Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleague Deputy Pringle for bringing forward this motion which I support, but with certain caveats or clarifications which I might seek. I very much support the spirit of the motion. There has been a lot of talk in Ireland about developing renewables. There has been a lot less action from the Government in actually developing renewables. We see that there has been an increase in onshore wind farms, but can the Government point to a single wind farm in this State where there is a community dividend other than paying for jerseys for the local GAA club? Paying for jerseys for the local GAA club is important but it tends to be a one-off measure. When there is a pledge to give a certain amount of money to a GAA club, it is a set amount. With inflation, etc., it will amount to very little in 20 years time. It is certainly a minuscule amount of money compared to what these wind farms can hope to generate. I say "generate" in terms of money and not in terms of energy because that is slightly less predictable.

If we are serious about moving forward, why has a framework not been put in place for an actual dividend for communities from community wind farms as opposed to sponsorship of a festival or stuff that is minuscule? The Minister of State might well argue that there is a dividend for the entire State. That may be the case, but there is a particular burden for a particular community that has had its environment degraded by the construction of a wind farm. There is an inevitable degradation of the environment if a wind farm is built in a blanket bog, for example, with the amount of concrete that will have to be used to stabilise the bog for the bases. Even if some places experience less environmental impact than others when wind farms are being built, there is no particular dividend for the community.

I have heard the Taoiseach describe offshore as the great "moonshot" of our generation, but our progress towards developing offshore wind generation has been painfully slow. Even now, OREDP II was initially expected to announce plans for floating offshore wind but it has not done so. There is now to be a phase 2 of the plan, although there is speculation in the industry that this might not even include floating offshore wind and we might have to move to phase 3 of the plan. In no way could the Government's actions be seen to match its hyperbole and talk about developing this.

We know that investors have come here and have gone to find support. They are very excited at the prospect of floating offshore wind generation in Ireland until they look at what is actually happening in the State towards developing that. When they look at where we are and how close we are to being able to act on that, they see that we are nowhere near it. When it comes to the mapping that will be required, MARA has been established but we do not know concretely who will carry out the mapping. That needs to be determined quickly. Some local authorities have some additional capacity and expertise that could be brought to bear on this. Everything needs to be utilised but I am not convinced the Government is doing this. I am convinced the investors who want to invest in clean renewable energy are shaking their heads, just as the Minister of State might yawn at my next point.

I understand that 40% of Denmark's gas requirements are met from biomethane through anaerobic digestion systems. The European Commission has pointed out that Ireland and Denmark are perhaps the countries with the greatest capacity to replace natural gas usage with biomethane. Denmark is now at 40%. Is Ireland at 0%? Perhaps the Minister of State might give me the exact figure. I would say it is an awful lot closer to 0% than to 40%. I would even say it is closer to 0% than it is to 1%. That is inexplicable. It is equally inexplicable that the Government failed to apply to a European Union fund to support this, notwithstanding the large numbers of potential investors, farmers' groups and co-operatives, etc., who want to move on this. There is no support from the Government, or the permanent government, for this. Instead we are burning fracked gas. A certain amount of gas that comes into Ireland and is distributed is fracked gas. How does that in any way match the Government's rhetoric? Can we say there has been progression? Next year, as those of us who wish to face the electorate do so, will we have made any progress on that? It is not clear to me that we will.

I completely support the transition from a climate, environmental and social justice perspective. Equally, from a geopolitical perspective, it makes sense that if we can generate energy ourselves we should do so but we do not seem to be moving in that direction.

The fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty is not something I know a lot about. It was brought about by Pacific island nations, having initially been proposed by them. We have some things in common with them. Like Pacific island nations, Ireland uses natural gas. They import large amounts of natural gas, primarily LPG. Ireland does the same. To announce a complete ban on the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels in Ireland, natural gas included, in circumstances where we are importing large quantities of natural gas as LPG with a far greater carbon footprint seems to make little sense because it is creating a greater carbon footprint. I also think that many people would be concerned about the amount of fracked gas which is advertently or inadvertently consumed in Ireland.

The Government's ban on any further exploration in Irish waters is fanciful in circumstances where we are importing LPG. The states that have endorsed the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty include Colombia and Timor-Leste. Both are countries with substantial gas reserves. When I did some quick research this morning, I saw that both of their state gas companies have hailed recent discoveries of gas and have called for investment to exploit that. It seems that has not prevented Colombia and Timor-Leste from endorsing the treaty. Therefore, I am not clear what exactly the treaty calls for. I know the countries that have endorsed it continue to explore and extract natural gas in their own territorial waters. It is ultimately less harmful to the environment than importing it in large tankers because of the carbon footprint that entails.

However, that is the way we choose to go, perhaps because it matches the rhetoric. Perhaps it helps leaders of parties to get positions, to chair a COP meeting for a few hours and to get their ten minutes of fame. I do not know. I am sorry if that sounds cynical and jaded, but it is where our policies are and where investors are. They listen to the rhetoric of the Government and then discover that it is utterly unmatched by any actions.

The motion talks about "mechanised farming". I am not entirely sure what is meant by that. If it means every farmer with a tractor, I would have a problem with it, but I do not think that is what the motion means. I think it means the tendency towards ever-increasing farms and reductions in biodiversity. If farms are getting bigger and bigger and producing only one crop to the detriment of biodiversity, farmers are not choosing to do that; they are being forced to do so by an industry that is entirely unregulated. The Government's policy is for farms to increase rather than decrease. I thank the Chair for the time. I support the motion.

See this speech in context