. Other EU countries had pavilions, although they were not particularly large and I do not know how much they cost. Ireland had a chance to promote itself and we did not take it up. That is not acceptable. Wherever we are at a global forum, we should be represented. Countries I had never even heard of had stands and pavilions.
And were giving lectures.
Yes. I had better not admit which countries I did not know about. We did not show good form in that regard.
Because no agreement was reached — perhaps we were over-ambitious to expect one — there is a major sense of disappointment. However, that means we must now take on more responsibility nationally. We must ensure our mitigation measures are working and we are actually achieving something in terms of both legislation and reducing carbon emissions. We need to consider more closely the figures that were provided for us by Peter Brennan in the report of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They are disappointing. Even though the recession hit people badly, there was a naive hope that it might enable us to make some impact on our carbon emissions, but this has not happened to the degree that might have been expected. We will need to do more, as will other countries, because Copenhagen did not deliver.
There is another issue about which I am concerned. As there was an accord in which some of the major polluters came together, although it was pretty wishy-washy, there is a possibility that this will become the model and the UN will no longer be seen as the way through which things proceed. It is important that we support that basis for the process to continue. To be fair, the two working groups were given a mandate to continue. Texts have been prepared, even if they have not been agreed. There is an agreement that we are moving on to Mexico. That must be reinforced and we must show confidence in the process. I was astonished at the fact that so little progress seems to have been made prior to Copenhagen, and that so much was being left for Copenhagen. It seemed to be an impossible task. I had envisaged Copenhagen as the final showcase in which the world's leaders would put their stamp on an agreement. Instead, under the gaze of the world's media, there was much shape-throwing while people tried to avoid actually making deals. That is a lesson that must be learned. If we do not have the necessary work done prior to the meeting in Mexico, we will have another fiasco. I do not think we can sustain two. If we learn a lesson from Copenhagen — that this cannot be repeated — it may be that it was a valuable step, as President Obama has said.
Another problem, in terms of Ireland's position, was that we did not have a clear policy set down in certain areas that were difficult, such as additionality. We all understood that the Minister agrees on the idea of additionality. However, there was no Cabinet decision. We cannot send a team to a global meeting such as this without a clear and specific mandate. This is Ireland's policy. It is our position and we work on that basis. There was a lack of clarity as well as a general ill-preparedness, which must be addressed.
I do not know whether today is the day we should do it, but we need to discuss the framework for legislation in comparison to the report we prepared. Perhaps we should spend some time considering this on another day.
I was going to suggest that because the Deputy acted as rapporteur in the production of the heads of the Bill, she might continue in that role by producing a report for the committee based on what we have agreed to and what is in the Minister's proposal, highlighting any differences.
I would be happy to do that. Mr. Brennan has done the bulk of the work. I will leave it at that.
We will return to the Deputy in a while if she has any other ideas.
I do not wish to be too negative. It was important and helpful that we had representatives at Copenhagen from the committee. Those of us who were there have become more informed. I hope the experience can be shared by everybody. From a learning point of view, the fact that we could see the embryo of a world government coming together has great possibilities. However, if it divides into the powerful countries versus the underdeveloped world, we will really be in trouble.
Attending these large conferences is similar to being a child at the Spring Show. One does need a helping hand on these occasions, and I pay tribute to Patricia Doran and Denis McKenna, who stepped into the breach and provided much assurance and assistance to us, which was greatly needed at a gathering of 10,000 to 15,000 people.
The conference was bittersweet — bitter because of the failure to reach a global agreement, but sweet in terms of the determination of so many people who were there to tackle the issue, from religious leaders to political leaders to NGOs. It was very reassuring to see the enthusiasm for tackling the issue. In a sense, there were political, technical and non-governmental organisational strands to the conference. Regarding politics, the EU leads in terms of policy but fell miserably in the high stakes in the last 48 hours when President Obama came in and did an incredibly lukewarm deal with China, leaving EU leaders floundering in the wake. Although the Commission has very strong policies it was sheer raw politics that ultimately made a deal impossible.
