Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy Brassil, who represents the constituency in question. I agree with colleagues that we need to get a departmental overview. Insofar as we can, we must take the heat out of this debate and discuss it on the science of the matter. It would be useful for the Minister to appear in light of these discussions to talk through the matter with the committee.

For me, there are two issues. First, there is the issue of energy security. It is well accepted, based on our decisions to date, that we do not like fracked gas. We have banned it and there is almost unanimous support for that. We recognise there is a problem with fracked gas. From a climate change perspective, we recognise that emissions from fossil fuels are problematic and are causing a very significant change in our climate and that we need to address that. There are targets in place in that regard. I am taken by what Professor McMullin's comment that he would like us to go further than we have agreed or, in meeting the targets to which we have signed up, he would like us to go further than the Government has. We will have to consider that. As we head in that direction, however, we will still need gas. Everybody recognises that. The issue comes down to energy security. We must be satisfied that we will have an appropriate energy mix, involving other sources as well as gas. Even if we stick to our current trajectory and aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, we must consider how the overall importation of gas from the existing interconnectors fits into the overall mix of energy we use. Do we really need an LNG terminal on the west coast, whether it be fracked gas or other gas? Consideration must be given to these issues. The Department could advise us in that regard. I suggest that any analysis be carried out independently.

I attended a briefing of the community in County Kerry. Ms Walsh and several others who are present were also at the meeting. Members are politicians who represent their communities and try to do right by them. We have responsibilities in terms of climate change but we also have responsibilities in respect of the economic security of communities. There is an historic dimension, which must be addressed. I am sure Deputy Brassil will develop that point. People bought into a particular project and, after 15 years of offering it very significant support and investment, they find that there is a very considerable lobby against it. We must try to mollify that situation. I am trying to do so by listening to the various experts.

It is clear that if one were starting today, one would not put an LNG terminal in that location or consider importing fracked gas at all. It is the old story: we are not starting from today. A company is in place, has invested a significant amount of money and has certain permissions and we must address that. We must look at whether it makes sense to continue with that from an energy security point of view. It all ultimately comes down to energy security. I was interested by Dr. Deane's reference to potential insecurity based on a reduction in gas exploration in the North Sea, while recognising there are other interconnectors there. I ask him to comment on that issue with regard to energy security. He seems to have done a considerable amount of work on the matter. I note the Celtic interconnector has received support to take electricity from France and there is potential for more gas to be harvested from the Corrib field without additional infrastructure.

Will Dr. Deane comment on that?