Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

——because the story needs to be told and cannot be ignored.

It is useful to discuss the carbon credits system. The flexible mechanisms system refers to the carbon development mechanism, or CDM, as it is known by those involved in the Kyoto process. A number of Deputies raised this matter and in that regard I am happy to clarify the position I enunciated while in Opposition and which I will reiterate in Government. My position is one of support for the flexible mechanisms because they are part of the Kyoto process, which is the only international solution we have. It is part of a flexible approach on the path towards an annual reduction in carbon emissions. There is clear agreement on all sides that we cannot rely on such mechanisms as the mainstay of our response. If they were regarded as such, they would be highly inappropriate as a form of strategic direction. Using the mechanisms as part of an overall integrated response is the correct approach. I supported this approach in Opposition and do so now in Government.

The international target demonstrates a stark need to effect much more radical change than we believe is necessary. Deputy Coveney's contribution was one of the few that conveyed the scale of change in question. The carbon development mechanism will be discussed and approved by the majority of signatories to the Kyoto Protocol and the international agreement on climate change at the negotiations in Bali. In this regard, we must be aware that the European Union sets as a target a 30% reduction in 1990 emissions, through international agreement, by 2020. This presents a considerable challenge for Ireland.

Consider the commitment to achieve an average reduction of 3% per annum, as outlined in the programme for Government. If a 3% reduction is achieved from 2008 onwards, Ireland's level will be approximately 14% below 1990 levels in 2020. Our current level is approximately 25% or 26% above 1990 levels. Within a European burden-sharing agreement, the level of 14% below 1990 levels is the level to which we are expected to commit. The Taoiseach has already signed up to this agreement at Heads of Government level but achieving our target will not be easy.

To answer the question justly asked by Deputy Terence Flanagan, I fully support the national climate change strategy, as set out. However, given that the 30% European target is set, the strategy recognises that even if we achieve an annual reduction of 3% on foot of current policy, there still will be a 16 million tonne shortfall. This is why we need a debate. As Deputy Coveney stated, the level of change required is way beyond what the average person understands to be necessary.

I welcome the discussions on the electricity grid. In this regard, I particularly welcome the knowledgeable contribution of Deputy Andrew Doyle. One of the benefits of the all-island approach to electricity is the launch of a single electricity market. I hope to be able to launch, within a number of weeks, an all-island grid study that will indicate exactly what is required to develop the transmission network so as to meet radically higher renewable electricity targets as part of our overall response. There will be sensitive and difficult areas throughout the country, even in local distribution grids, where we will need to develop renewable energy resources. That is why it is important for us to look at that overall level and at each project on the basis of a broad national issue rather than always on a purely project-by-project basis.

In response to the point raised by Deputy Deasy, the committee chaired by Deputy Barrett may be the perfect venue for the discussion of nuclear power if people so wish. I will leave it at that.

A number of people, including Deputy Deenihan, raised the issue of the ESB. First of all, I agree with, commend and add to his comments regarding the chairman of the ESB, Tadhg O'Donoghue, who today announced his resignation as and from the end of January. I commend Mr. O'Donoghue on the enormous and invaluable work he has done over the past seven years in steering and directing that company. Such work has been hugely valuable to this State and is greatly appreciated by everyone with a knowledge of how much Mr. O'Donoghue has given.

Following on from the very good work that has been done for years in the ESB, I see a huge and important role for the ESB in this area. Far from anyone looking to break up or diminish the ESB, I believe it will have such a central role in helping to achieve so much in the areas of energy reduction, demand management and energy efficiency in its supply, network and generation business that it has a crucial role in this new green future. I say to the ESB that it has a role to play in becoming one of the best green utilities in the world. It can develop that expertise here to help solve our problems and can also apply it abroad in the process. No break up or diminution of the ESB is planned.

The issue of the transmission assets has already been decided upon. They are already separated out into Eirgrid, which is responsible for their management. That has been the case for several years. The transmission assets followed that as night follows day but there is no diminution of the management, role or purpose of the ESB in that particular process. I hope that this general vision of the future of the ESB is one that will get widespread support in this House.

