Derek McDowell (Labour)

I accept that is the case. If one considers this issue from the point of view of purely climate change, there is an overwhelming case for closing all the peat stations. They have been effectively closed and three new ones have been recommissioned. Peat is an enormous emitter of greenhouse gases, accounting for approximately 10% of the greenhouse gases emitted by the electricity sector. That level of emissions is far too high. If one was considering this issue purely in terms of a climate change strategy, one would close them all in the morning, regardless of how efficient the new stations are compared with the old ones. Peat is still a very dirty fuel. One would not have to be a total cynic not to think that some political considerations have come into play in terms of that debate.

Senator Kitt mentioned the area of afforestation, which is an interesting one. In a sense this is the other side of the coin — the positive side. Afforestation is a positive step and it acts as a carbon sink. There are two reasons we should develop our forests, the first is that they gobble up carbon and the second is that we need to invest in biomass and forestry if we are serious about increasing the renewable usage up to the levels we mentioned. The Government needs to seriously examine the afforestation programme. We have been growing more forests in recent years but that follows a period of prolonged deforestation. Our forestry coverage here is still extremely low by comparison to the European average. It is approximately 10% of the total land coverage of the country in comparison to an EU average, which I consider a high figure, of 30% or more. We need to invest in the afforestation programme and to encourage and incentivise the sector in the years ahead.

Much mention has been made of the emissions trading, with which I do not have a problem in principle. The arguments made by Stern and others in its favour are persuasive but there is no doubt equally that it is very much the easy option in the current context of trying to get anywhere near our Kyoto targets. Approximately half of the shortfall will be made up by carbon trading. We are doing that simply because we have no other option, and we may as well be honest about it. By all means we should continue to use the emissions trading system but we also need to do enough at home. We need to make our own contribution, otherwise the moral and persuasive political argument the Minister made will fall flat on its face. We are basically saying we will buy ourselves out of a problem if we need to do that.

Senator Brady said the stabilisation of emissions in the past three or four years did not happen by accident, but in a sense it did. We have dealt with two policies well in the last while, which we were not doing previously. One is the change in the CAP, which has resulted in a reduction in the size of the national herd, and the other is the recycling policy. Both have resulted in the reduction in emissions but that was not the primary purpose of either policy. Therefore, it has happened almost by accident. Let us take it as a gift.

The purpose of tabling this motion was to stimulate a debate, the commencement of which we have had this evening. That is a good development. I also tabled the motion in the terms outlined, referring back to the 2000 strategy, in the knowledge that the Government is about to publish a new strategy. I wish the Government well in setting ambitious targets. They are, I hope, not only the Government's targets but will become national targets in the years ahead. I regret that if we reflect on the experience of the past seven years, one would have to be somewhat sceptical about our capacity to deliver it.