Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

Yes, I believe that is required. We accept the finite nature of fossil fuels. We also accept that the cost of oil is increasing by the hour and the day. We are very conscious of that. Hence, Fine Gael produced the NewERA strategy which proposes developing a reliance on green wind and wave energy. We also believe there must be a national insulation strategy and a conservation strategy. That demonstrates our good faith. I again say to the Minister of State that the EU target of 20% would be a sensible starting point until we get the other bricks in order.

This is not party political. I accept the Minister of State's point that this is about the very survival of our humanity and our ecosystem. As such, it is not a civil war party political issue in any sense. Senator Coffey's fundamental point is that it should be the subject of all-party consensus and that our strategy should evolve from the all-party committee. This would represent a reform of the House. There is no better vehicle for Dáil reform than to make it decide on this and make it evolve a strategy. The all-party committee is the best option. It is a pity that for party political reasons, this is happening now with that process. It might be better for the Minister of State to come in here and say that he has aspirations but that they must be subject to consensus among all the parties. That could resonate better with the public, which is much more discerning than we might believe in this ivory tower.

Teagasc states that to achieve the objectives of this Bill, there would have to be a 40% reduction in the national herd. That is in conflict with the Food Harvest 2020 proposals. They are not compatible and we cannot avoid that fact. It will involve a massive reduction in agricultural production. It is accepted that agriculture and tourism are the two vehicles that will bring about economic recovery. There is a €600 million implication according to figures by Teagasc, the IFA and the ICMSA. The independence of Teagasc in this area is accepted, as are the bona fides of the two farming organisations. They are there to represent their sector in a positive way, and they have to worry about the survival of the planet as well. There is a €600 million implication in a 40% reduction in the national herd.

The IFA has stated that carbon offsets should be agreed for bio-energy production. We had many great debates on bio-energy in this House over the last few months, for some of which the Minister of State was present. Senator Bradford and I put forward a number of good amendments in this sector. Bio-energy should be used for grass production and forestry. If we displace Irish agriculture as an exporter of food, the people in the UK and Europe will be fed by food from third countries where the carbon footprint will be much greater due to the journey taken by the food and due to the method of its production. In other words, we will achieve nothing. We have the best environmental conditions in the world for producing our Irish food. If the Government displaces that and brings in food from outside, it will create a greater carbon footprint and will defeat its objective. That cannot be avoided in this debate.