Feargal Quinn (Independent)

There is an old saying that if one builds a better mouse-trap, the world will beat a path to one's door. This is very much evident today because it is clear that we face a challenge and a problem. It is not easy to solve it because, when we seek to invent the better mouse-trap, namely, that of renewable energy, we are not finding it very easy.

I was on a television programme some years ago and was asked whether I had advice to give somebody starting in business, as I had done 45 or 50 years before. I said I believed there was a future in renewable energy and that there must be a way to develop it. I was impressed no end by the number of people who contacted me from around the country with their plans, be they in respect of wave energy, tidal energy or hydroelectric energy. It is interesting to note the mini-hydroelectric efforts in this regard in County Donegal. Regardless of whether solar or wind energy is in question, various and genuine efforts are being made to solve the problems that arise. At some point, we must encourage those involved. Perhaps we will get it right and somebody will come up with the answer.

I am certain bio-fuels will not be the answer. I had the opportunity to visit Brazil some years ago and could not get over the fact that every petrol station had a 50:50 bio-fuel mix. Vehicles run on alcohol in that country but, as we heard today, it is clear this will not be the answer. Regardless of maize production in Brazil, the shift from food crops to bio-fuel crops in North America is partly responsible for the problems associated with global food security. The problem must be solved through the market economy. Prices will increase and, as they do so, we will use less power, irrespective of its source. The market economy will help in this regard.

The harm bio-fuels are doing to the environment and food prices is clear. Although we are talking about renewable energy sources, we must note that first-generation bio-fuels primarily derived from food crops such as corn, maize and sugar beet have been blamed for driving up food prices as crops have been diverted from food production into fuel production, thus causing acute shortages of food in some developing countries. This is clearly causing considerable difficulties in the locations concerned.

There is concern in the European Union that there is not enough available land to grow plants for the 10% bio-fuel target, while importing oil from outside the union would have a direct impact on food prices in the developing world. The European Environment Agency said that using the oil for transport was not as effective as running vehicles on more environmentally friendly systems, such as electricity, as we have heard today.

The environmental benefits of first-generation bio-fuels have also been questioned. Environmentalists say almost as much energy is spent producing fuel from the crops as the energy they yield. In addition, bio-fuel supply, in the medium term, is dependent on the vagaries of rainfall and sunshine. We know in Ireland how difficult these are to predict. The harmful effects of first-generation bio-fuels on the environment and on world poverty are clearly a challenge and will have to be examined much more carefully. There is a delay in the production of information on these issues and we must develop a fuller understanding of the impact of bio-fuels on food prices and the developing world.

The European Commission's proposal that sustainability monitoring be applied to any bio-fuels bought or sold in the European Union must be supported. It is no secret that the first generation of bio-fuels is having an effect on the environment and food prices that is more negative than positive, yet the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has not moved on from the policy that existed when he entered Government more than a year ago. There is a requirement to act in this area.

Two weeks ago I attended a meeting on sustainability and growth in Munich. It addressed the question of whether renewable energies are less efficient economically than fossil fuels. International evidence to date strongly supports the view that switching from subsidising fossil fuels to subsidising renewable sources of energy may be economically less efficient than maintaining the status quo, in other words, allowing the market to increase prices.

Renewable energy sources remain at least three times more dependent on subsidies than fossil fuels and, in absolute terms, global subsidies to fossil fuels exceed the public funding available for renewable energy sources. However, fossil fuels account for some 81% of global energy production, that is 18 times more than that from renewable sources, yet fossil fuels account for just six times more in terms of global subsidies than do renewable sources. Thus, per unit of energy supplied, fossil fuel subsidies, even at the highest estimate point, are three times less dependent on subsidies than renewable energy sources.

Renewable energy production requires equipment and techniques that generate pollution. One speaker at the conference in Munich was the boss of Toyota. All the car manufactures in Germany were asked to make a presentation on what they were doing but the only car company that accepted was Toyota. Perhaps the best example of the problem to which I refer is the Toyota Prius, the hybrid car that delivers significant cuts in carbon dioxide emissions in everyday use. Studies have found that manufacturing a Toyota Prius requires such extensive use of pollution-intensive technologies that each owner would have to drive his or her car in excess of 170,000 miles, or nearly 300,000 km, before realising actual emissions savings by comparison with an average mid-class saloon. This poses a real challenge and addressing it is not very easy although it might seem so. We did not know this before Toyota told us the wonderful job it is doing. It is doing a wonderful job, but at a high cost. We must lower the cost but it is highly unlikely that we will be able to do so in the shorter term.

Storage technologies for renewable energy are so costly that even the most viable ones, such as water storage technology, consume more than 90% of the energy they are supposed to store. These costs do not take into account the highly polluting and environmentally disruptive nature of the storage technologies. In a time of economic uncertainty, as in Ireland at present, the costly and uncertain nature of renewable energies must be debated.

It was very interesting to hear other Senators because they covered a range of issues of which I was not aware. However, the development of renewable energy sources presents a challenge. While there is a definite feel-good factor associated with renewable energy sources, is it enough to justify the changes?

At the G8 summit yesterday, the G8 leaders congratulated themselves on having taken a significant step forward on climate change. However, they ran into trouble immediately. The emerging nations of China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa demanded a much more concerted effort from the developed world. They want those eight nations represented at G8 summits to commit themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% to 90% below the 1999 level by 2050. However, the other nations also claim this is insufficient and in addition, want them to set targets for the halfway point of 2020. Therefore, while George W. Bush and others were congratulating themselves, they have realised that while they have made some progress, it is not nearly enough and will not be accepted.

This is the challenge we are setting for ourselves and we will not find it easy. I believe this problem will be solved by the marketplace because we will be obliged to use much less energy than in the past.