Mr. Barry O'Flynn:

The Deputy has referred to the differing views the committee has received to date. We are very much involved with the private sector in the context of helping it to grow. That is our role as a firm. We would very much be in line with what the Irish Corporate Leaders on Climate Change has said in the context of this being a growth opportunity and that it should be viewed in that way. Anything else will actually impede that growth. The challenge globally has been that emissions have been seen as an obligation. That does not incentivise people or give rise to enthusiasm among them. What has changed in recent years, particularly in emerging markets, is that the renewable energy sector has taken off. This is because we need energy and the lights to stay on. It is cheaper than the next best option. Countries such as South Africa, Chile and Brazil which I visited a few weeks ago are not obliged to meet obligations set by Europe or anyone else. They are involved in producing renewable energy at scale because it is in their economic interests to do so. They want to remove the risk of an external shock. Saudi Arabia, an oil exporter, recently announced that it would be producing 56 gigawatts of renewable energy. This is because it does not want to consume all of its own oil, which is what it is doing; rather, it wants to be in a position to export it. Renewable energy just happens to be cheaper than every other option available in the context of keeping the lights on. South Africa is in the same boat.

The end sometimes justifies the means. They all end up reducing emissions. The drivers in this regard are reducing energy costs and increasing energy independence, per se, as opposed to minimising the impact of obligations set by others. This will drive culture, behaviour and capital to move in a different way. That is why it is important to link the proposed Bill with the enterprise and economic development story. If Ireland sets out its stall and states it is going to reduce the €6 billion of energy it imports each year by X% over a period because this will save money and grow the economy as a consequence, it will be in a much stronger position than if it stated it was doing so because Europe had placed an obligation on it. One will possibly be confronted with the same result at the end of the process, but what I am suggesting would involve linking the fundamental driver relating to why we are doing this with real life cash flows and economic development and growth.

On the policy gaps, the challenge - this is not unique to Ireland - is to take a co-ordinated and integrated approach to addressing resource efficiency and decarbonisation. This needs to be incorporated into a long-term plan because the infrastructure in which Ireland invests today is going to be in place for the next 30 years. As a result, there is a need for policy stability during that period. If Ireland were to decide that it was going to have building stock in 2050 that would be as good as it possibly could be from an energy-efficiency perspective, then it would need to put in place the necessary measures in the short term in order to ensure this would happen. One would be obliged to consider whether we had in place rules that would ensure the highest energy-efficiency standards for all future buildings. Public sector building stock is an invaluable catalyst in mobilising private sector innovation and capital. This is building stock which needs to be upgraded and there is a very good economic rationale for upgrading it - the cost in this regard would be lower than the long-term savings - and one has a creditworthy counter-party. This could set the entire supply chain in motion, in Ireland and beyond, in figuring out how the same could be done for the residential and other markets internationally.

On energy security, I am sure many people have different perspectives, but my personal view is that Ireland, as a country and an economy, is massively exposed to outside energy prices over which it has no control. For me, that is a concern. As stated, 90% of our energy is imported. If anything happens to oil and gas prices internationally - be it another Arab Spring or a shock similar to that which occurred in the 1970s - we will be exposed because we are at the end of the pipeline. That alone provides a very strong driver in arriving at the right solution. That ties in very nicely with the 2050 targets. I use Denmark, Israel and South Korea as examples in this regard. All countries are equally exposed and those which become less exposed will be more competitive and, as a result, more attractive in the context of the growth opportunities they have to offer. Turning this into an economic opportunity is the route we must take.