Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Collins stated that we had to keep all available options on the table. I question that. One of the available options - the extraction of fossil fuels - will not help us meet our Paris targets. Unless Mr. Collins refutes the science involved, then it is widely recognised scientifically that 80% of known fossil fuels must stay in the ground. As such, why would we fly in the face of that scientific knowledge by seeking to extract more? The Bill is simple, even though its details might make it look like it is creating complications. Evidence from Mr. Paul Allen, who is sitting close to me, shows that it will be possible to keep the lights on without the use of fossil fuels. Through this Bill, we are trying to tell everyone involved that we need to take decisive action now and not to view this situation as something that we can move towards further down the line.

I am not here to argue that the lights must go out and all activity must stop. It has been admitted that we can rely on the energy from the Corrib field until at least 2030. If we are to extract more fossil fuels, we would be locking ourselves into a fossil-fuelled future for another 20, 30 or 40 years. As we discussed last week, that is the time taken between the licence being issued and the resource being extracted and brought into use. I would like the witnesses to comment on these points.

Does Mr. Scheer understand that many of us are surprised that he is present in opposition to the Bill? The SEAI is the authority for sustainable energy, yet fossil fuel extraction is not sustainable. I assume that he accepts the scientific view that at least 80% should be kept in the ground and, therefore, we should not be seeking to extract more. Has the SEAI's board discussed the Bill and do all of its members agree that the position Mr. Scheer is taking in not supporting the Bill is in line with the SEAI's establishing ethos?

Mr. Scheer might clarify whether he accepts that gas is a continuation of the use of fossil fuels, is not fully clean and is not a bridging fuel. From his comments, I am unclear as to whether he accepts that.

My final questions are for Gas Networks Ireland. Arguing that our supplies are insecure because of Brexit or a reliance on, for example, Russian gas is scaremongering. The International Energy Agency made the same argument, but it used its figures to justify the assertion that the technology for extracting and storing carbon was a solution. It referred to a 50:50 chance of meeting our Paris obligations with that sort of technology.

As we have heard today, however, that technology is not possible yet. We are relying on something being available in the future rather than something that is decidedly an alternative now. Does Gas Networks Ireland accept that, if we found gas in the morning, we would still be locking ourselves into a carbon future, given that it could take up to 40 years for that gas to become usable? We would not necessarily benefit from it either. There are supplies coming in from the Corrib field, but given how the gas regime is structured in this State, there is no obligation on companies to sell it back to us. By the way, they would be selling back at market prices a natural resource that belonged to the Irish people.