Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)

As the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Protection, Deputy Barrett, stated, it is good that young people are in the Visitors Gallery listening to the debate because this concerns their future. In many ways we are trying to put the brakes on the train and drive in the opposite direction. Students from my alma mater, De La Salle, Wicklow, visited the House earlier, a school also attended by three of my sons. It was made official last week at the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conference that mankind's lifestyle is leading to climate change because of the way energy is harvested from the ground. The Minister referred to a Channel 4 programme and positive feedback which makes us feel comfortable that climate change is not happening. Such programmes are counterproductive in the effort to reverse what has happened. The current agreements may not be strong enough to affect the rate of change which is advancing faster than most of us believed heretofore.

Ireland has exceeded its Kyoto Protocol target which was based on a legal agreement and the Government has embarked on buying carbon credits. While €270 million has been set aside for this purpose, the figure could reach €1 billion if the Government does not get its act together. The penalty clauses that await it down the line should not be underestimated. This money could usefully be used in researching and applying best and newest technology. Many of the statistics relating to climate change are several years old. The Power of One campaign is welcome but the issue is greater than simply changing a light bulb.

Efforts have been made to develop a coherent energy policy but small-scale practical technology is missing to supply the energy needs of small businesses and communities. We must go back to the grassroots. The agriculture sector contributes 28% of greenhouse gasses and this is difficult to counter because the greatest contributor is dairy cattle which produce butter, milk, yoghurt and other products needed in a world with a vastly increasing population. Private enterprises such as Keenans provide diet nutritionists to administer advice worldwide. With a properly managed diet, the emissions of the world's dairy herd could be reduced by 30%. Keenans is a market leader in this regard and such initiatives are more valuable to a small country than the Power of One campaign. The Minister should take this on board.

The land held by the agriculture industry holds the greatest potential to deal with our energy dependency issues. A debate on the use of land for food or fuel is on the way. For example, Bord na Mona is eating into its peat reserves annually but its land is the most suitable for biomass production through planting willow which could be renewed. The Government needs to consider this. The energy generated from peat could be recommissioned, which means the State could retain this resource because eventually our peat reserves will run out. In addition, biomass production would not damage the environment. The initiative to provide energy through turf in the initial stages was way ahead of its time. Unfortunately, the beet sector, through which 60,000 hectares could have been retrieved to produce ethanol fuel, was abandoned by the previous Government.

I have examined what the US agriculture committee is doing. It uses farm energy calculators, anaerobic digesters and considers research on conserving fuel and energy, wind and solar power initiatives, which do not compete with land for food. These initiatives must be examined because energy can be produced without compromising our food supply. The Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources should fund Teagasc research to support targeted grant aid programmes for the agriculture and food sectors to kick start innovation needed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel; improve efficiency of energy use by assisting in the calculation of farm estimates; provide electrical energy usage comparisons, efficiency guides and current energy savings cost guidelines; promote the development of agriculture alterative energy sources to run agricultural machinery, appliances, motors or buildings; use small-scale solar appliances which are used currently and underestimated; use anaerobic digesters; wind powered technology and biodiesel.

The Minister referred to transport costs. I am not sure that the correlation between transport and our planning laws is the only reason for the increase in this regard. The greatest contributor to the increase in transport costs are goods being transported by trucks throughout the country, but such costs could be reduced by the provision of an enhanced rail service. The statistic on waste mentioned is interesting.

I do not believe that the logic for the use of 400 kVA or MW lines has not been thoroughly thought out. There is no doubt there is power loss in the use of long lines. The longer the line, the greater the power loss. Upgrading the network to take in more wind power generated on a regional basis has not been examined. The all-island energy status project will take five years to bring to fruition. We will have only mainline feeds through high voltage lines throughout the country. Has the option of regional power supplies which could be run cross-Border and create an all-island energy supply been examined? EirGrid seems to have adopted a logic that the only way to achieve this goal is by running high power lines, feeding off new and not so new power plants throughout the country.

Has the development of alternative and renewable energies on a regional basis, given the advances and potential capacity that exist, through incentives by way of modulation of farm payments to encourage people to get involved in such projects been examined? I am not sure that this debate has been thrashed out to the fullest extent. Regardless of the emotion of the cost involved, is there another way we could proceed?

See this speech in context