Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests and will begin with a comment. We have to strike a balance. Effectively, we are close to full employment. A few days ago approximately 800 permits were permitted for non-EU nationals to come to work in Ireland. That is a wonderful development for them and the country. It is part of our responsibilities, as legislators and leaders, to balance the need to have people working and accommodate more people coming into the country with the need to deal with the very real issue of climate change. I am not for one moment suggesting we do not deal with the issue; nor am I disputing the science or the importance of the targets set. However, a balance must be struck in the achievement of those targets in the context of the impact on real people. I know that the classic response is that we will replace the jobs lost with others in the alternative energy sector, but there is a process involved in that regard.

There is no point in members of the committee lauding everything the delegates have said. We must stress-test what has been presented to us as much as we can, even though we may come at it without scientific qualifications. On the presentation made by Trócaire, one of the classic arguments made by people involved in the agriculture sector is that if we curb our levels of food production to minimise transport or methane gas emissions, for example, forests in the developing world which are important in dealing with global warming will have to be cut down to replace the food not produced here. Furthermore, replacement food would have to be imported, which would give rise to huge transport costs and thus increased emissions. How do the delegates respond on the balance that needs to be struck? I note what the representatives of Trócaire have said about the horror of what is happening in the developing world. I am interested in how we can strike a balance in that context.

The community in County Cavan from whence I come has taken to wind energy generation with huge enthusiasm. It is one of the few communities where there has not been a negative reaction to or a popular protest against the development of wind farms. There has been no example of NIMBYism. Ironically, many of the people who engage in NIMBYism would also be among the first to say we need to deal with carbon emissions and the impact of global warming. The reason my community took to wind energy generation so well was the leasing arrangements with the small farmers on whose land the wind turbines were located. The leases are a source of income for them and have made an enormous difference. Community inputs are also important.

The classic argument being made against wind energy generation is that it is inordinately expensive and heavily subsidised. I would like the delegates, specifically those from RECAP, to comment on or refute that argument, if possible. I do not believe it and believe it is important to develop the wind energy sector further.

Microgeneration of wind energy has significant and unexploited potential for individual householders. How can we improve on it? We have underdone the solar energy sector. In what way would the delegates be prescriptive in developing it? How can we increase our use of solar energy, even though it may have limited potential for job creation?