I previously mentioned heating, its importance and our role in setting significantly higher building regulation standards which might help us meet the targets. The greener homes scheme will also continue to be amended and extended and new technologies will be brought in. The role is not to continually support projects but to give them a volume of supply which makes economic sense for them. One then moves on and uses the same sort of planning on other technologies on a rolling, continuing and evolving basis.

Likewise, it will be hugely important for us to develop scale and transparency in the insulation support schemes we are planning to introduce next year. These schemes will help to fulfil the basic premise of delivering energy efficiency first and foremost, as well as looking at the sort of supply systems one uses.

I agree with the comments of many Deputies that we must be careful about bio-fuels and that such fuels will not be the panacea for our transport system. However, there is a strategic value for both farming and the country in having our indigenous fuel supply from bio-fuels if we can develop it.

I must return to the point I made about why planning is so important. It seems that we certainly need a range of changes in transport, be it in rail freight or other areas, where we can try to reduce our emissions. The fundamental change on which we must also agree is a collective change in every council of this country regarding how we plan our communities . First and foremost, we must reduce the length of trips and then look at the mode of transport people have.

The role of agriculture was also raised by speakers. I was surprised that the debate featured very little mention of the peak oil issue as opposed to the issue of climate change. Given that this country is utterly dependent on oil, which costs $100 per barrel, for 60% of its energy, I was surprised by the lack of interaction in respect of this issue. Agriculture is an area where this issue raises its head. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Sargent, tells me that for every calorie of food produce we create, we spend ten calories of energy input to get it in the form of fertilisers, transport, pesticides and processing, all using oil. Agriculture faces a major policy issue in a world where oil becomes a depleting resource.

Farmers also have a huge opportunity and will be at the forefront of our response to this. They have an important role to play in leading our country, using their knowledge of how to cultivate and grow crops to plant new specialist crops which will provide us with a range of different products that oil might previously have provided, be they materials, heating or bio-fuels. That is a far more attractive future for farming than one reliant on certain vague and limited livestock markets where the price is particularly poor and volatile and where one trades on an international market over which one has no control.

I see a great role for farming in delivering a far more diverse range of crops which provide for this new energy future and in the process, reduce our emissions, recognising that farming accounts for 28% of our emissions. It will not be easy but it is possible and the farmers of this country have more to gain from a green-led Government than any other group because we are looking to them to lead and to provide for our future, our food, our energy crops and the good and proper use of our land, which, ultimately, is our greatest natural resource.

A response will be made to Deputies from the Labour Party who are concerned about the specifics. Today's debate was not one for specifics. Going back to my original comment, I believe it was a necessary debate to ascertain the level of concern, awareness and acceptance of some of the science and energy security issues before us. We will have an opportunity for a debate on the details in the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and I look forward to Deputy Barrett's leadership of this committee.

There is no lead Minister, which is deliberate. My colleagues and I will be available on any occasion to discuss matters. It is better to have a cross-Government approach to this issue where Deputies can call in the Minister for Transport and ask what he is doing to face this energy future when he looks at the peak oil situation. Alternatively, they could call in the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and ask what she is doing to deliver this future. She would be the lead Minister on that day. Equally, they could call in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. I am willing and available to provide resources and skills to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security to do the valuable work it needs to do. Likewise, a Cabinet sub-committee on climate change and energy security has been set up to address this issue. It will provide cross-Government support.

I have one clear message. We could resort to doom and gloom on this issue and be merchants of despair. There are reasons to be concerned and afraid. The picture before the Irish people is one of opportunity. We may lead the world in response to this issue and would benefit from that.

The Taoiseach quoted Edmund Burke in his address to the House of Commons earlier this year. According to Burke, "nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little." That saying applies equally in this area. It is in our economic interest to make the change because we are exposed to global peak oil and gas insecurity. It is in our moral interest to give us a sense of purpose, achievement and direction.

We have achieved the main political objectives of the past 100 years. We have achieved independence and economic security and have even solved some of the problems in the North that we thought would never be solved. What must we solve today? This issue is one we must address. We must lead our people, protect them from an insecure future and provide them with a bright opportunity to shine internationally.

See this speech in context