Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

Climate change is clearly an important issue and one that has attracted huge attention, both internationally and here, in recent years. One of the key points being made here is in relation to the shortcomings in the Government's strategy to address the issue, and in relation to meeting the targets set in the national climate change strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government has stated it is confident of meeting a target of an average 12% annual reduction over the next five years, but that has been called into question, as has the apparent absence of any contingency plan in the event of failure to attain annual targets. The key to achieving the reduction targets is obviously a marked increase in other energy sources. That is central to the strategy, and revolves around increasing the proportion of electricity produced by renewable energy sources to 15% by 2010, only three years away. Are we on course to meet that target?

Apparently, Britain and other EU states are casting doubt on their ability to meet the EU's 2020 target of 20% energy from renewables by a long way. Yet when questioned about this last week, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, seemed confident this country will meet the 2010 target of 15% and the much more ambitious target of 33% by 2020. I commend the Minister on his confidence and enthusiasm but many of us have yet to be convinced that sufficient is being done to ensure the targets are attained.

For example, wave and tidal energy are two areas that have been pointed to as having huge potential. There are a number of research projects going on around the coast and Sustainable Energy Ireland has granted €1.4 million to this research. Perhaps I am wrong but would this appear to indicate that work on this sector is still of a very minor scale and that there is no real indication that energy production from wave and tidal generation will increase to the extent it must if the targets are to be achieved? I hope I am wrong but there are many who remain to be convinced that it is being pursued on a level sufficient to ensure this will be the case.

The other key source of alternative energy supply that has been identified is biomass. Under the climate change strategy, the Government has set a target of a 30% share for biomass input into peat stations by 2020. They have also pledged to meet a much more ambitious target for bio-fuels as a proportion of overall vehicle fuel use than the EU. This is very laudable but the day-to-day measures being taken to achieve this must be under constant scrutiny and subject to re-evaluation if they are seen to be insufficient.

For example, are the necessary measures being taken to ensure that enough energy crops will be grown here? Does the grant system encourage both farmers and processors? Could more be done in regard to set-aside land or the forestry sector, for example, to ensure sufficient crops are planted? The danger is that, even if we attain the target with regard to vehicle fuel use, we will be replacing our current dependency on the import of fossil fuels with a new dependency on the import of biofuels. It would be better for the environment certainly but would represent a major missed economic opportunity.

We need to build our own strategic indigenous fuel production. This is why Sinn Féin has argued not only for the need to promote the growing of energy crops for which this country is eminently suited, particularly to the conversion to producing a thick syrup from sugar beet for ethanol production. The Government refused to use its golden share to make that happen and instead Greencore has laid off its entire workforce and moved into property development, speculation or whatever one would call it. To build such plants from scratch would cost many millions of euro and there are doubts about the viability of building brand new plants in the immediate future. The growing and processing of crops is key to meeting targets. The question is whether those practical steps are being taken now — I am doubtful.

There is also a need to promote greater energy efficiency in domestic and commercial buildings. Indeed, I note that those responsible for the Oireachtas buildings are becoming more proactive on this issue. For a while we received e-mails reminding us to switch off computers and so on. This is very laudable and it is undoubted public awareness schemes have a part to play in reducing the unnecessary waste of energy. While this applies as much to households as to places of work, I am not satisfied EU legislation regarding building insulation or the grant incentives to improve energy conservation in the home are adequate to achieve this. This is why my party has called for the inclusion of all those in receipt of fuel allowance in the greener homes and insulation grant schemes. While these involve a considerable initial outlay, they are cost-effective in reducing energy loss, cutting fuel bills and tackling fuel poverty.

A recent Society of St. Vincent de Paul survey found that 79% of lone parents, 78% of elderly people and 81% of local authority tenants struggled to pay for energy and heating costs in their homes. There are many reasons for this but it is proven that many people in this situation live in buildings that are badly insulated, meaning they must use more heat, which worsens their plight in regard to meeting bills.

I strongly urge the Minister to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to include people in receipt of the fuel allowance, where practical, in the greener homes scheme. As I noted, it will greatly increase the current expenditure under the scheme but would quickly prove to be cost-efficient and would reduce the level of fuel poverty by reducing expenditure among the most vulnerable categories to which I referred.

It is most important that there is a strategy to deal with climate change and that important mechanisms are in place to keep it under constant review. We need to ensure there is annual reporting to track the progress of meeting targets on the reduction of emissions. Only in that way can shortfalls be addressed and ameliorative actions taken to ensure targets are adhered to and, if possible, exceeded.

With regard to energy security, it is of course vital our offshore gas deposits come on stream. However, this should not happen as at present where not only is there no guarantee that the gas from Corrib, for example, will be prioritised for domestic use, but the State stands to gain little in the way of revenue. It would be the height of idiocy if such an important resource was to be used solely to benefit the companies that hold the licence and remain free to use it as they see fit, rather than it being public policy, as it is in other countries such as Norway, to ensure the national interest, in terms of security of supply and fiscal benefits, comes first.

See this speech in context