With hindsight, I do not believe the United States could have signed up to a deal. President Obama was in the middle of a health care debate that has not yet concluded and which will become even more difficult as a result of the Senate election yesterday that now prevents the Democrats from having a strong majority. It will be a tough spring in the United States and although it has a commitment to considering climate change it might be summer before any of the key players tackle climate change within its own legislature. That problem will continue. There are lessons for the European Union with regard to having strong voices at the political table as well as the technical table.
On the technical end, I was very impressed by the Irish negotiators, including Eoin Ryan and others. If there is a gap, it is that it would have been very useful for the delegation from the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security to have had a formal briefing from the Department. The delegates had to throw themselves in the deep end regarding high-end negotiations on land use and technology transfer. It would have been of assistance to us to have scheduled a formal briefing even twice during the week we were there.
For my part, I found the side events enormously useful. I went to a full day of sessions by the Bellona Institute, a Norwegian think-tank that gets really good speakers. Oxfam hosted a session that included climate change survivors, former President Mary Robinson and Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It bookended speakers from very vulnerable countries in a brilliant session and was hugely useful. Coming back to Ireland, one sees there is a lot to be learned from that.
What can Ireland learn from all of this? The onus to produce legislation is as strong as ever. This committee should focus on the draft heads of the Bill that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, has produced. We can criticise constructively and add to that legislation. In addition, regulation is very important. We saw a great deal of technology and new ideas at the conference. As a committee, we should look at what can be done in the areas of transportation, agriculture and planning. We tend to engage in a great number of political rows both within and without Government about the way we spend transport money. However, if we could reach a consensus on capital spending in transport, for example, or on the kinds of technologies in agriculture, we could move those areas forward. If we consider forestry briefly, there are areas of controversy. Tony Lowes, who often can be controversial, talks about the danger of increasing forestry on peat soils because the release of greenhouse gases from deep ploughing can dramatically offset the positive contribution from trees.
We could push those debates forward. We need to keep pushing the legislation. We should have political discourse on who takes the ultimate responsibility. Is it the Minister or the Taoiseach? We might move that debate on. Regarding regulation, there are areas of building regulation, transport and agriculture where we can achieve consensus and drive the process further.
The bigger international process continues and will roll on to Mexico. It might well go the way of the world trade talks because of inertia but regardless of the outcome of future talks Ireland, along with the EU, can take a lead. This committee can contribute very successfully to that.
I was not surprised there was no agreement. Deputy McManus and I spent a few days in Washington and met people on Capitol Hill. It was quite clear that it was impossible for the United States to go to Copenhagen and agree to anything because it had failed to get the legislation through the Senate. They needed 60 Senators for that, and 67 if they were to sign up to a treaty.
The Copenhagen conference was hyped to the stage that people were led to believe there was a possibility of a treaty. We were told quite clearly — it was nothing to do with the health care legislation — that the issue was the vested interests in the United States. Senators on both sides are failing to meet the overall responsibility of dealing with this issue because of the pressure they are coming under in their own districts and states. That was quite clear to us when we were there. We were told that the United States would not or could not commit itself to anything. The best that could be done was to get some sort of political agreement about future action. Deputy McManus may correct me if I am wrong but that is my clear recollection. There was no chance of that country signing up and it is extraordinary that it sent its President to Copenhagen. It damaged its image by going to a place where everyone knew it could not sign up because it had no authority to do so.
There is only one chance the United States will begin the process and it is in this regard I hope the President will show some leadership. While we were in Washington we were told that if Congress refused to pass legislation the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in the United States had extraordinary powers and could take action, irrespective of the view of Congress. This is because of existing legislation. If there is to be any indication from the United States that it is serious about this issue the President should take action now, under that legislation. Steps should be taken. There is no point in the EU becoming the good boys, setting targets and then getting a slap in the face from other major powers when it comes to sitting down to try to find an agreement. In my opinion, we weakened ourselves terribly in all of this.
The other point, whether people like to believe it or not, is that China now practically owns the United States. I am not surprised that there was an agreement between the United States and China. The US owes China $800 billion. All its borrowings now come from China. If we think the United States will cut off the hand that feeds it we have another think coming. That is a reality.
Deputy Coveney's point about causing further damage to European and Irish industry is correct. We cannot enter into agreements unless other people will sign up for them. There are some limited agreements. The Deputy is perfectly right. We would look very foolish imposing obligations on Irish industry, making them totally uncompetitive and putting them out of business. It will not be a question of whatever emissions come from Irish industry. It will not be around to make any emissions because we will put it out of business. Therefore, if there is going to be an agreement people must sign up to it.
