Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I wish to share time with Deputies Ferris and Cowley.

Energy is moving up the political agenda because we face two fundamental, long-term challenges, the first of which is the imminent peak in global oil production. This does not mean we will run out of oil but that after that date we will see an inexorable decline in the availability of cheap oil each year of 2% to 2.5%. Oil which has fuelled our economy in the past 150 years will become more scarce and more expensive. Ireland which derives 60% of energy from oil is utterly exposed and will have to seek alternative sources of energy to run cars, heat homes and provide food because of the role oil plays in fertiliser and pesticide production.

We also face a second, starker, more urgent challenge, namely, the consequences of having burned fossil fuels in the past 150 years. This is pushing our planet into potentially catastrophic climate change. We must urgently reduce emissions by at least two thirds if we are not to see feedback mechanisms remove this matter from our hands. The melting of the Siberian tundra, methane release and the melting of the Arctic ice cap, leading to greater heat being absorbed, could lead to this. I will not deal with the science of climate change, as I know the Minister is aware of the significance of the issue. Coincidentally, both it and the imminent peak in global oil production, although from different directions, require a similar outcome about which we can be clear today. Whenever the peak occurs in global oil production, we know that the days of easy, accessible and cheap oil will be over by 2050. Likewise, we know that we do not need to wait for international agreements to be worked out to realise that the correct and moral thing to do in addressing climate change is to reduce our emissions by at least 60% of 1990 levels by approximately 2050. Therefore, the task ahead of us is very clear. An energy policy must be honest with the people and set such long-term targets. There should be an annual, rather than a five-year, review of whether we are following the incremental path we need to take to achieve the two long-term targets mentioned. If not, the Minister for Finance should be compelled to adjust budgetary policy, the Minister for Transport should be compelled to adjust transport policy and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be compelled to adjust housing policy to ensure we move towards the proper path.

I regret that this energy paper did not seek the opportunity, as other countries have done in theirs, to set proper long-term targets. This country has done so before. In the 1950s it transformed itself from a closed to an open economy. It took 40 years for this to bear fruit in terms of the current economic boom but this was the long-term thinking which T. K. Whitaker and Seán Lemass brought to this House and it worked. We need something similar now in energy because we cannot delay. In that regard, this paper represents a failed opportunity.

Where the Green Paper sets targets in electricity generation, the question of whether it is being too ambitious is a matter for debate, whatever about setting a target figure of 30% for renewables by 2020. If one examines what is happening, the reality is that in the next four or five years we will build at least three gas-fired power stations which will increase our emissions and make us more dependent on security of supply of a distant, volatile and expensive fuel source. The current cost is 8.6 cents per kilowatt hour. In the three areas the Minister set out in terms of energy policy, security of supply, price and environmental considerations, the reality is that in the next four years twice as much electricity will be produced with fossil fuels.

I agree with the proposal as set out in the Deloitte & Touche report and, I understand, by the Government, that the issue of ESB dominance should be handled by the allocation of certain land banks to alternative players in the market. I agree with the report that we must go further. One cannot cherrypick from its recommendations. I am not in favour of the atomisation or fragmentation of the ESB, as some have proposed, in terms of the division of its generation and supply businesses. However, I see no reason the assets of the transmission and distribution networks should not be held in State hands in a company separate from the ESB. The perception of dominance and high prices will remain as long as this recommendation is not implemented.

The Minister asked about infrastructure in terms of the funding arrangements we should have under the national development plan. We have been examining this matter for three or four years. However, I am far more interested in finding out when the Minister plans to make the decision and proceed with building the interconnectors. Funding is not the fundamental issue. The question of how they will be funded has not been worked out in the last three or four years. I put it down to approximately 14 letters — SEI, CER, DCMNR, ESB. This matter has been characterised by lethargy. The bureaucratic institutions responsible for energy matters have been unable to make a decision. Political leadership is now required to highlight the urgent need to make changes and to ensure infrastructure is delivered quickly.

The Green Homes scheme is welcome but a drop in the ocean. Why does the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government not set proper building regulations standards tomorrow in order that houses of the future, including the 100,000 or so that will be built this year, will be energy-efficient? The second and possibly larger issue is what mechanisms are we devising to promote the insulation of existing homes and the development of renewable technologies. Unfortunately, urgency is missing in an area which crucially accounts for one third of energy usage.

Another hugely important area is transport. I again lament the fact that it is not sufficiently addressed in this energy paper. Our level of oil use is running away from us. This requires an urgent reappraisal of our transport plans. The roads programme makes no sense when one looks at the framework for 2050 and the fact that oil and petrol for cars will no longer be available. This self-evident truth requires a change in government thinking which is not occurring.

I have two final words of warning. While I support the development of biofuels as a strategic energy reserve for security of supply reasons, we must be careful in respect of the emissions reductions which will result from the use of such fuels. Fundamentally, we need a change in planning systems to recognise the future we are facing. The sprawl in development which will lock people into energy-inefficient lifestyles cannot continue. It is the lack of a broad vision and purpose in this energy paper that is disappointing and which needs to be changed if we are to properly address the long-term energy issues we face.

See this speech in context