David Norris (Independent)

I thank my colleague, Senator O'Toole, for sharing his time with me and allowing me to take part in this debate, which is timely because it reflects not only our energy needs but the impact of energy generation upon the global climate. I am very concerned about this issue. I have a motion on the Order Paper about it because I believe that what we are witnessing is perhaps the beginning of the destruction of the earth as a habitable planet. It is that serious.

In August, I took up an open invitation from the Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs to travel to Svalbard and Spitsbergen to see for myself the impact of climate change on marine and mammal life, the ice floes and the glaciers in those regions. What I saw there was very worrying. We also know that in Switzerland, for example, closer to home, the Eiger, one of the most famous mountains, is changing shape because the ice is melting and loosening. Massive rock falls have occurred. The rock face is exposed and is crumbling. Boulders are crashing down on villages. The heart of Europe is already experiencing the effects of climate change.

In Siberia, near Cherski, the permafrost has started to melt, new lakes are appearing, gases are bubbling up from the bottom of these lakes to the surface and they are having a further impact on global warming. Holes are appearing in the roads all around Cherski and buildings are starting to collapse. This is not some kind of science fiction account; this is what is already happening and, as Senator O'Toole said, it may well impact on us.

In the Arctic, the sea ice is decreasing in summer year by year and over the past 30 years, there has been a 15% to 20% decrease in it. I have seen the effect of climate change and one needs to experience it, to go to these places to get a firm hold on the level of the impact and to see what is happening.

We are not spending enough. I heard on the BBC World Service some weeks ago Professor John Holdren of the American Association for the Advancement of Science indicate that our spending rate on a global level in terms of renewing our energy stations and so on is flat whereas even to stand still it ought to be three times what it is currently. Some $12 trillion is needed to rebuild power plants, transmission lines and generating stations. That would have an impact over 30 to 40 years but we are not prepared to do it.

I never thought I would say this but thank God for Arnold Schwarzenegger and the introduction of fuel conservation measures which are being made mandatory throughout the state of California. The situation is now so serious that even the US Congress which, under the Bush Administration, had played ball with the energy and oil industries in particular, recently passed an emergency motion calling for an immediate approach to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. That shows that even within that most conservative group of people there is a recognition that something serious must be done.

With regard to energy, thank God for the people who are protesting in Rossport. Let us consider the way President Putin dealt with Shell. It is one of the most disreputable companies on the face of this planet and it is dishonestly buying its way into publications like National Geographic to pretend it is ecologically friendly. It is not. President Putin knew how to deal with it. If there is something in it for Shell, it will come back. It is disgraceful that the Irish State should be used by a multinational to crush a local population, so to speak.

I am glad there is use of interconnectors and that this will expand not only through Northern Ireland but also through Europe. That links in with what Senator O'Toole said about a bank of wind farms along the coast.

I turn now to the question of wind farms and put on record the benefit of them. For every megawatt of Irish wind energy that displaces fossil fuel power production each year, the environmental, economic and social benefits include the following: clean electricity to meet the electricity needs of 650 homes — that is per megawatt; the removal of the need to import 6,450 barrels of oil; the avoidance of 2,700 tonnes of CO2; the avoidance of 49 tonnes of SO2; the avoidance of 5.5 tonnes of NOX; and the avoidance of 175 tonnes of slag and ash for landfill. I know there has been some complaint about the environmental impact of wind farms but these things can be concentrated. In my opinion, they do less damage than people. There are some problems for migrating birds but only a small fraction of these birds will be damaged. They are much more likely to be damaged by a degrading of the environment than by wind farms.

The Government's website still has out-of-date material on the previous Green Paper which dealt with increasing the percentage of total primary energy requirements to be derived from renewable sources to 3.75% by 2005 from 2% in 2000. Have these targets been achieved and, if not, why are we bleating about further targets when we have not reached the initial ones?