Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

To reduce one's carbon footprint and tackle climate change means one must change the way one lives. The first issue in this is about sustainable living, where we live and how we get to work. It is about how our cities and towns are planned for sustainable development. The Government needs to have more decisive thinking in planning legislation as to what is sustainable development. There needs to be joined-up thinking for public transport, park-and-ride facilities on the outskirts of our cities and railway timetables. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Kennedy, knows as well as I do of the problems with the new Iarnród Éireann timetable for the northern commuter line. It now takes longer to get to work for commuters on this line than it did 30 years ago. If one wants to attract more users to public modes of transport, they must be good and enjoyable experiences. Iarnród Éireann has good rolling stock but its timetables leave something to be desired.

When developing our future towns and cities, we need to examine higher intensity rather than high rise development. This does not mean where once there were two-storey houses, there should be 17-storey blocks. Instead, we should be examining triplexes with zones moving from a city centre of lesser intensity but higher density development. These should be developments which allow people to live with proper recreational spaces and facilities and travel to work on efficient public transport networks which are open to competitive choice.

We cannot have a repeat of the awful urban sprawl of the Celtic tiger. Vast areas of the country have been left with large housing estates with no schools, transport infrastructure or support services. It means people need to use their car to commute, shop and travel. In turn, their carbon emissions are high and they do not have a sustainable lifestyle.

When it comes to choosing a house and getting to and from work, the order should be, first, by foot, second, by bike, third, by public transport and, fourth and last, by car. Unfortunately, this has been the other way around in Ireland. Some changes are being made to city transport. I welcome the idea of bus-gates and pedestrianisation of town and city centres. We must, however, continue to change people's mindsets to acknowledge they cannot drive their cars everywhere as it is simply unsustainable.

I am critical of the Green Party's recent stance on nuclear energy. In 2001, I marched with the great and the good, including the current Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, against the Sellafield plant. We marched in the darkness of early morning and stayed there all day to protest against the facility's treatment of nuclear waste. Deputy Gormley may remember when his mobile telephone gave out that I gave him mine so he could do an interview with RTE. We stood firm that day and resolutely opposed to nuclear energy.

I regret, however, that last week in the Dáil, having refused to answer my questions, the Minister chose to say he had an open mind on nuclear energy and he might change his mind, the futurum esse. For a Green Minister to be about to change his mind on this matter is unacceptable. The key problem with nuclear energy is that in the long run it is wasteful of our environment. Other issues are nuclear terrorism and that the waste must be stored for 250,000 years until it is safe. For example, the UK stores much of its nuclear waste underground in the Irish Sea. Any tectonic activity over the next 250,000 years which may release that waste would have a direct impact on Ireland.

While the Minister, Deputy Gormley, may not object to the necklace of nuclear plants facing Dublin and the east coast from the United Kingdom, I certainly do. I challenge him to answer these charges in here, man to man. How can one argue nuclear energy is sustainable when one considers the risks to life and the thousands of years of pollution it poses? The carbon footprint cost in terms of the construction, manufacture and after-work required, including the decommissioning costs, is massive and in this regard the Minister's sums do not add up.

Our energy future is in wind and wave energy and in research and development. Deputy Coveney on behalf of Fine Gael has produced an important and costed programme in regard to our future energy needs and how we should deal with this issue. The programme is also carbon friendly. The key point is that we must change the way we think about our energy use, how we live and how we travel. Hard questions must be asked. I put the following idea for debate. Other countries are examining the issue of road pricing. If I drive my car from A to B, I burn up fuel, which does not reduce my carbon footprint. There is a case to be made in respect of arterial routes in some countries, namely, motorways in France, for motorists to pay as they go whenever they enter a motorway. In other words, the amount one pays in terms of road pricing is directly proportional to the distance travelled. I believe there is equity in that proposal which should be considered. Obviously, this is not a panacea for all ills. I am not suggesting this be enforced on rural or regional roads. If we are investing heavily in vehicular transport we must ensure motorists pay as they go in terms of carbon footprint. I merely throw out this issue for discussion.

What we need in our county councils are people charged specifically with achieving reductions in carbon footprints. There should be in our councils a designated official who would advise schools, hospitals, industry and households on how they can reduce their carbon footprint. We should have in place an information office whom people could contact to obtain advice in regard to changing how they live. We have all the thinking in terms of Sustainable Energy Ireland, SEI, and so on but we need to bring this down to ground level where people live and work. I believe the county councils have a particularly important and influential role to play in terms of providing an energy officer to advise constituents on how to reduce their carbon footprint.

See this speech in context