We are the last people who should lecture others. Consider what the Minister, Deputy Gormley, had to disclose in his carbon budget. In fairness to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, it is not his responsibility. However, once again we are failing to deal with this issue seriously. In her report on future legislation on climate change Deputy McManus strongly recommended that the Department of the Taoiseach must have overall responsibility for this issue. This committee has adopted that view. All one needs to do is look at the figures in Mr. Brennan's report which were contained in the Minister's statement to the Dáil on carbon budget day. There are figures for energy, based on 1990 and 2008 data, representing an increase of 29%. The figure for agriculture is -7.8% but we were informed these were the people causing the major headache in this country. The figure for waste is -15% but this sector was supposed to be a significant issue for us. The residential figure is 0.2% and we are spending a good deal of time, rightly, encouraging people to save energy in their homes. However, the reality is that from 1980 to 2008 the increase was only 0.2% compared to an increase of 176% in transport. How many times has the question been asked in this committee about the direction given to those who run public transport here? Has anyone alerted CIE that it has a target of producing buses powered by renewable energy and that any future purchases must be X, Y or Z? Has anyone suggested CIE should do something about future purchases in terms of our train system or any form of public transport? The answer is "No". We have produced a report on electric cars. As Deputy Coveney stated in his report, we have very limited ambition in terms of our targets for electric vehicles. The real problems are in transport with 176%, energy with 29% and industry and services with an increase of 19%.
We could resolve this problem between transport and energy without any great imposition on industry or the public. We are blue in the face from attempting to pass legislation to help the wind industry but we have not been successful, despite the fact that we produced our own legislation. There has been a good deal of talk but no great development in terms of offshore power being developed here. There is a lack of legislation and regulation but we are supposed to be at the forefront and we maintain we will lead the way. We are not leading the way. We are miserable. We are way behind in transport and energy. It is about time this committee drew it to the attention of the public and that we invited the Minister for Transport to the committee to find out exactly what he intends to do with these ferocious figures staring us in the face.
There is no point producing a carbon budget and imposing carbon taxes on people if these figures are increasing consistently. It is only an excuse for more taxation and it will not achieve what it is supposed to achieve. Likewise in the case of energy, where are the necessary changes to develop alternative sources of energy? These are simple questions that we should put and that should be asked of the Government. I do not mean to be party political when I say as much, but changes must be made and someone must take charge of this. I seek the agreement of the committee to call on the Minister of Transport to explain the 176% increase and what he intends to do about it. Likewise with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, we should ask it by way of correspondence if it could explain what steps it is taking to deal with the 29% increase contained in the figures supplied to us in the carbon budget before the Minister or officials appear next before the committee. I call on Members to address themselves to these main issues before we proceed any further.
I will comment briefly as the debate on the fact that our airports are all shut down is about to start and I intend to speak on it. I refer to some of the Chairman's comments. Often, people refer to the domestic political problems that President Obama has in the USA in terms of the limits of what he can say on climate change. However, every country has domestic political problems. It so happens that everyone knows the issue regarding the US Senate and Congress. However, one can be absolutely sure that such countries as India, South Africa or Brazil have domestic problems as well in terms of their presidents or prime ministers signing up to tough targets on climate change. Everyone seems to make an exception for the USA if its Administration cannot get legislation through the Senate. Since it is trying to pass a Bill at the moment the attitude seems to be that we should not rock that boat. Essentially, this amounts to saying the US Senate and Congress make decisions on a global basis because if they cannot agree on the matter then no one can. I understand how politics works in the USA, as do others here. I understand the structures in place and the limitations of the presidency, but the job of Europe was to ratchet up the pressure to try to extract the best possible deal from the USA and it failed utterly to do so.
