Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

——that it is the collective wisdom of and the cross-fertilisation of ideas across the House which will bring the suggestions we need to harness to tackle this serious challenge.

The Minister referred to the three related areas of security of supply, environment and competitiveness. This is a global problem and the target is to cut global emissions by 70% over the course of this century. This is a very challenging target which requires significant world leadership. When the major economy in the world, the US, does not fully embrace the Kyoto Protocol, this raises concerns. It is probable that within the next quarter of a century we will have a new world economic leader in China. As it grows, it will undoubtedly add considerably to emissions, as is happening at present. Real issues and challenges arise in this regard.

There have been interesting programmes on this topic on television and other media. It is interesting to note that experts will often differ. Some set out the seriousness of the problem and what needs to be done to address it. Others, however, will point out that in the millions of years the planet has existed, change has been cyclical and there has been tremendous climate change, as we know from our school days when we learned about the ice age. The gases to which we refer were always in the atmosphere but industrialisation has significantly increased their concentration. We know also of the harmful health effects of ultraviolet radiation which is now getting through as a result of damage to the ozone layer.

Television programmes show us images of glaciers melting near the North Pole and polar bears stranded on icebergs in the middle of the sea. I found on the Internet that experts believe the largest glacier in South America, the Upsala glacier, which is 870 sq. km., is retreating by 60 m per year, and has been doing so for the past 60 years. This underlines the rate at which climate change is having a serious effect on ecosystems as well as on rainfall.

The impact of this will be negative, with serious consequences for every continent. It will have an effect on northern Europe, which will be more vulnerable to floods, while southern Europe will become more susceptible to drought, with a consequential effect on agriculture. The northern region will experience increased yields while there will be decreased output in the southern region. While we could, given our situation, take a selfish view that our temperatures will increase by a couple of percentage points in the next 50 years, this would be very short-sighted because the effects will have such dramatic adverse consequences for countries and peoples across the globe as to ensure we will also be seriously affected.

Coastal erosion and flooding are further issues. We have witnessed an increase in flooding in all continents in recent decades with the serious consequences this brings. In Europe, the Netherlands will be particularly susceptible given that much of the country is below sea level. Many islands, such as the Seychelles, will be in danger of severe flooding, as will parts of Asia. A recent report stated that all of Bangladesh and much of Vietnam would be completely covered by water and many coastal cities in Japan will suffer the same fate.

Climate change in Africa will be severe. Desert areas will increase in size and the loss of productive land is expected to accelerate, which will have an impact on food production. Given the problem of famine in Africa, this change will only accentuate it.

The case for taking effective action is incontrovertible, which brings me to the question of what action we have taken in this regard. Ireland has embraced the Kyoto Protocol. It was to reduce its emissions by 13% by 2012 and, effectively, it is on target to achieve this. Nonetheless, much more can and should be done. Senator Coffey decried the fact we were buying credits as a means of meeting our targets. There is nothing wrong with that because this is a global problem and a global challenge. We are a small island and we must play our part but it is only through all nations coming together in partnership and focusing their efforts on a common goal that we can hope to make the significant reductions that are necessary. It is a complex area, however.

To some extent the reductions to be achieved challenge policies in other areas. All of us in these Houses are supportive of our overseas development aid programme. We recognise that Asia, Africa and many other Third World countries need economic support to allow them achieve a sustainable economic level and support themselves. That, in turn, will lead to a significant increase in CO2 but it is not within our remit to advocate that they should minimise their goals and objectives of developing their economies in order for the international community to meet its targets.

An aspect that has not arisen in the debate so far is the need for a real emphasis on improving technology and investing in scientific research to ensure the technical changes can come about as well as trying to reduce emissions in that area. It is only in doing that that we can cut our emissions from fossil fuels and the like.

I was in China in 2000 and had no difficulty driving through the centre of Beijing. There were not many cars to be seen. I returned to China two or three years later, however, and there were traffic jams everywhere in Beijing. Apparently, that arose because of the SARS epidemic where people opted to buy cars to move about rather than use public transport because of the danger of contracting SARS on public transport. It was interesting to see the different influences that can be brought to bear that can skew the efforts being made in that regard.

As Senator Coffey said, we have much to do in this regard. We talked about that this morning in the office. The heating was on but it was too warm and we had to open the windows. There is a certain contradiction in all of that. Likewise, as Members leave their offices this evening I have no doubt they will see televisions and computers on in empty rooms. Good housekeeping starts with ourselves and if we do not take personal ownership in the first instance, and that comes back to generating awareness and people seeing it as the partnership the Minister identified, the progress we seek will not be achieved.

I concur with the comment made by Senator O'Reilly about the national rail line, particularly in the commuter belts, but as someone who served as president of the Irish Road Haulage Association and would have examined rail transport, I believe our country is too small to generate a transfer of major tonnage from our roads to railways. We need a good road network. That is why I welcome the building of motorways. We need much better traffic management. If one wants to see bad traffic management one only has to go out to the roundabout at the Red Cow Inn. That was designed not too long ago but international practice has superseded what was done there. All those delays in traffic give rise to many of the emissions. I would not deny that we need better public transport also.

I mentioned investment earlier. Wind energy was mentioned also and in my county and on the Arklow bank, many wind farms have been erected. There is a limit to what they will contribute but none the less they are an important component in getting from 15% to 33% sufficiency by 2020, although wave energy must have real potential. I believe it was Senator O'Toole who said in the House recently — I saw the report in the newspaper — that somebody was developing a machine in Galway. We must support that type of research to ensure that kind of modem for generating energy is developed. Given our pivotal position on the west coast of Europe, the potential for us as a nation is strong in that regard.

With regard to the issue of bio-fuels, should we be looking at set-aside? Bio-fuels will now have an effect on food prices. Why should we be setting aside land if there is a demand in terms of other crops for doing that?

While nuclear energy is clean and may help us on reducing emissions, we do not have the right — I opposed this from the first time I was elected to Wexford County Council in 1979 — to give a legacy to future generations of a waste that will be radioactive for thousands of years. We should look to alternatives. It would be a last resort and one that I would find difficult to support.