Seanad debates

Thursday, 4 March 2010

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan. He has been here frequently and this Bill is on a particularly important topic.

I concur with much of the argument put forward by Senators Norris and O'Reilly with regard to the need for redefinition to change the thrust and, in particular, to promote the development of indigenous industry in this area. We are using approximately 6 billion litres of hydrocarbon fuels per annum and we have declared we will move to a 4% bio-fuel obligation, which is somewhere in the region of 220 million to 240 million litres per annum. At present, we are at not much more than 20% production of that target and, therefore, there is considerable scope to expand.

I live almost as close as Senator John Paul Phelan to Belview Port and I am familiar with the proposals for it. However, it is not just a matter of that location as we probably need to do more in this regard. The Senators who spoke identified precisely what needs to be done, namely, to ensure the bioethanol should only be deemed to constitute a bio-fuel in the case of ethyl alcohol with an alcohol content of at least 99% volume, which is was what was put forward in the proposed amendment. It is also relevant that this applies in many other EU states at present.

If we fail to do this, we will continue to import from countries a long distance away, such as Brazil. A number of issues arise in this regard. We fully subscribed to the climate change agenda in the interest of the global environment as well as the global economy. Therefore, if we subscribe to that, we must adhere to good practice to ensure it happens. If we examine the import of any products from such a distance as Brazil, a considerable amount of CO2 is involved in the transportation. However, because it is Brazil, there are other concerns with regard to climate change in that area. As Senator Norris said, the increase we are imposing on the use of the arable land in Brazil for the growth of crops is actually pushing the beef industry further west and into the Amazon, with the deforestation and adverse affects that come from that.

One of the compelling arguments in this regard at any time but particularly in the current economic downturn, with the huge increase in unemployment, is that we would promote indigenous industry. Most economists now accept that while we will still require foreign direct investment, it is the growth of indigenous industry that will be the key to overcoming our economic difficulties and reducing unemployment levels to more acceptable and sustainable levels in the future. Not alone are we talking about the jobs in the production industries involved, but the ancillary services that go with that, not to mention the growth of the crops which will help an agriculture industry which is going through very severe difficulties at present. I would certainly ask the Minister to consider these amendments favourably with a view to bringing them back on Report Stage, if possible. We need to be positive in the way we construct our legislation so the climate for economic development and job creation is based on a strong foundation.

The other point, which has not been raised as yet and which has been put to me by people involved in the recovery of hydrocarbon resources and their use, is that there should be potential within that area for them to play their part in meeting this 4% obligation with regard to bio-fuels. I am unsure whether the reuse and recycling of this fits the biodegradable definition but the argument on reuse and recycling is one we subscribe to as a country and one in which the State, through its agencies, especially local authorities, has invested a lot of money. If it can be fitted into the definitions, it is something I would put forward for consideration.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.