David Norris (Independent)

This motion is very timely. It addresses one of the burning issues of the day in a non-aggressive, non-confrontational way and I do not understand why every Member of this House cannot support it as originally placed on the Order Paper. It states: "That Seanad Éireann recognises the need to develop a national energy strategy that will address Ireland's over-dependence on oil and replace it to the largest possible extent by energy derived from renewable sources." Nobody could argue against this. It involves no confrontation and no attack on the Government and therefore I want the Government side to explain to me — an Independent Member — why it was necessary to table a totally fatuous amendment full of exhortation and pious good wishes but without the slightest bit of strategy. The year 2020 is invoked as a kind of visionary date but there is not much vision. The Swedish Government, on the other hand, has committed itself to putting a total end to its dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. This, rather than the pathetic statement made by the Government tonight, is what I call real 20:20 vision.

The Minister of State's contribution contains some facts but so much of it refers to the vision for renewable energy, the consultation paper of last July, the agreed joint paper due later this year and the intention to launch a national energy-efficiency campaign. This is all pie in the sky and it is a little too late for this kind of stuff. Let us have a real, substantial plan and an environment in which we are friendly towards this sort of development.

Instead of taking the advice in the motion in a non-argumentative, non-confrontational way, the Government sought, in its ridiculous amendment, to dilute it so it could produce this waffle, a paean of praise for itself. It alludes to its ambitions, hopes, consultation papers, Green Papers, White Papers and intended plans for this, that and the other, yet we know perfectly well that we will not meet our targets under the Kyoto Protocol. We are well short of meeting them already. We may be reducing the rate at which we are exceeding the thresholds but that is about all. Even the Kyoto Protocol will do very little to address global warming, the effect of which we must now all acknowledge. All in all, the Government's response is pretty pathetic.

The Minister of State referred to an initiative in which four Dublin colleges succeeded in cutting their energy bills by 6.3%. More power to them — it was their initiative and it did not come from the Government. I launched the initiative two years ago during Green Week and went back this year to Trinity College to look at the results. I am very proud of what the colleges are doing. The Government should follow their example instead of quoting them as an easy example in which they can idly luxuriate.

We have not met our Kyoto goals and we will have to buy carbon credits in the market.

There will be a cost for this. We need to provide an environment that is friendly to the development of alternative fuel sources. I am not convinced this has been done.

The matter of wind power has been ventilated today. The manner in which Airtricity was hamstrung by legal red tape and the constraints of the ESB grid does not suggest the Government has managed to create an environment that is friendly to the development of alternative fuel sources. We know that wind farms are successful. The first one was started in Bellacorick, County Mayo over ten years ago. We now have 186 wind turbines in 45 locations throughout the country. These contribute 500 MW to the grid system, the equivalent of 315,000 households. Removing that many households from fossil fuel use is a significant achievement. The Government should assist where these developments are being hampered by red tape. The latest figures available, from December 2004, indicate that 5.2% of our electricity is supplied by wind power.

Many of my colleagues will remember former Cathaoirleach Charles McDonald. Ten years ago he drove a very nice Mercedes car fuelled by rapeseed oil. He took me for a drive around Merrion Square and it drove perfectly. The only downside was that it smelled like a chip van. He was able to sustain his fuel needs from one acre of rapeseed.

In the nature of economic cycles one market, namely sugar beet, has disappeared but farmers affected by this could diversify into growing rapeseed for the purposes of producing oil. I listen to agricultural programmes on RTE because they are very interesting. The woman who presents them has a lovely midlands voice and is a joy to listen to. She interrogated a farmer who stated that there are two varieties of rapeseed that can be sown in spring or in October. The yield and profitability of rapeseed are equivalent to barley and, in the better seed, wheat. The profitability they provide is not far from that of sugar beet. This would provide a method of reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

I strongly support this motion. I understand my colleague Senator Quinn may not put this motion to a vote. If it were me I would do so to show up the Government side. Every time a motion is put down by Members on this side, particularly by the Independents who are distinct from the Opposition, the Government gets hoity-toity and insulted and puts down a fatuous amendment. Perhaps a wind farm could be created on the Government side. I am irritated by this politically irresponsible behaviour, a real error of judgment. The Government has exposed the weakness in its argument.