Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

I am glad to be able to promote and begin what I consider to be a vital debate on the issues of climate change and energy security in the interests of national policy and the people. In particular, I wish to use this opportunity to make comments or put forward some ideas regarding the proposed new Oireachtas joint committee on climate change and energy security, in which the Government and Opposition parties will participate. Hopefully this will take place from next week, subject to the establishment of the committee within that timeframe. I believe it will play a vital role in helping us, both in terms of policy and as a people, to come to terms with these most challenging issues.

I put together the issues of climate change and energy security and it is correct to so do because they are complementary. Climate change provides a strong moral imperative to us to act on an immediate basis. This moral imperative pertains to the future of our planet, the people who live on it and our children. The issue of energy security provides an economic imperative to this society. As 80% or 90% of Ireland's energy comes from imported fossil fuels, we are severely exposed to any international factors that might restrict the availability or increase the price of such fossil fuels. This provides a major economic imperative for us to change our ways. If we so do, it will also allow us to achieve many of our climate change targets because most of Ireland's emissions derive from burning such fossil fuels to provide transport, generate power and heat buildings.

I was honoured to share membership with Senator Fiona O'Malley of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources during the past five years. The committee engaged in highly valuable and detailed analysis on the issue of energy and at its conclusion, I formed the clear sense that further analysis and explanation was required, it would be necessary to reach greater understanding and further decisions were needed on the key policy areas of energy considered by it. I was convinced, as was Senator O'Malley, that this issue transcends normal political dialogue and does not fit into the typical five-year electoral cycle within which politicians tend to operate.

I refer to the investment decisions that one makes in the field of energy. If one builds a road, it will last for 100 years. If one builds a power station, it will be still in operation in 30 or 40 years' time. Even if one buys a car, it will be still on the road in 15 years' time. Consequently, when one makes an investment decision in this regard, be it on a road, a grid, a power station or even a car, cooker or heater, one must consider the long term. In such circumstances, I believe that if different political parties can come to some common agreement and understanding as to what constitutes the best long-term future development for this country in the energy area, it will help us to make those decisions in the correct context.

This means that as householders, individuals, business people or policy makers, we will make investments. Questions arise as to whether we will build roads or rail, a coal-fired power plant or a renewable energy power plant, a bio-energy efficient car or an energy inefficient one. If I have some understanding that political agreement exists regarding the broad direction towards which I wish to go, this could, should and will influence the investment decisions we will make. It will make it easier to change to a renewable future and switch from use of fossil fuels because there will be a common understanding that regardless of election results, the direction on which we are travelling is set. Such a background understanding spurred me on in recent years to state consistently that the issues of climate change and energy security do not belong to a single political party and are far too important for that. In the past, our best responses to similar strategic threats have been made when we acted collectively with a common understanding and general agreement on the broad parameters of the requisite policy response.

Consequently, I look forward to the work of the proposed new Oireachtas joint committee, which will tease out some of the key policy issues faced by Ireland to ascertain whether common agreement and understanding can be achieved, regardless of political ideology. If this is the case, it will send a powerfully strong message to the administrative organs, the business system and to people at large that this is the direction in which this society wishes to travel.

The challenge should not be underestimated. I was interested to note the launch today of the International Energy Agency's latest world energy outlook report. Four or five years ago, I was engaged in rows with this agency. While I raised concepts such as peak oil, whereby we face a peak in global oil production if this position has not been arrived at already, the International Energy Agency, which represents more than 20 of the largest developed countries, asserted that this was nonsense and that there was not a problem as plenty of oil was available until 2030. However, the agency now has executed a 360° turn. Its report states: "...the consequences of unfettered growth in global energy demand are alarming . . . if governments stick with existing policies . . . the world's energy needs will be over 50% higher in 2030 than today". China and India account for approximately half of that growth.

The report goes on to state that vigorous, immediate and collective policy action by all governments is essential to move the world to a more sustainable energy path and that to date, there has been more talk than action in most countries. Such comments from an organisation that, in common with most such international organisations, is usually highly moderate and constrained in its statements should sound a major alarm because I believe we are close to a peak in global oil production. In fact, global oil production has not actually expanded in the past two years and is stuck at the same level despite the fact that oil prices have doubled. Today the price of a barrel of oil is $98 or $99. That has major consequences for a country such as ours as 60% of our energy comes from imported oil. Had there not been a devaluation in the dollar which almost matches the increase in oil prices, we would now be paying €1.60 to €1.80 per litre at the petrol pump and that would be the leading debate in the House and in every home in the country today. We have been shielded somewhat, but we cannot shield the people forever from the geological realities that are associated with the peak in global oil production — the year-on-year relentless decrease in the availability of oil when we move away from the current plateau and into the decline phase that will follow, as night follows day, in oil production on this planet.

