Professor John FitzGerald:

The note the Deputy mentioned was a piece of evidence we considered. However, we also considered a wide range of other evidence. There are two particular issues. The first is how to get to zero net emissions by 2050. The work done by University College Cork, UCC, suggests that, given known technology, the only way we will get there by 2050 is if we balance a very large amount of wind and solar with gas-fired generation incorporating carbon capture and storage so that there will be no emissions from the use of gas. We need some kind of technology. Technological developments may give rise to alternatives, but not at the moment. Gas will be needed beyond 2050. The UCC study is not unique. Our sister organisation in the United Kingdom, the Committee on Climate Change, which has more resources and is much further advanced than we are, has identified the same issue in the context of how to address the intermittent availability of renewable sources of energy. Said intermittent availability means that we need gas. To meet the 2050 target, we have an urgent task to turn transport around . We are concerned that the target set may not be achievable unless there is a dramatic change in policy on electric cars. The technology is not yet available for electric heavy goods vehicles. However, the move to compressed natural gas will substantially reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide from heavy goods vehicles and will greatly reduce emissions in urban areas which are damaging to health. Gas will be needed. That is the first set of evidence. We have considered evidence from UCC, the UK Committee on Climate Change and work done elsewhere in Europe on that.

The second set of evidence relates to a series of papers dating back over a number of years. We did not do a note on this. I authored the 2015 paper and it was published by the ESRI. The paper was commissioned by the Department of Finance a year and a half before Brexit and it related to the implications of the latter for Ireland. The ESRI published a series of papers in November 2015, including one by me on the implications for energy. It is the last of a string of papers by the ESRI over 15 years on the security of the Irish energy system. The concern has been that if the gas disappeared tomorrow, the lights would go off and we would be left to freeze. We doubled the capacity of the gas interconnector between Ireland and Scotland. We then paid for a doubling of the onshore gas pipeline in Scotland to protect ourselves. However, the advent of Brexit raises an issue. If, for example, there was a major interruption in the gas supply in Austria, which would affect all of Europe, under EU law, if there is a shortage of gas, member states must share it. However, the UK leaving the EU will mean that there is a state between us and the EU. I am old enough to remember the Suez crisis when they kept the oil for themselves when there was a shortage and the same applied during the Second World War. If there was an interruption or a shortage of supply in Europe, we could be cut off as a result. That would leave us , which leaves us insecure. Last week, National Grid published a paper voicing concern about the security of supply in Britain because if there was a shortage in the rest of Europe, it could be cut off. Under EU law, it is protected but that will no longer be the case.

Security of supply is not just an issue for Ireland. How should we deal with that matter? Previously, we doubled the pipeline. While the Corrib Field will remain in operation for the next decade, we have an alternative supply. We might not have it for heating, but would have it for net essential electricity if it was cut off. What do we do when the Corrib runs out? We could have an LNG terminal somewhere and bring in LNG or if we discovered gas, it would be of value in terms of security of supply. It seemed to us that there is little benefit to Ireland in drilling for oil. With gas, there is a potential benefit from the perspective of security of supply. Irrespective of what we do, it will make no difference to Ireland's emissions, which is our primary remit. I have a concern in the context of spending too much time on this issue, which will not affect our emissions. It is a distraction. We are far behind and we need to make big efforts. Devoting considerable time to this issue will make no difference to our emissions. We have answered the question and I have given the committee the evidence on which our decision was based.