Dan Boyle (Green Party)

That is correct. In regard to the new standards, it is important that the average of 4% is being struck given that the Minister has shown how the 5% and other standards have oscillated as we have been experimenting with this policy approach. With a 4% average there is a guarantee that in terms of cost savings and environmental benefit, as long as the bio-fuel can be shown to have a 35% improvement in terms of lower carbon costs, it is something we should go with. It is a question of putting a blend into what will remain into the medium term the number one fuel force in terms of consumers' transport needs. That is a reality we must recognise. However, that does not preclude the objective of achieving a higher percentage of bio-fuel in the blend or of developing 100% bio-fuel options, as has been done successfully by Carbery Milk Products in Inniskeen whose product is retailed through the Maxol network.

Other speakers referred to the potential perils of a fuel for food approach. There is no doubt, as the Minister indicated in his speech, that the rush towards bio-fuel in countries such as the United States and in emerging economies such as Brazil put great pressure on food prices in 2007 and 2008. A very poor balance was struck whereby in seeking to meet our overall energy needs, we neglected the food needs of much of the planet's population. On that basis, the question we must ask ourselves in an environmental sense, as Senator O'Toole indicated, is not the extent to which bio-fuels can replace our existing consumption patterns in terms of transport and other usages of fossil fuels but rather to what extent our energy consumption is necessary, sustainable and likely to grow into the long term. Those are the questions we are reluctant to ask because the assumption is that asking them will put at risk our future economic well-being. However, if we do not ask ourselves those questions, then we are not serious about building a sustainable future in terms of energy needs, with a role for bio-fuel within that, and all we are doing as a society is replacing something bad will something less bad. That is not a solution to our long-term environmental problems.

We must be serious in our approach to such issues as how we travel from A to B, the types of supports we are willing to give to public transport and the degree to which we can and will deal with renewable energies. I agree with Senator O'Toole that there has been a degree of frustration in terms of the failure to implement many aspects of the programme for Government in a timely fashion. However, along with this debate, in the course of which the Minister has given a good exposition and progress report on what is happening in the bio-fuel area, we have also had today the Second Stage debate on the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009 which represents an important legislative contribution in terms of how we deal with environmental campaigning in the future. Without that, we cannot ratify the Aarhus Convention.

If there is to be effective public engagement on the environmental issues that face us as a nation and globally into the future, there must be a cultural shift as well as changes in legislation and replacement products. I continue to have trust and confidence in the Minister even though he chose to leave the Chamber before I made my contribution. This part of the energy and environmental agenda has benefited not only from the Minister's and the Government's approach but also from the honest approach taken by the European Union. The road on which we are embarked is of necessity paved with good intentions but we should never be afraid to turn back from that course and change tack as required. The Minister's statement on Government policy in this area is predicated on that simple truth. We must take the opportunity to get our proposals right. As a society, an economy and an environment, we will benefit from that policy approach.