Feargal Quinn (Independent)

One of the reasons I like this House is because it avoids the confrontational issues that often occur in the other House. I went to some pains to word the motion in that manner.

Energy is an issue that is far too important in national terms for us to allow it become a political football. We have a serious problem with energy and if we do not get it right we put at risk our entire future as a modern, prosperous society.

In 2003 I went to Dubai for the first time. I had not been there before and I did not really want to go there because it sounded like Las Vegas. When I got there I discovered this wonderful tourist and sporting resort which has the best hotels in the world. The reason this all happened was that Sheikh Mohammed had identified that oil and the production of oil would run out at some point in the future and decided to make plans to prepare for that day. Dubai decided to become the best tourist resort in the world. I can understand the reason it did that. The authorities in that country were sufficiently far-sighted to recognise that it is likely that the supply of oil will run out at some future date.

Around that same time I picked up the June 2004 edition of National Geographic, a publication with which I am sure the Minister of State is familiar. That edition included a smashing article entitled The End of Cheap Oil. When I read it I wondered how dependent we are on oil and I subsequently raised this subject on a number of occasions. I was jolted to discover only this year that we are the most dependent of all the European nations on oil. We do not seem to have taken the first steps countries such as Dubai and others have taken.

It is not true to say, as some might argue, that we are not doing anything about addressing this problem. I am sure the Minister of State will say what we are doing. We are moving forward strongly on a number of different fronts. I would like to acknowledge that progress, to recognise what has been done and I give full credit to those responsible. No doubt we will hear more from the Minister of State along those lines.

However, it is true to say that we are not moving forward anywhere near fast enough. Our response to this issue is not commensurate with the size of the threat we face. What I am arguing for is a strategy that will take this issue by the scruff of its neck and push it up the list of national priorities — which it is currently nowhere near -such that it becomes not merely another task of Government but one of its most important projects. That is my purpose in tabling this motion.

We are in the position we have reached today where Ireland is the most oil-dependent country in the world mainly because we do not have the kind of strategy that we should have in place. We have reached the edge of this particular precipice because instead of a strategy we have simply muddled along while being caught up on the tide of our newfound prosperity, which seems to make possible all things for which we wish.

Members may have read the heading "Britain goes nuclear to beat energy crisis" carried in today's edition of The Times of London. I know France quite well and when I have travelled there, particularly to the north of that country, I have noted the level of energy produced from nuclear power. I am not arguing for following the nuclear energy route by any means, but merely pointing out that France thought this issue through. Britain also thought it through and faced up to it, albeit with its policy posing potential grave dangers for us. We have not yet faced up to this issue but we must now do so. This motion is being debated on the day this issue hit the headlines in Britain after Tony Blair spoke on it and decided the direction Britain will take in the years ahead.

ln today's Ireland, we have codded ourselves into thinking we are so well off that we can have anything we want whenever we want it. Sadly, this is not the case. Due entirely to circumstances outside our control, we are in danger of finding ourselves unable to guarantee the constant and uninterrupted energy supply our economy demands and which our people have grown to expect. Even more important, by our thoughtless over-dependence on oil we have lost control over a key element of our cost base, thereby putting our future competitiveness at the total mercy of external forces. We saw what happened earlier this year in the Ukraine and Belarus in eastern Europe, which rely on Russian oil.

We could have avoided this situation if we had in place a proper national energy strategy. If we had such a strategy, we would not have ended up where we are now, but that is water under the bridge. I do not want to waste the time of the House in wringing my hands about what might have been. The important point is what we do from here. I hope to learn something from the Minister of State in that respect.

Our first task is to realise the seriousness of the problem we face. If we persist in our denial and continue to persuade ourselves that the tiny steps we are taking now will make a serious impact on the challenges we face, then we condemn ourselves to a bleak future. I do not exaggerate or overstate the problem. Considering the issue in purely economic terms, it is a cliché that we have a serious competitiveness problem. Many elements add up to make that problem, which we are addressing with perhaps something short of the right degree of seriousness.

The issue of competitiveness is important. However, even if we were to get everything else right, and still did not grasp the nettle on energy costs, that single element alone is enough to fatally undermine our competitiveness on world markets. This is because we are more oil-dependent than any other country. The price of oil if it continues to increase, as it surely will, will increase in every country but the economic impact the price rise has in a particular country will be a function of the level of that country's oil dependence. The more oil dependent the country, the greater the impact on it of a further rise in the price of oil. The equation is a simple one, and the outlook for our country is nothing short of catastrophic.

That view simply considers the picture in monetary terms. It assumes, which is certainly not the case, that the only challenge we face is paying a higher price for the oil we use. The truth is that an equally important problem may well be the difficulty of getting supplies. Currently, there is enough oil in the world to meet everybody's needs providing they are willing to pay for it, but if we look ahead to the future — on which the article in June 2004 to which I referred focused — we have no guarantee that this will remain the case. Oil is a finite resource and its reserves are limited. In the not too distant future, we can easily envisage a scenario in which demand from fast-developing countries such as China will outrun supply. There simply will not be enough oil to go round, and the people who will get supplies will be those who can afford to pay the most.

Where would that leave Ireland? What would happen to our prosperity and way of life if daily power cuts and load-shedding became the norm, as happens today as a matter of course in many Third World countries? Anyone who has travelled to such countries will be fully aware of how constrained all aspects of life become under such circumstances, particularly economic activity.

To sail into that future without an effective strategy would be exceedingly foolish. That is why I welcome the Government's intention to produce a Green Paper on energy later in the year but I look forward to it with more than a little trepidation. We have had so many examples over the last decade of grandiose Government plans that were either fatally misconceived or good in themselves but never carried through to implementation. Members know the kind

ln addressing the threat, our policy must rest on two pillars, each of which must be pursued with equal commitment. The first pillar is one we tend to forget, namely, energy conservation. The energy we do not consume is energy we do not have to find or pay for. Part of our national energy problem is that we are recklessly profligate in the way we use it. It is an unfortunate side effect of our current prosperity that we behave almost as if it were a virtue to waste energy. It applies to the way we build our houses to the way we get around, even to the way in which we do not bother to switch off lights or appliances that we do not need. Everywhere one turns one will observe the waste of vast amounts of energy. Today that is foolish, tomorrow it will be madness. Energy conservation is a matter that a national strategy must address before we think of anything else.

Only when we have developed a full-scale strategy for energy conservation should we begin to address the question of producing the energy we need. This is where the issue of renewable energy sources comes into the picture. All I want to say on this aspect is that we must pursue not one or two but all possible alternative sources of energy. Wind power, biomass, wave power and other energy sources all have their devotees. We need a contribution from them all if we are to build a strong portfolio of energy sources that will make a dent on our present over-dependence on oil.

Above all, where renewable energy is concerned, we must not fall into the trap of what has been called the pilot scheme trap. Too often in this country, across a wide range of activities, we cod ourselves into thinking we have solved a problem when we have got a pilot scheme up and running. Some pilot schemes have been running for 20 years or more and have never progressed into the mainstream. If we persist in treating our energy challenge on a pilot basis, we will never get anywhere.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say on this issue. Bringing it to the forefront at this stage, particularly on the day that Britain indicated it will take steps to address it, makes us realise its importance.