The exact year of peak oil production is not of particular consequence. We know it is coming, and we know that we must prepare decades in advance. Because of the long-term investment decisions which I mentioned, such as power plants, roads and vehicles, even if the peak is in the future, we must act now. According to the latest studies by the US Department of Energy, we need to start changing our investment decisions two decades in advance to prepare for the peak. However, we are well past the two-decade warning signal. We need to make changes now. Unfortunately, if we consider the energy statistics produced by the agency within the remit of my Department, Sustainable Energy Ireland, even taking into account elements introduced under the national climate change strategy and projected increases in renewable energy use, it is predicted that by 2020, in a business-as-usual scenario, our use of energy will have increased by a further 30% over today's levels. This is a fairly accurate model for forecasting energy use.

The committee on climate change which we are setting up must consider urgently how we can save energy. The scale of the change required should not be underestimated. A response of this scale will require a substantial degree of political will and support to achieve. We should make these changes for sensible economic reasons such as protecting ourselves from rising gas and oil prices. As a country we are equally exposed in terms of gas supply. A total of 85% of our gas is imported, mostly from the North Sea, where supplies are being depleted by 7% to 8% per annum. If people are looking for reasons for the recent spike in energy prices, it is primarily because of our dependence on imported gas. In the UK in 2006, gas prices shot up to more than £2 per unit, compared with 40p or 50p today.

We may become used to this, because as UK gas is depleted it — and Ireland, because we have an integrated market — will become increasingly dependent on Norwegian gas. Two weeks ago the Norwegian Government decided not to connect the Troll field, one of its largest gas fields, to the UK market and by extension to the Irish grid. Although this is of major strategic importance to Ireland, it went largely unnoticed in the media and in political circles owing to the complexity and technical nature of the subject. However, it is of huge significance to the Irish people. In the short term — which I think of as the period to 2020, because we must think long-term in this area. We will probably use up whatever gas we find in the west or south west of Ireland, and we will then be reliant on Russian gas, because Norwegian and British gas will at that stage be depleted. Thus, in the short term we are very exposed. Just as for oil, we must reduce our dependence on this imported fossil fuel.

The connection between the two subjects of peak oil and climate change is that if we manage to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, this will also help us in tackling our climate change targets. Among the three policy considerations that must be taken into account in the matter of peak oil — security of supply, the environment, and competitiveness — none is predominant. The issue of climate change is more dramatic and urgent than that of peak oil. However, scientists have started to be clear and strident about what we need to do, which is to implement a reduction in emissions of at least the amount committed to in the programme for Government. The European Community has set the lead, and we have already signed up to a 30% reduction on 1990 emission levels at European Heads of Government level as part of a proposed international agreement. We must work towards an international agreement as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process, because the prospect of what would happen otherwise is too frightening for any country to consider.

If we are to achieve a 30% reduction in emissions, taking into account Ireland's derogation in the first round of Kyoto emission reductions — an increase of 13% compared with the 8% reduction committed to by the EU — this brings us to an overall reduction that can only be achieved by implementing a reduction of about 3% per annum every year until 2020. This is what will be required if we are to achieve our part of a European and worldwide attempt to reduce emissions. We should adopt the required measures with enthusiasm and agree to go further. We should view this responsibility not as sharing a burden but sharing an effort. It is a moral responsibility for all the people of this planet and for our children's future. If we approach it with a sense of zeal and enthusiasm, as a mission, it will be easier to achieve than if we do it as an obligation due to our membership of the EU or of the UN. As a people, we are ready to step up to the mark and play our part and, indeed, to lead the world.

What role will be played by the new committee? If the Irish people are to agree to that level of enthusiasm, support and commitment, there must be an understanding of the relevant issues which, as I said, are complex and technical. According to a recent MORI poll in the UK, a country in which the science of climate change is very advanced and where the national newspapers regularly lead with stories on the reality of climate change, roughly two thirds of people believe that the science of climate change is uncertain. It is the same in Ireland. Around two thirds of our people are still confused. They instinctively respond to documentaries such as Channel 4's "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which was broadcast earlier this year and which I believe was a swindle of true science rather than anything else, by thinking, "Thank God, it is not really a problem." We need to move beyond that and understand the problem, and perhaps through understanding we can move on to determination.

