Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)

I listened to this debate in my room and noted strong contributions from Deputies such as Deputy Curran and his now more Fianna Fáil than Fianna Fáil itself colleague Deputy Finian McGrath. They lost the point of this debate in the sense that they were protecting the Minister and the Green Party from attack from the Opposition.

I am one of those Deputies who had to go around and explain, mostly to Fianna Fáil people who were propagating the green scare, that it would be the end of agriculture if the Green Party entered government, that there was nothing to fear from the Green Party and that as we moved forward, agriculture would become greener. I said this before the election and have been consistent on the issue in the past. I was delighted to invite Deputy Trevor Sargent to Listowel food fair two weeks ago and on that occasion some of the farmers who had been casting doubts on him and suggesting he represented a danger for agriculture found what he had to say interesting. I agree with Deputy Coveney that the Minister has our good will, but Fine Gael will judge the Minister on his record in four or five years' time.

I agree with speakers who have said this is a problem we must all face; it is not confined to one party only. We share a common responsibility for the issue of global warming. Ireland must play its role, but it is a very small player in terms of the global consequences of climate change. We contribute to the problem, but others contribute even more. It will take joined up thinking here and internationally for change to take place and the main world leaders must display a strong political will for change. We have seen the British Prime Minister, Mr. Gordon Brown, take a strong stand on global warming and other issues and have seen a late conversion from President Bush. I hope similar leadership will come from President Putin and others. Time will tell. We will judge the impact of the Green Party in time, but I know the Minister will show strong leadership on the issue.

I looked up the most recent research to add something new to this debate. Recently, a team of scientists from the University of East Anglia, the global carbon project and the British Antarctic survey found that atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35% faster than expected since 2000, which is alarming. This research was published only last week. The study found that inefficiency in the use of fossil fuels increased levels of CO2 by 17%, while the other 18% came from the decline in the efficiency of natural land and ocean sinks which soak up CO2 from the atmosphere. The research shows that improvements in the carbon intensity of the global economy have stalled since 2000, after improving for 30 years. We are, therefore, going backwards. Since the Kyoto Protocol, we are regressing, leading to this unexpected growth of atmospheric CO2. The study also states that global CO2 emissions were up to 9.9 billion tonnes of carbon in 2006, 35% above 1990 emissions, which are used as a reference in the Kyoto Protocol.

One of the scientists explained one of the reasons for this decline. She said:

The decline in global sink efficiency suggests stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 is even more difficult to achieve than previously thought. We found that nearly half of the decline in the efficiency of the ocean CO2 sink is due to the intensification of the winds in the southern ocean.

Therefore, a change in weather patterns combines with man's interference to contribute to the problem.

Recent scientific evidence, published a few weeks ago, confirmed the detection of the human fingerprint on changing global precipitation patterns in the past century. Over that period, climate records indicate sizable shifts in precipitation patterns around the globe. Looking at average conditions over broad regions of the globe, and comparing them to changes anticipated due to human influence on climate, scientists have determined that human-induced climate change has caused most of the observed increase in precipitation north of 50o latitude, a region that includes Canada, Russia and Europe, as well as in the southern hemisphere. Human-induced climate change has also made important contributions to the drying observed in a broad region north of the equator that includes Mexico, Central America and northern Africa. These shifts may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health, especially in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel region in northern Africa. The modern scientific evidence, therefore, demonstrates clearly that we are failing in our responsibility.

I draw the Minister's attention to some specific issues. We can all look back at the records of what we ourselves have done on this issue. I refer to a debate in the Seanad in 1986 on the Air Pollution Bill. In that debate I pointed out that scrubbers should be installed in Moneypoint. At that time, Ireland was succeeding in reducing sulphur dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and was achieving one of the lowest levels in Europe. In 1980, for example, the sulphur dioxide emissions were 217,000 tonnes. In 1983, this had reduced to 140,000 tonnes, because of the use of natural gas. We were getting it right back then, but we have now gone in the opposite direction, despite the various initiatives taken, but never fulfilled.

An Foras Forbartha was also in existence at the time. The scrapping of that organisation in the late 1980s was a retrograde step. It has never been replaced. It predicted at that time that sulphur dioxide emissions would increase. I notice, however, that it was only in 2004 that the ESB decided it would pay €368 million for modernisation equipment. That is what it will cost us, but if we had put in scrubbers in the early 1980s, they would only have cost between £40 million to £80 million, approximately €100 million.

I heard Deputy Deasy, who was in a sense criticised by Deputy Mansergh, speak about nuclear fuel. While there is a problem with nuclear waste, the major issue concerns the disposal of carbon, as we will continue to be hugely dependent on coal. It is important, therefore, to look at how we dispose of carbon. I understand it is placed in old oil wells and on the seabed. As a country, we cannot be expected to pay for research and development into its disposal. Perhaps the Minister will refer to this issue.

As regards the proposed natural gas link on the Shannon Estuary, the Minister will be aware that there is local opposition to the project, based mainly on safety issues and the evidence available from other countries. The project represents an important departure, locally and nationally. Perhaps the Minister will allay the fears of those genuinely concerned, many of whom are in favour of the project. However, they have concerns about safety. If the Minister were to visit that part of the country and meet them, it might help to ensure opposition to the plant, the level of which appears to be increasing, will wane.

Some good research work has been done by an American, Hoff Stauffer, entitled, "New sources will drive global emissions". He has said the sources currently used will have outlived their usefulness. What we should be looking at are autos and appliances which ensure reduced emissions.

See this speech in context