I realise I sound very negative in respect of Copenhagen and I am in terms of the outcome, because the only way to judge an event such as Copenhagen is in terms of the outcome. One may go to climate change conferences throughout the world, learn a great deal, hear fascinating presentations and lectures and take a good deal from them and be impressed by the commitment to the climate change cause of NGOs and certain elected people. Such people were in Copenhagen which was great, but Copenhagen was about an outcome. Agreement at Copenhagen was what the meeting in Bali was building towards and what all the preparatory meetings were building towards but the conference did not secure that outcome. Now, there is great uncertainty about the meeting in Mexico. I suspect there will not be the same level of interest in Mexico as in Copenhagen and there will not be as many Heads of State in attendance or willing to put their heads on the block in the expectation that a deal may be possible, as was the case in Copenhagen. We must wait to see what happens but much work needs to be done to generate momentum again and this is of concern.
I refer to what we must do domestically and the points about the carbon budget and so on. There was a rather adversarial debate on the carbon budget in the Dáil, some of which did not do us credit as legislators but some of which made sense. I refer to the matter of public transport. One thing members of the committee should consider — I will leave it to people to reflect on — is producing a Bill that sets a target or limitation on the public transport sector in Ireland, such that by a certain time we would require the public sector transport fleet that is buses and trains, to phase out emitting fuels and phase in a more sustainable way of driving transport. During the conference in Copenhagen, we stayed in Malmö. All the buses in Malmö are driven on gas, which is normal there. Let us consider Hong Kong, where all taxis are driven using LPG, liquid petroleum gas, because the Minister responsible simply decided that was the way it would be and those involved had to get on with it.
We should begin to take such an attitude in Ireland rather than deciding whether there should be a 5% or 7% bio-fuel mix for biodiesel or a similar mix of ethanol with petrol. Perhaps we should try to move the debate on by pushing our Bill which could suggest that by the end of 2013 all new buses entering the fleets of Bus Átha Cliath or Bus Éireann would be required to be carbon neutral in terms of their emissions and force the Minister to reject it. I have almost given up on making the case in this debate.
The matter of electric cars is somewhat different because there are various problems with introducing electric cars. Certain infrastructure is required. A genuine argument can be made about the pace at which that can be done.
In terms of buses and rail, there is no excuse for not making progress on that. One of the advantages of being a small country is that change can be made quickly. If we give a two year lead in period to Dublin Bus or to Bus Éireann there is no reason every bus cannot be driven on gas or electricity. It would be useful for us to draft legislation that we could confront the Minister with because that is the only way we will get him to give serious consideration to it. Otherwise, we will get pawned off.
We might ask Mr. Taylor to examine what is reasonable and practical. He might do a short report for us and then we could proceed, if necessary, with our own legislation.
Yes.
Before I allow Deputy McManus to come in I want to be clear on what I said about the President of the United States. He has power. He can use it under the Environmental Protection Agency Act but it was wrong for the United States to pretend it would enter into an agreement when we were told the Senate would not have the legislation passed and, having passed the legislation, it would have to bring together the legislation from the House of Representatives and the legislation from the Senate and try to get common agreement. We were talking about something being brought forward down the line. My criticism was that we were hyping this issue to the point where there was a possibility of a world agreement when it was obvious that was not the case. People are now deflated as a result of the failure to come to any sort of reasonable agreement.
In regard to the United States, to be fair, and the Chairman has pointed out the system, it is a peculiarly democratic system. A president cannot move ahead, and we learned that from previous experience. That is a real issue. If one were the Chinese leader, however, one could probably make all sorts of commitments without having the same kind of problems back home.
And if anyone questioned him or her they would be in the equivalent of a Gulag very quickly.
That is a fact of life but at the same time we must learn how to do this better. The example I refer back to in my head is Northern Ireland because the prize was so enormous we could not say this would not work. We had to keep working and have the patience and the endurance to get to the point. The same principle applies with climate change. There is an inevitability about it in that we cannot afford to fail but in terms of how it is done, the key is preparation to ensure we will attract world leaders on the next occasion because all of the work will be done and they will be there for the photo opportunity. That would be the purpose. I do not know if that is possible but the work that will be done is what is most important.
Regarding the carbon budget, when one looks at the figures, and I am pinpointing transport, it confirms the importance of having climate change legislation along the lines we have agreed because even if he were Superman, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government could not dictate to the Minister for Transport and yet transport is where the problem lies. The idea of preparing legislation is a good one but it must fit within the structure we have set out, pinpointing how it would be done.
