Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is absolutely no doubt that this is a controversial issue because one side sees it as environmentally unsustainable, with very negative effects, and the other will tell us about the money that can be made. I understand that €120 billion was quoted as being the potential value of fracking in the north west. It is great that we are having this debate and that reports and surveys are being carried out. The area represented by Deputy McLoughlin is being targeted as one of great potential.

It was interesting to read about the UK because successive Governments there voted in favour of fracking and then suspended it five years ago when drilling near Blackpool caused earthquakes. Even though the moratorium was lifted four years ago, many fracking applications have been turned down. A recent survey shows that there has been a significant drop in public support for fracking. Only 70% of those surveyed support the process. It is reckoned that the drop in support coincides with the increasing awareness of the process, the dangers involved and the damage that could potentially be caused. However, the UK Government is pushing ahead and claims it will boost jobs, the economy and energy security. The relevant Minister has overturned a decision of a county council so that a fracking site in Lancashire can go ahead. I hope this will not be the case in Ireland.

We know what the Bill involves. It will prohibit hydraulic fracturing to obtain shale oil and gas. We know it is a method that relies on high-pressure water to fracture rocks which contain deposits of ore. Despite a number of countries having banned fracking, elsewhere there has been an increase because, as the research tells us, it is claimed that advanced directional drilling techniques make it possible to extract oil economically. We know the risks and concerns. I do not think we can separate the fracking debate from that on climate change because there is no doubt that fracking damages the natural environment. Many studies and research have shown the impact on water bodies. Leaks from the machinery used also lead to water being contaminated. There is enough contaminated and polluted water in the country without adding to it.

Fracking has other potential environmental impacts. These include earthquakes, the leakage of contaminated waste fluid and air and noise pollution, not to mention, as Deputy McLoughlin said, health. SWAN, which comprises 26 of Ireland's leading environmental NGOs, reports that fracking for shale gas is incompatible with good water quality and recommended its prohibition.

The supporters of fracking tend to be big businesses with powerful lobbies. Of course, they are advocating the economic benefits. I have read about some cases in America. There are significant levels of protest but extraction companies are targeting small rural townships. Some of the techniques that they are using are very alarming. They include coercion, economic incentives, pre-buying houses and land through shell companies, sponsoring local businesses and contributing to schools and infrastructure, all of which activities raise serious concerns.

When we debated the ratification of the UN Paris Agreement on Climate Change, much of the debate involved fossil fuels. We know fossil fuels and emissions are the main cause of global warming. I referred to CO2 emissions in metric tonnes per capita. The figure for Uganda is 0.1, but in Ireland it is 10.5. Fossil fuels account for two-thirds of the emissions that are causing climate change. We know that the Bill is very important in the context of that debate.

Using hydrocarbons will make it more difficult to reduce emissions in the energy sector and will lead to an increase in Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. We know 80% of existing fossil fuel reserves must remain underground if the Paris Agreement goals are to be met. Based on the greenhouse gas emissions projections released by the EPA last March, we are unlikely to meet our 2020 greenhouse gas emission targets for the non-emissions trading scheme sectors like agriculture, transport and waste. Fracking will further exacerbate that and undermine our ratification of the agreement.

We know that the White Paper states the decision will be made in the context of the aim of reaching zero carbon emissions by 2050. My final point relates to fracking, CETA and TTIP, the investor state dispute settlement. The ISDS lets foreign companies sue entire countries for alleged loss of future profits. A $250 million damage suit is being pursued as a result of Québec's moratorium on fracking. Québec has yet to decide whether fracking can be conducted safely under the St. Lawrence River but it cannot even have time to study the impact of fracking without having to compensate a corporation. We have to be very careful with trade agreements and our engagement with companies. The bottom line is that we should have nothing to with fracking because the negatives far outweigh any possible positives.

See this speech in context