Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is all meant in the best spirit of differing views but it is awkward that in this analysis the IEA should keep open aspects of oil and gas production. Mr. Gould mentioned offshore oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and there have been massive finds in Brazil but we have gone out 135 times and have found only trace elements of oil but nothing commercial. Even the gas we are likely to find is a long distance out and will never come ashore in an Irish pipeline. It would probably shipped to a terminal somewhere else. There is no reason to think that would give us security. I am uncomfortable that the IEA is pushing the idea that we must keep the oil and gas open.

Mr. Gould is right that it is a huge challenge which will involve a massive concentration on efficiency more than anything else, including biomethane and carbon storage. I am certain, however, that if he was betting his family's inheritance and was investing the $7 trillion in either offshore wind in Ireland or offshore oil and gas, I know which one he would choose. I cannot believe that anyone would advise the State that oil and gas would be the right investment. That is partly because we are in such trouble on climate action and have such emissions from agriculture it will be difficult and we have other inbuilt difficulties in transport. Energy is one of the areas where we could make the leap. While the defence of the need for oil and gas exploration may apply in a global context, it could not be justified for ongoing investment in an Irish context. We were recently rated the second worst in Europe on climate action. Last year Germanwatch and Climate Action Network rated us as 49th in the scale. We could respond to the global divestment movement, which has made a significant positive contribution to the climate debate to say, like the French, we will not go offshore. No one will discover anything commercial in Irish waters for under $100 dollars a barrel. We will not go over $100 dollars a barrel again. We will kill oil by making it too cheap to deliver. The scary part of the presentation is the analysis that shale oil can be produced at less than $40 a barrel. How do we get oil below $40 a barrel to kill it?

Mr. Gould said we help the Chinese but the Chinese could help us when it comes to this transition because they are electrifying transport. While we are good on grid integration in this country, what I hear from the Chinese is spectacular. I am slightly nervous about an organisation with such a large American representation because I regret that America and Britain are increasingly economic nationalist outliers. As a progressive European country we want to be a leader in renewables and efficiency and take what the Chinese are learning to help us here rather than us telling them what to do, particularly if the view is that oil and gas are the future with a $7 trillion investment. That is not what we need.

Investment is required in this massive revolutionary need. The International Energy Agency, IEA, should be leading this rather than defending the oil and gas industries in the way I have heard today.