Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I will come to the energy conservation programme, but, first, I want to set out the broad facts of the issue.

The reason scientists set the tipping point at 2° is because going beyond this could induce catastrophic effects which could cause the deaths of millions of people but also because of the danger that going beyond this would cause a runaway catastrophic effect such as the melting of the polar ice-cap or the releasing of methane from frozen tundra in Siberia where the temperature already increases at a multiple of the average global rate. This methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide which is the main climate change gas. The IPCC report stated the summer melt of the ice-caps is occurring at over 10% per decade and the projections of the melt are 30 years ahead of what the models predicted. Other possible local effects are the collapse of the Amazon rain forest and a major release of carbon into the atmosphere. This would cause further runaway climate change.

We must break certain misconceptions of the Irish people such as that this will be an attractive or benevolent prospect for the Irish climate. It may not be felt immediately as harshly here as in other areas of the planet. However, in a country with most of its cities by the sea, such runaway catastrophic change could lead to severe flooding in cities such as Cork, Limerick, Galway and Dublin. This would have major consequences for us as a people.

We must move away from the common response people have when asked about climate change that China and the United States Government are the problem. They ask why should they act when every week a new coal-fired power station is opened in China. This is irresponsible and ignores the global situation we face. The power in China produces the goods we use. As a leading emitter of greenhouse gases we have a responsibility to do our bit. We cannot ignore it ourselves and then state that the Chinese Government must act. While the Chinese and United States governments have crucial roles, if we do not lead they will not take part in the solution.

We must shatter the myth that the science might not be true. People who watched the highly irresponsible and reckless Channel 4 programme, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", immediately thought they could continue as they were and did not have to listen to all the doom and gloom. This was the response I heard when I canvassed prior to the general election. This irresponsible attitude must end. We must be clear and honest with the people that the science is irrefutable and the evidence is certain, and we cannot pretend the science does not hold up.

We cannot tell the people we have an easy technological solution and we will find an easy fix around the corner. No one in the scientific community has shown or believes in an easy fix. It is not for us to hide behind such simple, trite or unfulfilling answers to this problem.

People might consider that the energy security issue undermines the climate change issue, but it does not. It reconfirms the necessity for us to make the urgent switch away from fossil fuels. Ireland is highly exposed with regard to the amount of fossil fuels we use. Approximately 90% of our energy comes from imported fossil fuels. The average in the European Union is64%. Approximately 60% of our energy comes from imported oil. It is increasingly apparent by the day that we can no longer guarantee the easy availability of this oil.

The publication two weeks ago of the International Energy Agency's latest world energy outlook was stark in the language it used. It stated that continuing as we are will lead to an alarming situation. Last week, newspapers reported on comments made by the chief economist of the International Energy Agency on the simple fact that the world, which uses 85 million barrels of oil per day, will need a replacement for 37 million barrels per day in new production during the next six or seven years, one third to cope with increasing demand and two thirds to cope with the depletion already occurring in the existing oil fields.

We obtain the majority of our oil from the North Sea which is depleting by 7% or 8% per annum. According to the most optimistic prognosis whereby all goes well in Iraq, Venezuela plays a willing role and Iran and the United States do not get into a row, 25 million barrels are available from all the oil fields in the world. The International Energy Agency shows that we will have a supply difficulty during the next six or seven years, even with the best case scenario. This is why oil costs $100 per barrel.

Already, a difficulty exists in supplying for demand. As a people, we have to prepare for the geological certainty that supply will decrease and fail to meet rising demand. An interesting study on the peak in global oil production was conducted by the US Department of Energy several years ago involving Bob Hirsch, who also advised us last year. It found that rather than simply running out of oil, there will be a peak point, after which availability and supply will decline year on year. That point may have already arrived, as Texan oilman T. Boone Pickens recently claimed on the grounds that oil supplies have been stuck at 85 million barrels per day for the past two years, or it may occur in ten or 20 years time. However, the majority of research indicates it will occur within the next decade. The US Department of Energy study showed that, regardless of the time of arrival, preparations should commence two decades in advance on changing the entire infrastructure because the investments required are long-term. The cars we purchase today will still be on the road in 15 years time, the roads will be around for 100 years and our power stations will last 40 years.

We can see the peak right in front of us, clear as day. The oil company advertisements in the The Economist indicate we are approaching an oil supply crunch. As legislators, we have a responsibility to recognise that fact and to look beyond the next election. We know the change is coming. With 60% of Ireland's energy dependent on imported oil, this is one of the most exposed countries in the world, so it behoves us to change our policies and reduce our dependence on oil.

We cannot rely on gas to solve the problem. Gas will help as an interim technology but we are equally exposed to supply issues. Even if we bring gas from the Corrib field ashore, it will provide for half our needs for approximately six years but it will not be a long-term solution. North Sea gas fields, from which we get 85% of our supplies, are depleting by a similarly rapid annual percentage to that of North Sea oil. We will get a temporary fillip from Norwegian gas but that country recently made a strategic decision against connecting its largest gas field into the UK and Irish markets. We are inextricably linked to the UK market in this area. We will be utterly reliant on Russian gas coming through pipelines stretching all the way to Siberia. Therefore, while gas is an interim fossil fuel we equally have to reduce our dependence on it. We are overly dependent on it for the production of electricity and in other areas. We cannot rely on the Russian Government to ensure secure supplies to Ireland at the end of the pipeline.

That scenario requires debate on how to completely change our energy infrastructure, farming methods and transport system in order to cope with climate change, peaking global oil production and difficulties in obtaining gas for our economy. Our response must be part of an international approach and the debate in Bali is crucial in that respect. I attended last year's climate change talks in Nairobi, at which the issue of what comes after the Kyoto Agreement was addressed. I got a clear sense from the meeting that the current negotiations are the most important in the history of mankind. I also realised that the diplomats and politicians attending the meeting will not take the issue seriously until there is widespread public pressure at home.

We will have to change our electricity supply systems. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, was correct in saying that extensive grid development will be required to support renewable energy. It will be politically difficult but we will have to face the task in order to deliver on electricity. In regard to heating, we will have to set ever higher building standards. That will be difficult for some people in the construction industry but we will need a collective vision on it because the timeframe involved is much longer than the next four years. The area of transport will have to be utterly transformed, which will also require changes in the planning system. Again, that may not be politically easy but the best intentions in planning policy have produced a spread in this country and a dispersed population. We have to make the switch to sustainable communities. The experience of my 15-year life in politics is that none of these hard decisions has been made. Ultimately, politicians are wedded to the status quo. Today's debate needs to be about the extent and nature of the changes we need to make. I regret I did not have sufficient time to set out these issues but I will return to them in my closing remarks.

See this speech in context