Mr. Patrick Swords:

I will start off by talking about CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which is a controversial aspect. It boils down to whether there will be catastrophic or a mild warming. The actual catastrophic outcome exists in the models and nowhere else. As an engineer who works with heat transfer and other things, the idea that we can actually model the earth with any accuracy is appalling - we just cannot do it. We are failing to do so. These models have predicted a temperature rise of 0.2 of a degree in the past ten years and we had a flat. We need to go back and look at these models because if we are facing a mild warming instead of a catastrophic warming, everything is different. Also, we need to know what is the cost. If we are spending €180 to negate a tonne of carbon dioxide whose economic damage is worth less than a euro, that does not make much sense. We have adaptation policies also.

With regard to fuel importing, I would point out that in Saudi Arabia, where I worked and where there are 27 million people, all food is imported apart from a tiny amount. For as long as Saudi Arabia can afford to buy food, there is not really a problem. We export of the order of €150 million worth of farm and life science products and export approximately €150 million worth of other goods, including food and related products; therefore, we have €300 million worth of exports. If we are exporting, can we afford €6 billion worth of fossil fuel? Yes, but we have to look, first, at the competitiveness of that industry. With soaring electricity prices, the American Chamber of Commerce is constantly telling us in budget submissions that its industries are no longer sustainable here. Let us not kill the goose that lays the golden egg. We have ended up with an unhealthy situation involving a single gas pipeline going to Moffat in Scotland and running down to Ireland. There are other gas sources on the market. Great quantities of LNG are coming on stream. The US is looking to be an exporter and Shannon LNG is seeking to go ahead and put gas into the network, so there are other options out there.

Ocean energy is now working out at 22 cent by kW hour. We can generate electricity in conventional plants at about four to five cents per kW hour. Ocean energy is erratic. Wind and wave vary in the same way as on land, and tidal energy does not follow the curve demanded by the consumer; it follows the curve of the moon. It is a huge amount of money to force on people when one does not really know the benefit. What are we actually doing and what are we saving?

On the issue of fracking, whether we do it or not, other people will do it. They have already done it. There are approximately 50,000 wells in the US and it has been a roaring success story for the US. The way I look at it is quite logical, in the sense that I have worked in pollution control for more than 20 years. If significant pollution occurs which is unacceptable then we do not allow it to happen; we shut down that particular industry. If no pollution occurs and if the industry is of benefit to society then, obviously, we let it go. That applies straight across the board for everything.