It raises a point about the carbon budget. The carbon budget is a budget about carbon. What the Minister is doing is reporting, mostly on what has already happened or not happened. It is a report. It is useful and worth debating but it is not a budgeting process in which he engages. A budget must be about agreements being struck at Cabinet level as to the percentage reduction this or that Department must take and be responsible for. It is about carbon and the amounts involved. It is literally down to that kind of process, and we must challenge that idea.
In his framework document the Minister states the reporting system will be enshrined in law. Good for him, but that is not a carbon budget and we must be clear about that. I will come back with the report and elaborate on that but it is a point we must make now to set our heads in the right direction in terms of what we mean when we talk about a carbon budget because the term has been used in ways that are not accurate. A budget is about finance and tax. A carbon budget is about the allocation of carbon, and how it is managed to the best effect is from the top down, with independent scrutiny.
The figures are useful, not so much in terms of the carbon budget but from the point of view of where the problems arise. In terms of what we do from here on, we cannot use the fact that an agreement was not reached in Copenhagen as an excuse to do nothing and wait for a new agreement. There is a great deal we can do, and the figures are useful in the context of what we have to address, bearing in mind that we cannot become anti-competitive, as was said. We have had presentations from many people with different ideas and technologies. If the price of oil doubled in the morning they would all become viable. Many of them are probably not viable at the moment with the cost structure but if the carbon budget was to achieve anything it could be to have a carrot and stick approach to making these technologies more usable and viable by creating a critical mass, which is part of it. We should examine that.
Mention was made of clearing the decks of any impediments such as the legislation that would allow us to proceed. We are at the forefront in that we have the natural resources in many areas yet we are not proceeding and we are not getting down there and helping them. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment could be involved in this, along with everybody else. We should regard this as an opportunity because the more carbon neutral Scandinavian countries and others which have been at the forefront in terms of renewable energy have not waited for the rest of Europe or the world to come on board with an agreement. They have done it themselves, and they continue to do it because that is their mindset. That is what we must do. If we are to learn anything from here it is that we cannot use the excuse that we must wait until the next conference in Mexico. That will not achieve anything. George W. Bush did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol but when he went back to the United States he lowered the emissions' threshold and everybody had to change their cars. He probably achieved more than if he had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, although he did it another way. The incumbent should do the same. We cannot say we have to wait. We are not a player either way other than by influence. We are not a player in terms of global carbon greenhouse gas emissions. We should be honest about that. We will not make a difference one way or the other but if we do it we can say this is how it should be done. In that way we might be able to turn it into a resource, which we have continuously said here.
If we never had a climate change problem in this country but were serious about developing our natural resources we could solve many problems in a very short period. That is what we have put forward in this committee since it was established. In dealing with the energy issue — energy 29%, transport 129% — if we have alternative sources of energy, both those problems disappear. In addition, there are over 420,000 people unemployed. I have said all along that if we develop wind power both offshore and onshore we can become an exporter of power. We will become self-sufficient and be the Dubai or Abu Dhabi of energy in Europe. We are dragging our heels and talking about such developments but we have not put a measure in place to drive forward the potential that exists for the development of our natural resources. As I said to somebody recently, if somebody reported tomorrow morning that oil was discovered in Meath or Wicklow, there would be a rush to develop oil wells and pump that oil supply. However, we have the natural resources of wind and wave energy and we have sat back from developing them and do not even have proper legislation to deal with them. Representatives who attended a meeting spoke about geothermal energy. We do not even have a licensing regime in place and we do not know what we have to do to develop that industry.
It is a question of the mindset of people. As was rightly said, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should co-operate and encourage inward investment. We are sending possible investors to other countries to develop such resources. That is the reality of what is happening and it is a terrible shame.
Rather than building any more major motorways, we should be ploughing resources into developing the major grid. If we have scarce resources, that is where the potential for development and job creation lies. We would meet any target if we addressed this energy problem. It is all driven by transport and energy requirements. We import over 90% of our fossil fuel. Such imports could be replaced, saving €6.5 billion per year. Public transport vehicles could be fuelled by renewable energy. All we can do is our best.
We will return to both these issues at our next meeting. The initial discussion we had was well worth while. I thank the members for their input.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 February 2010.