Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make a couple of things plain. I opposed the Deputy's Bill and remain totally opposed to it for a number of reasons which I want to put on the record and I do not believe that in doing so that I am insulting the environmental movement, the children's initiative or anything of that kind. I think I am looking after those children and their interests in the long term. The simple fact, as the Minister of State has stated again and again, and which Deputy Bríd Smith continues to ignore, is that this country is going to remain partially dependent on fossil fuels, or their equivalent, until 2050 at any rate. We are not going to be able to move 100% to renewables and we are not going to achieve absolute carbon neutral energy production for 30 years from now.

The question, which the Minister of State put, is very succinct and it is about where our fossil fuel energy will come from and not whether we are going to use it. Let us look at the energy requirements of our changing society. We have a growing population and an increased dependence on electricity. Electricity can only be generated by renewable sources, such as solar, wind or biofuels of some kind, or, alternatively, by fossil fuels to some extent or by atomic energy. We cannot produce electricity other than by those means.

The next point we have to face up to honestly - Deputy Bríd Smith constantly refers to the need to be honest - is that if, as the Minister of State's figures prove, western Europe is going to be hugely dependent on imported gas over the next 20 to 30 years, we have to remember that in the event of any major disruption to that supply of fuels from eastern Europe, the Middle East or Russia in particular, we would be the first to suffer, because we are one of the weakest and most peripheral economies. We would be the people to whom gas rationing would be applied in a way least favourable to ourselves, if there was a question of a threat to the gas supply to German, British, French or the lowlands industry.

Let us be honest. We are closing down Moneypoint in five years' time and we are going to need back-up gas electricity generation capacity for the next 20 years, no matter what way anybody in this room wishes it to be. The only issue is whether we should say we are going to stop all oil exploration and extraction in Irish waters as a matter of principle, and import everything from somewhere else in the world. It is not a question of saying that we are going to abandon fossil fuels.

Nor does Deputy Bríd Smith's Bill take into account that in the transformation from fossil fuels to other forms of energy, renewables in particular, the taxation policies of the State will be crucial, whether they are carbon taxes or excise duties. They are the economic lever whereby we make some forms of energy generation more economical and others less so in accordance with the public good. I have asked successive delegates before the committee about things like the data centres that are being built which have the potential to increase the demand for electricity by one third at a time when there is supposed to be a climate emergency. I have never received satisfactory answers. To me, it is very simple. We should be utterly honest. We cannot give up the consumption of fossil fuels unilaterally or in the short to medium term. If that is the case, we have a simple choice to make. Will we rely on the goodwill of others if there is a gas shortage in ten, 15 or 20 years, or do we use whatever resources nature has made available to us to avoid that risk? That is the only issue. To portray it as a capitulation to multinationals is wrong.

I want to talk about the legal implications. Under the Constitution property rights are always subject to the common good. Therefore, Deputy Bríd Smith is right in one respect. If it were the case that there was a climate emergency and it was necessary to abrogate the rights of drillers, developers, explorers and licensees, we could do it if it was done in the interests of the common good. It would just be too bad for the people who would suffer economically as a consequence. Property rights are not sacrosanct.

On the money message, I have seen in respect of Palestine and the Occupied Territories the invocation by the Government of the money message method as a way of denying passage to that Bill. I am strongly of the view that it is legally incorrect. It involves a misunderstanding of Dáil Standing Order 179(2). It also involves a misunderstanding of the relationship between Articles 15 and 17 of the Constitution. If the Government can actually point to Deputy Bríd Smith's Bill as having the incidental effect of requiring public funds to be appropriated for a particular purpose, the money message is correct. If it cannot establish this, that it is tax forgone or something like that is not correct.

If we are being honest and non-ideological about this, the State needs to keep its energy options open and should not put itself in a position where if Vladimir Putin was to turn off the taps and there was a crisis in the Middle East, we would have no means whatsoever of sustaining the economy that increasingly will be dependent on electricity. If we are to have electric cars, somebody will have to generate the electricity. If we are to have an electronic, service economy based on the Internet and the like, it will all require electricity. If we are to ban back boilers, solid fuel and all of those things, the country will demand more and more electricity. If we are to have data centres, they will demand even more. The Bill amounts to a gesture. I accept what the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, has said about it being well intentioned. However, it involves the serious risk that other countries would, in the event that there is a gas energy crisis in Europe, put us in the position where we would have to beg for our existence on a network of international pipelines. I agree with the Minister of State. I cannot for the life of me see that this is not about the amount of gas used in Ireland. The relative price of renewable and non-renewable energy can be determined by Government policy, including carbon taxes and the like. We are dealing with a simple question about whether we should expose ourselves to a massive crisis which could destroy the country economically simply on a point of principle and in furtherance of a gesture. Does the Minister of State agree with the points I am making?