Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I welcome the debate, even if it might lead us down some dark alleys. In moving the motion, I set out to acknowledge the direction of Government policy. While we have not yet achieved anything in some areas, some Government initiatives are important in their own right. For example, the establishment of the committee on climate change and energy security and the existence of a Cabinet sub-committee on the same subject demonstrates that this policy area is a Government priority, one on which we will be judged.

The targets in the programme for Government are ambitious and require a political price to be paid if implemented directly by the Government. It is easy to oppose the effects of trying to reach these targets and I have listened to some of the comments on the construction industry and access to private transport. If we are to reach climate change targets we must make dramatic changes in the way we live. The figures cited in the amendment, for example, that fossil fuels account for more than 90% of our energy consumption and that more than 80% of our energy requirements are imported, do not make environmental or economic sense. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. If we take collective action, it must benefit the country socially, environmentally and economically. As yet, this is not understood. As we go deeper into the debate and use the new mechanisms available to us, such as the Oireachtas committee, understanding will permeate political discussion.

Other measures are worth acknowledging. Nothing has been achieved because it is early in the Government's life, but new building regulations — 40% to 60% to 80% towards totally energy efficient houses — have been drafted. This week, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources announced that 25,000 homes would receive smart meters. Such is the poverty of information in and the quality of this debate that, when these measures were introduced, some of those who debated against them, including members of the media, purported that energy efficient building regulations would increase the cost of housing. They ignored the fact that people would spend less on the running of their houses.

When the smart metering announcement was made today, a national newspaper carried a story from the Commission on Electricity Regulation and claimed that installing smart meters would increase the price of electricity. This is nonsense because the meters will give people the opportunity to determine how much electricity they use so that they can work towards reducing that amount and offer them the opportunity to sell electricity to the grid. When there is such misreporting or misunderstanding, some of it deliberate, one sees how far there is to go to put together a coalition of the willing in respect of the environment. I am almost afraid to use that term.