Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. I am glad he is in office at this time because of his commitment and enthusiasm for this topic. I was on "Tubridy Tonight" on a Saturday night a number of years ago. I was asked if I was going into business now, what business it would be? Would I go back into the business I started with at the age of 23? I answered that I would look at alternative energies. There must be a future in it. I was amazed and delighted to receive, within weeks, letters and messages from all over Ireland from people who had ideas concerning not only wind but wave, tidal and solar energy. The ideas and concepts have come from the enthusiasm of the Minister and his colleagues.

Al Gore has stated: "Ireland, with its successful business model and unique political positioning, has a key role to play among developed nations in driving the environmental agenda". That message is getting across and I welcome the debate and this scrutiny report.

We must look at innovative ways to do this. What struck me about the scrutiny report was its emphasis on wind power and the country's stagnation in this area. Ireland's offshore area covers 900,000 sq. km of seabed. That is ten times the land area of the State. We must move with the times and invest in such projects. The scrutiny report found that our planning process hinders the development of such offshore projects and needs to be brought up to date. The National Offshore Wind Association stated that five companies are waiting to get the Government's go-ahead to develop projects worth €6 billion, which could provide 40% of the Republic's total electricity needs. Some of these were referred to by the Minister. In addition, a recent Indecon cost benefit analysis report of offshore wind in Ireland argued in economic terms for investment in this sector. The report suggested a potential return of €3.8 billion for the country from the deployment of 1,000 MW of offshore wind. There are, understandably, local concerns, not least from an aesthetic and tourism perspective, but there is evidence to back up the clear economic rationale for investment in this sector. We need movement on this issue. Considering our advantageous location — facing the windswept Atlantic — which other European countries cannot avail of, it seems a sin not to exploit this emission-free, quiet and renewable source of energy.

I recently heard an Irish man speak at a conference on this topic. He said it was taking him years to get permission to build three wind generators. He went to Texas and found an area suitable for his planned 120 wind generators. When he asked how long it would take to get permission to install them he was told he could be given permission in seven days. There must be a way around our planning difficulties. I do not have the answers. However, unless we commit ourselves to wind energy we will fall even further behind and miss a huge opportunity.

Agriculture and transport, what we call cows and cars, are sectors that contribute to climate change in Ireland. The scrutiny report found that agriculture must be addressed in order to meet climate change targets. Agriculture contributes 26.4% of Ireland's overall emissions, predominantly caused by methane from livestock, whereas the EU average is 9%. The report recommends that the EU include afforestation in its calculations for reducing greenhouse gases in the agricultural sector.

However, in the wider context, almost every EU country has found reasons why climate change promises may be impossible to meet in their current form. The European target to produce 20% of all energy, including transport, heating and electricity, from renewable sources by 2020 is ambitious, to say the least.

In a time of economic downturn, livelihoods of the farming community must be properly considered before setting targets which would cause them further hardship during the downturn. Farmers are concerned they will have to reduce the bovine herd and are worried that restrictions will force them to stop food production. I am not known as an advocate of farmers because I usually find myself representing the consumers. In this regard they have a very strong case and their concerns must be taken into account. However, in the broader context — the macro level — if we do not address climate change now, it could bring irreversible changes to agriculture in Ireland. Changes in temperature and rainfall and climatic extremes are already adding stresses to agricultural resources around the world at a time when food price rises and population growth are already major concerns.

At the end of August, I attended a meeting in Asia on this topic. I took part in a workshop on sustainable agriculture throughout the world and the threat to food prices. Earlier today, I mentioned that I met Mr. Kofi Annan last night at a function to mark the 40th anniversary of Concern. We discussed the fact that 850 million people go to bed hungry each night. We face a huge challenge of food production. We may not think so in Europe but we must recognise the challenges the world faces.

Farmers are concerned by this issue. We need to balance the two concerns I have mentioned and work for a viable model that addresses climate change and also recognises the vital contribution that agriculture plays in Ireland.

The scrutiny report believes that Ireland has potential for developing forests which act as a carbon sink to reduce greenhouse gases but so far, the EU does not factor this into official emission figures. Deputy Liz McManus, who is a member of the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security, urged increased afforestation development across the country to remove carbon from the atmosphere. I would argue for a programme of afforestation on even broader terms.

A new report commissioned by the EU, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, was published on 10 October. It found that the global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests than through the current banking crisis. It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 and $5 trillion. Whereas the United States has lost between $1 and $1.5 trillion in the financial sector, the report estimates that the global economy loses between $2 and $5 trillion every year. The figure comes from adding the value of the various services forests perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide. The report states, "As forests decline, nature stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free. So the human economy either has to provide them instead, perhaps through building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, or farming foods that were once naturally available", or does not have use of such services at all. The report highlights an issue that is under-recognised. In this country, we have a strong tradition of maintaining and planting forests. However, in the light of the scrutiny report, which recommends afforestation, and this new study on the economic benefits of forests, the issue needs more attention than it currently gets.

I am pleased that Deputy Gormley is Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. If anyone is going to do anything about this problem it is he. I recommend that the words he has used today be supported and I support his motives.