Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this Bill, as it comes within the general remit of my own area of responsibility. The concept of carbon trading is highly questionable. The Minister does not agree with this but I strongly contest the view that it improves the lot of poor countries and allows developing countries to press ahead. It does not confront the issue that needs to be confronted, reducing the amount of carbon that we disperse into the atmosphere, and getting to grips with global warming. If scientists say vociferously that we have serious problems it is imperative that we act to address those problems. Failure to do so is negligent. Putting off until tomorrow what can be done today is not the way to go about this. I accept there is no single way to address this situation adequately. The Minister cannot come up with one suggestion that will totally solve the problem. The energy area requires various contributions, producing bio-fuels, generating alternative electricity methods and so on. The easy way out if there is sufficient funding is to buy credits but that does nothing for this country's carbon footprint.

An amazing theory is beginning to develop. We have scrapped our sugar beet industry, although the industry has not been completely scrapped in the United Kingdom or France, both of which are also in the European Union. This leaves an opening for ethanol production but this is banned under the agreement in the CAP reform. I cannot understand the logic behind the notion that it will be more efficient and effective to import our ethanol from Brazil, Argentina, Australia or elsewhere. That is rubbish. Obviously it would be far better to grow the fuel and trap the carbon at home, and then release into the atmosphere a carbon neutral product. That is not being proposed. The current proposal is that we should engage in a new atrocity whereby we import it from countries which, it is alleged, are better suited in terms of sunshine and the length of the growing season, transport it by air or sea to this country and then burn it. That is daft and illogical. It is obviously better, and will contribute to achieving our obligations under Kyoto, to grow and burn the product at home, rather than growing it elsewhere, bringing it to this country and doing nothing about our carbon footprint.

There are plenty of experts on this issue, all of whom point out the dangers and problems, and their magnitude. Few of them, however, come forward with precise answers to address the problems. We must first address the question of the so-called carbon footprint. That is easily done but if we do not do it in our home country, we are not fulfilling our obligations. All we are doing is divesting ourselves of responsibility and telling other countries that, since they have not used the same amount of fuels and not produced the same amount of greenhouse gases, we will trade with them and both countries can continue as they were. That does not address the issue.

It also does not address the issue of import substitution, which is particularly important. Security of supply is vital. We are well aware that energy imports into this country are subject to fluctuations in world markets and to the political attitudes that prevail throughout the world from time to time. These can change dramatically. Obviously it is important that we think in economic terms with regard to production of the fuel and to fuel substitution. We will not solve the entire problem in one fashion or another, but by developing various means of substituting our current fuel import levels, thereby creating security of supply and economic independence, which is vital.

The debate we have heard over the past year or 18 months has been well intentioned in some cases but, in other cases, the Government has responded in a panic-stricken fashion. It has grabbed at every straw, and suggested ways and means out of the situation which merely reflect poorly on the Government's inaction over the past five years. If we had reacted five years ago it would have been much easier to put in place the measures that would bring us into line with Kyoto requirements. Targets were set ten years ago and we failed to reach them. Now we are going off on a tangent and buying what we can when we have the money to buy it. However, if this economy and the world economy take a downturn, this flash buying and the big talk about the millions we will spend on carbon trading and so forth will quickly fade.

It would be good policy on the part of the Minister to follow Fine Gael's policy, which was the first policy enunciated. It was put down on paper at least a year before the European Commission's and the Government's proposals. We probably did the right thing because it gave the Government time to read, digest and copy it. Fortunately, the Government copied most of it. I well understand why. The main reason is that the policy is realistic, futuristic, progressive and attainable. In addition, the Government had not exactly broken the sound barrier in preparing its plan so our policy was a welcome sight. The Government grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle was as surprised as I was because usually the Government is hugely independent of the Opposition and slow to copy it. However, I welcome this change. We are obviously succeeding when others wish to emulate us.

There is also the issue of joined-up government thinking, which means getting the various relevant Departments involved. I welcome the proposal from the Minister for Finance regarding the abolition of excise duty on specific amounts of home produced plant energy. However, there is considerable room for improvement. It is possible to double the target without difficulty, and that supply target will be met. Every litre and gallon produced locally serves the ends I referred to earlier.

One of the arguments put forward in favour of importing bio-fuels is that the amount of transport required here in the creation and distribution of the bio-fuel would negate the purpose of the exercise. Carbons would get into the atmosphere as a result of the transportation of the fuel throughout the country. How is it intended to distribute the imported fuels throughout the country? Will they be blown or flown across the country? Will they be distributed by balloon? Is there some other means of transportation for the distribution of such fuels that I have not yet espied? I should have made that point earlier in my contribution. I cannot believe that argument.

However, that argument has another agenda. Every issue nowadays is surrounded by agendas. The agenda in this case is getting more interesting as time goes by. The Government has allowed the situation to get so bad that something must be done in a hurry. The Government failed to recognise the problem and take action in time. It now believes the only action to be taken is the fire brigade one of indulging in carbon trading. This will get us over an emergency but the Government could have done many other things a great deal sooner, which would have been far more effective. It would not then have been obliged to engage in carbon trading. The Minister for Finance could have kept the money and not made provision for carbon trading if the Government had done its job properly.

See this speech in context