Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am afraid I must tell Mr. Dennehy and Mr. P.J. McCarthy that in my reading of it the best scientific advice runs counter to everything they have said today. I refer them to the three reports published recently for the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, on the bioenergy supply curve for Ireland for 2015 to 2030 published in 2016; the costs and benefits of biogas and biomethane in Ireland published in 2017; and the sustainability criteria options and impacts of Irish bioenergy resources published this year. The best independent scientific advice makes it clear that the costs of using agricultural feedstock is, at best, marginal. Perhaps we should look at and refer to the German example. Germany has been way ahead of us on this with massive investment. It has stopped that process. Due to the environmental problems associated with growing maize for biomethane instead of for feedstock Germany stopped doing it. I believe the same thing would happen here. The reports also state that if we are going to use the gas, it only makes economic sense to do so if it is used on the farm on site rather than in industrial food production facilities. That is when it starts to make economic sense.

The reports also state that if we are going to do it then grass silage amounts should be no more than approximately 20% or 25%. Waste materials are what works. If we used a higher proportion than 20% to 25% of grass silage there would be net negative climate emissions because we would be engaged in a gas production system. It would be a continuation of what we are using with high levels of artificial fertiliser and the effects of ammonia and nitrous oxide as well as other environmental effects. We have destroyed our land with this industrial farming system and we do not need to make the process worse.

The reports also state that slurry is not available. They completely differ from what the witnesses have just said. The Northern Ireland route is the subject of utter scandal and corruption with regard to the renewable heat incentive scheme. Anaerobic digesters are similar to the renewable heat incentive scheme in the way it has led to a massive increase in industrial agricultural production systems where animals are kept indoors and there is a huge expansion in slurry with huge consequences and environmental consequences. If we want to go down that route for Irish agriculture we might just about have enough slurry but that is not the way we want to go. We want to keep our animals out.

We do not want to go to intensive industrial agriculture. We want to be origin brand green and not have an industrial agriculture model. To do all of this to create an artificial baby milk powder that we ship halfway around the world to replace breastmilk, which is the more natural healthy and genuinely low-carbon and sustainable product, just leads to the entire system from tail to end probably being one of the least sustainable things we do. We need to be honest and clear with Irish farmers and not send them down the garden path towards a system that will be pulled back because it is not sustainable. How do the witnesses answer these accusations? They are based on my reading of the best scientific research.