Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy Coveney for sharing time. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this matter.

The target of a 20% reduction by 2020 is ambitious, and rightly so. It will be extremely difficult to meet this target. To place the matter in context, a 20% reduction would be equivalent to the total emissions produced by cars in Ireland. It will not be easy to reach the target. We must increase public awareness in respect of it because everyone must buy into achieving the reduction. Never has the slogan "The Power of One" been more relevant than it is in the context of each citizen's carbon footprint.

My specific concerns in respect of this matter relate to agriculture. At a time when the lights are going out or are being dimmed in other sectors of the economy, the future for agriculture and food production is reasonably bright. Although we should not celebrate the current global food shortage, it does present opportunities for the industry in Ireland. We have to perform a delicate balancing act if we are not to hamstring commercial agriculture and its capacity to meet food demands, which is a moral obligation. If global thinking is not joined up and we reduce Ireland's food production, there may not be a net environmental gain because reductions here will be taken up elsewhere. We need assurances that there will be joined-up thinking within the European Union, as well as globally, if these targets are to be met. It is regrettable that the Lisbon treaty which sought EU competence in the area of climate change was rejected.

I attended this morning's meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at which concerns were expressed about the WTO. I am struck by the almost symbiotic relationship between what is on the table for the WTO negotiations and our objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The WTO proposals would lead to the slaughter of approximately 1 million cattle in Ireland. To meet our aim of a 20% reduction, to which agriculture contributes 28%, a similar reduction in the national herd is envisaged. I was alarmed to hear the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, speak about the cow and the car, while Government backbenchers remained silent. This is a clear threat to commercial agriculture. I am not making a special plea because if we reduce the national herd, food production will increase elsewhere on the globe.

Individual farmers are more than capable of responding by offsetting carbon. On the Continent more money is made from producing energy through anaerobic digestion of pig slurry than from pork production. Germany and the Netherlands, in particular, are light years ahead of us in producing agricultural energy for the national grid. We need to catch up by entering strategic partnerships with those on the Continent who have been carrying out carbon modelling. Teagasc should build research alliances because we cannot catch up on our own and we will need international assistance in the area of research and development. Forestry also offers opportunities for offsetting carbon but it is missing from this debate.

The increased milk quota has the potential to meet global demands for dairy products. Are we going to hamstring our processing industries by preventing them from taking up the opportunities offered by increased quotas? This is a complex issue which calls for joined-up thinking but the national herd is not up for negotiation because the result would be the replacement of our grass-based, environmentally appropriate method of food production by intensive agricultural imports from outside the European Union and standards over which we would have little control.

See this speech in context