The proposed Oireachtas joint committee has an important role in helping people to achieve that understanding. It could also help in teasing out some of the technical complexities of the issue. One of these is the issue of bio-fuels, which has been much discussed in recent years. It is difficult to get a firm grip on the best approach. There are many variables in the policy issues associated with this area. Bio-fuels are traded on the international market under World Trade Organisation rules. In some areas, bio-fuel production may have environmental consequences or effects on world fuel prices, and these also interrelate with existing market variables. It is a complex and difficult subject. It behoves the Oireachtas to lead the people by teasing out these issues. What is the reality? What is the best opportunity or strategy for us? What is the truth about biodiesel, bioethanol and all the other second generation fuels?

It would also be useful for the committee to bring in people from outside the Oireachtas to explain their views or to conduct an analysis and present the findings in a report. This would be of interest to those involved in the agriculture industry because farmers could find out about the opportunities presented by climate change. It would also be of interest to people in the area of transport to consider what forms of transport could be provided if we suffer from an oil shortage. Maybe that is one subject that could be discussed and teased out in such a committee.

Likewise, in the use of biomass in heating, there are different factors at play — whether we use it in power generation, in heating or in industrial processing, and what crops we grow and how we support it. There is still an entire policy issue in the biomass area which would benefit from examination by an Oireachtas committee. This might provide certainty for farmers or business people who want to invest in the area. If they got back a clear message from an all-party Oireachtas committee that there is a real opportunity in this area in particular, that might help us make the correct investment decisions and have the courage to develop a strategy response which delivers for the Irish people.

There must be an honest debate in this Parliament about our use of energy in transport. At a time when oil prices have doubled, our use of oil in transport increased by 6% or 7% per year. We are so addicted and tied into that type of transport system that we are willing to pay the high costs involved and suffer the congestion and accidents that result from such an inefficient transport system.

I would dearly like to see an honest debate in an Oireachtas committee on our future transport policies in a world where oil will become more, not less, expensive. That honesty, on a non-confrontational and non-party political basis in an Oireachtas committee made up of Seanad and Dáil Members, could be of significant benefit. Electricity, which tends to get all the attention, is also important. The future for this country will be in the development of renewable energies and energy efficiency which will help us to easily meet those targets of which I spoke earlier, if we are dedicated to the task.

There are, however, other views. Rather than denying a forum for people with different views, it is better to have a debate because out of a debate one gets certainty. An Oireachtas committee is the appropriate forum in which to debate the way forward in terms of renewables, coal or whatever power supply might be the way forward. We should bring in experts, let them have their say and draw up a report. If we can reach common understanding that, for a variety of reasons, nuclear does not make sense, that will give much greater impetus to those who provide the alternative because they will know that we are going down that route and it will make more business and planning sense for them to provide the alternative. A joint Oireachtas committee can play a vital role in that sense in helping us, as a people, make this considerable and important change to a new renewable energy efficient future.

As I am conscious I have probably gone over the time available, I will finish by saying this Government is utterly committed to the task ahead of us. It will take time to achieve certain of the changes one might want. One does not change matters in energy overnight. It takes time because those investment decisions have a legacy period. We will take into account the future interests of the Irish people in making a switch from our use of fossil fuels. We are moving towards an all-Ireland market because that would bring about a much more transparent and competitive energy system. We are doing this in co-operation with our neighbour by having greater and wider interconnection into the rest of Europe and being part of an open European energy market system. We will introduce the likes of LNG facilities, which give back-up supplies when main pipelines can no longer feed us. As announced last week, we will put smart meters into every home. This will start with 25,000 houses in a pilot scheme and then every house in the country will be provided with a smart meter in order that people can play their part by monitoring their use of energy, cutting down and saving money. We will build renewables on a scale which will make us an international leader, particularly in wind energy but also possibly in other new areas, such as biomass, ocean and microgeneration, where all that is holding us back is imagination and political and business commitment. We will do this, but only when there is clear political leadership and there a clear understanding on the reasons for doing it, and the reality of the challenge facing us. That understanding will come from discussion and from teasing out the issues in Cabinet, in the Oireachtas and from there to the rest of the country.

I commend this House to that task.