Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this matter once again. This is an issue that affects the country in its entirety and it will affect our economic performance over the next number of years. It will also affect the extent to which we rely on imported fuel in the years to come and the extent to which we are prepared to comply with carbon reduction guidelines that are, unfortunately, enforceable. If we do not make these changes, unfortunately we will be penalised, and that would be totally unnecessary.

I compliment those speakers who have acknowledged the need to address the issue of climate change. It is very important that we do so now as the scientific evidence is that in a number of years, we may begin to reap the whirlwind of negligence or a failure to respond to the issue. Deputy Eamon Ryan spoke eloquently on the subject.

Having shared a committee with him in a previous existence in this House, I agree entirely with almost everything he said, except for one thing - that is, that we are not doing enough. We may not have done enough so far, but it is not our intention to remain that way, and it is the intention of this - and, I am sure any - Government to proceed along the lines necessary in order to meet the carbon reduction guidelines and, as a result, make our contribution to what is obviously an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I also disagree with Deputy on the need to destroy the cattle herd in order to comply, because that is a major part of our economy and it is entirely possible to meet the carbon reduction guidelines and, at the same time, expand our agrifood sector. There is no contradiction in it at all, provided we adopt the right principles and accept the need to do something on an ongoing basis. The farming community were the very first to recognise the need and they have already set themselves targets in order to meet the guidelines over a certain period. We also need balance. There is no situation in which we should ever come to the conclusion that there is only one way to resolve this particular issue, and the issue can only be resolved if we decide to cease some integral part of our economy and revert.

The other thing we should not do is bury our heads in the sand and pretend we should not have any responsibility, that we can do nothing, that it is beyond our powers and that some body outside this country has imposed restrictions on us that we should not be subjected to. We would be very foolish to go down that road, for a whole host of reasons.

In particular, the various alternative forms of energy that are available need to be examined and developed. I do not agree with my constituency colleague in respect of the need for fossil fuel facilities burning alongside wind energy. That is not true. It is quite possible to have in tandem hydroelectricity and wind energy, and it will be necessary, as it is in many other countries. I do not accept the propaganda that was promulgated during the course of the recent general election to the effect that wind energy was totally unnecessary, that we could get on without it and that in fact it was a duplication and we did not need it. This missed the argument entirely. It is necessary for us to recognise that everybody has a responsibility. We can all make a worthwhile and viable contribution to this particular debate, provided we recognise that we have to do something about it. If we decide to ignore it completely, as Deputy Ryan has already said, there will be consequences, which we will not like.

We can now proceed to develop those alternatives that are already working and that have been proven to work. We also need to develop other alternatives, but some of the alternatives will only be effective some time in the future and we cannot wait for 20 or 30 years. That is a fact. We cannot wait for 20 or 30 years to develop some of the alternatives; we must move on. That is, of course, subject to proper planning, conditions and restrictions in the usual way, as well as setbacks and so on for wind turbines. The situation is this: if we ignore what has to be done, we will certainly pay a high price for it.

Transport is an area in which we can do quite a lot in a short period. For instance, the ordinary domestic motor vehicle can be dealt with in the shortest possible time. Of course, we have to generate the electricity from an alternative source; otherwise, we will continue to generate it from fossil fuels, which we have to import at present. That is not making a contribution. If we recognise that over the next five or seven years there has to be a fairly substantial transition to electrically driven domestic cars, we are on the right road. If we fail to do something about it, we are not going to succeed. Incidentally, quite an amount of work has been done on that already, and as time goes on. However, there have to be incentives. It is very important that incentives are recognised as a means of encouraging people to go in that direction. Home heating has already been referred to. It is an area that has considerable potential, with an improved quality of life for the homeowner, improved value to the home, and compliance with the guidelines, with a view to achieving even more than we have already considered.

The other issue we need to refer to is the calorific value of the various alternatives. Many of the alternatives will make a contribution, though not necessarily an equal one. Some will and some will not, but we cannot rely on microgeneration as a means of resolving our problem; it does not work that way. The national grid has to depend on reliable sources, that is, the ones that generate fairly substantial amounts of electricity at a particular time. Once we put those in place - and they are being put in place in many parts of the country - then we have something we can rely on into the future. We do not want blackouts. While every contribution in microgeneration is helpful, they will not in themselves resolve our problem.

We often say that a few years ago when Deputy Ryan was a Minister the expectations in terms of the national requirement were greater, and they have now changed. If we expect to remain the same way forever and not develop our economy or create jobs for the future, that is fine, but we must recognise that our ambition must be to create more employment in the future in this country, because that is what is required of us. In that case, we have to have a greater capacity in terms of the essentials, one of which is obviously electricity.

The last point I want to make - oddly enough, in passing, and I must be careful because I am making a reference in passing - relates to the recent census form, which we all examined. One could give only one answer to the question about home heating. I happen to have a combination of three systems: oil, a wood-burning stove and electricity by way of storage heating. There is no provision in the census to say that because one can make one answer only, which was not very enlightened on the part of those who created it. I want to draw attention to that because anybody who has alternatives of a renewable nature should say so.

The last point I want to make relates to the use of trees as absorbers of carbon. Deputy Andrew Doyle made reference to the Douglas fir and various other trees. There is huge potential there. People will say in the local authorities and the planning offices that the trees have to be native deciduous beeches. They do not; in fact, the Sitka spruce is the best tree of all. The Douglas fir is also excellent for carbon sequestration, as are a number of other conifers. What we need is balance - a mixture - because the one will provide the shelter for the others to grow. Incidentally, the burning of firewood is carbon-neutral. We sometimes forget about that. If it goes through an industrial process, it is not, but if it goes from the chainsaw, for want of a better description, into the fire, it is carbon-neutral and it does no damage to our economy because it only exudes what it has absorbed.

I would love to speak on this subject for longer, because it activates the minds of many people in my constituency as well.

See this speech in context