Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State. It is always a joy to hear him speak, whether from a script or even more so when he speaks off the cuff. As he is present, I take the opportunity to comment on something Senator Joe O'Reilly touched upon. He referred to the curlew which is under huge threat. Although it is very rare, it is, amazingly, on the list of birds that may be shot from this month. One is allowed to shoot the curlew. This is not allowed in Northern Ireland where shooting the curlew is out of the question. A former Member of this House, Eamon de Buitléar, says this makes absolutely no sense. I am taking the opportunity to touch on the matter because I know it is close to the Minister of State's heart. There has been great success achieved in protecting the grey partridge in County Offaly. Ten years ago there were fewer than 20 alive. Because they are being protected, that number has now risen to 900 as a result of the success of the BirdWatch Ireland scheme.

I also wish to touch on something to which Senator Ó Brolcháin referred. He said human activity might not bring the world to destruction but one need only go to Chile to see this is a possibility. I had the opportunity to travel there some years ago. I did not get a chance to visit Easter Island, but I have read about it. Anyone who does not think the world might be damaged, or brought to an end, by human activity need only read the story of Easter Island. I advise Senators to look it up on the Internet. It is fascinating and a reminder of what could happen.

I picked up the report with great interest and have gone through it. It seems like a worthwhile contribution to the debate on climate change, even though there is a similar Government version. However, it could be argued that this report is more detailed than the Government plan and there are a few points I would like to raise.

When it comes to taxes to reduce C02 emissions, for instance, we must bear in mind that the economic downturn has reduced energy consumption significantly, a matter on which the Minister of State has touched. They hit a worldwide peak in 2007. Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions fell by nearly 8% last year, a massive amount, and the first time a fall has been reported in 20 years. Owing to the effects of the economic downturn, all sectors of industry and commerce recorded a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in two decades. Therefore, should we rush into producing more climate change legislation? Does the public simply associate the fall in emissions with a fall in economic growth? There is that danger, on which we have touched today.

The report sets a target for energy efficiency, but there is a lack of detail in it on how emissions would be cut. The target of an 80% emissions reduction by 2050 is very ambitious, but is it realistic? I would be inclined to agree with Richard Toll of the ESRI. He has written that the 20% emissions reduction target by 2020 contained in the report cannot possibly be met without draconian measures such as a prolonged depression or a ban on cows. Senator Ó Brolcháin has also touched on this aspect. A target of 30% would, of course, be even more difficult.

The green movement sometimes brings forward figures that are out of touch with reality. For instance, Mr. Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Renault-Nissan, one of the largest car makers in the world, and one of the keenest supporters of electric cars, appears to believe one in ten new cars in 2020 will be all-electric. The goal for Ireland goes far beyond this. We are saying one in ten cars - new and old - in 2020 should be all-electric. As a business person, I would inclined to listen to the view of an expert like Mr. Ghosn on such matters before the multitude of Government reports produced every year.

A professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Mr. Roger Pielke, has a new book entitled, The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming. It is worth looking at. I have not read all of it, but I have glanced through it. In it he argues that we cannot decarbonise the globe without sacrificing economic growth until breakthrough technologies are available and that the speed of their development will be proportionate to the spend on research and development. However, he does have a solution in which he favours spending much more money on innovation to produce renewable energy technologies that would be cheaper than fossil fuel technologies. The money would come from a modest carbon tax which, given current low levels of energy innovation, should still be enough to make a difference. The direct aim of this strategy would not be to produce a less bad climate but reaching the more measurable goal of bringing energy supplies to those in the developing world currently starved of them. Mr. Pielke accepts that this would mean higher carbon dioxide concentrations worldwide and all that would entail and advocates reallocating climate efforts towards dealing with these impacts. It is an interesting and much broader concept than the narrow concept of climate change we have in Ireland. Look at the fact that China pumps out the same volume of emissions in one day than we do in one year.

We should also be much more mature and debate the issue of nuclear power which would help us massively to reduce emissions. I know the Green Party would state it could not have anything to do with it. However, the Green Party in Britain has changed its attitude. It has swung right around and states it is now in favour of nuclear power. It seems sensible if we are really committed to tackling climate change to consider this renewable source of energy. Over 50 nuclear plants are under construction, of which more than 20 are in China. It could be argued that it is taking the longer term view, based purely on engineering principles rather than the emotional rhetoric with which nuclear power is burdened.

We are always holding up great examples of people who innovate or create jobs. Look at, perhaps, the most famous innovator of all, Mr. Bill Gates. He has emphasised that governments should focus on developing energy technologies such as nuclear power and next generation batteries. To meet the 2050 deadline for cutting carbon emissions, he is promoting a nuclear power approach called terrapower to develop nuclear reactors that would run primarily on natural or depleted uranium rather than enriched uranium. The reactors could be loaded up with such fuel and sealed for 30 to 60 years. The money we spend on four years' worth of carbon emissions credits is just shy of the €1 billion it would take for Ireland to build a medium-sized nuclear power station. Such investment may not make sense at present, but let us take a more rounded and longer term view.

To help think through the economic impact of a carbon tax or similar measure, the Australian Government is consulting many of the country's top business people on the issue. Why are we not looking at consulting similar persons here? The Government wants to create jobs, but it cannot then make it harder for business people to create them by imposing even more harsh conditions on them, even if it is in the name of the environment. I agree that the long-term aim of protecting the environment is essential. I have mentioned how I was affected by the story of Easter Island, but it is extremely difficult to convince people of the merits of protecting the environment if the Government introduces measures which may cost them a job. I am also concerned that the report recommends even more bureaucracy and the establishment of new institutions. Countries like Germany manage climate change within existing institutions. Given our situation of being lumbered with hundreds of quangos, I am somewhat concerned over the proposed establishment of an office of climate change and renewable energy and a climate change commission. Can the multitude of well-qualified civil servants in the Department not fulfil this task, for example?

Do the report or the Government recommendations really matter as it could be legitimately argued that climate policy will be set not by ourselves but by the European Commission? We are an EU member state so we have to comply with specific emissions targets set by Brussels. Is this legislation merely grandstanding by politicians to make us look good at conferences? Should we stop pretending that Brussels does not set the agenda in this area?

We must not step blindly into fixing climate change by imposing more taxes and conditions on businesses that stifle those very businesses. We have seen a massive reduction in emissions in the past three years and we should remember that economic growth is our priority at present. I accept it is necessary to be a juggler and to keep all the balls in the air. However, this debate gives us an opportunity to take it a little further along the road. What I have heard from the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, and Senators O'Reilly and Ó Brolcháin has been very useful and is a step in this direction. I welcome the opportunity to debate the matter. If we concentrate on it, taking into account the other challenges that face us, we can achieve what we are setting out to do.