John Crown (Independent)

In my view, the Minister has perhaps the most important portfolio of all of the Ministers in the current Government. The reason is it important is that the major existential threats which will face our species in the years to come are not the IMF or the ECB or Anglo Irish Bank or, indeed, disturbances between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael over interpretations of history. Those major threats will be to our food, water and energy. In 60 to 90 years time our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will face a crisis with regard to these core elements. There is no other area where we need to have a greater emphasis on long-term strategic planning, both as a civilisation, as a member of a European community and as a national society, than in energy policy. In particular, all arguments about the aesthetics of wind farms or the rights of people as against pylons - I must add here my strong disapproval of the disproportionate action of Ms Tracy being incarcerated when people who have driven the country into the ground are totally free - but the major threat we face is our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels. This is the overwhelming crisis which we must face. Whether one is a believer in global warming, a global warming sceptic, an agnostic about global warming, or somebody with an open mind, I say forget global warming. There are three key reasons it is essential for us to wean ourselves off the necessity of burning carbon if our species is to survive. The obvious reason is that there is not enough carbon left. This is a supply issue. We will hit peak oil, peak gas, peak wood, peak turf, peak everything which is not renewable, within a very finite period of time. In the case of oil, this will occur in the lifetime of even those of us who are in the later stages of middle age.

The economic arguments are overwhelming. It is extremely bad for a society to be entirely dependent on the importation of energy from abroad. It distorts our balance of trade. This is the real economy and it is not the shuffling of false economy through financial institutions which cream off interest and tell us they are generating wealth. This is the real economy and this is what we must grapple with.

Perhaps the least politically correct of my arguments is that there is a profound geopolitical threat to us from being heavily dependent on imported hydrocarbons, especially when those hydrocarbons come from some of the most unstable societies in the world, societies which may be a coup or a Jihad away from turning off the faucet for us. The arguments in favour of making ourselves less dependent on hydrocarbon fuels and less dependent on imported energy are overwhelming.

The Minister referred to exploration. While I am not necessarily a fan of the Tea Party exhortations to Sarah Palin at meetings to, "Drill, baby, drill", if there are exploitable hydrocarbons we need to use them, pending the adoption of more sustainable forms of alternative energy. Putting an emphasis on exploration would be a little like the piano key industry looking at dwindling sources of ivory from nearly extinct herds of African elephants and saying, "We should look at India for some more elephants", when clearly that industry should be finding another material other than the tusks of elephants. What we need to do in order to sustain ourselves in the future is to find something other than burning hydrocarbons.

There are not that many people in either Houses with some kind of a background in science. My background is far from energy policy, but I have a big interest in it and would be delighted to have a chat with the Minister next week as I intend to visit people on both sides of the Corrib debate on Friday. We should not limit ourselves to 10%, 12% or 16% in terms of renewables. Instead, we must put huge effort into making this one source of energy we have available here a centrepiece of our future energy policy. I am sorry if I sound unsentimental about this, but while considerations relating to dead birds or spoiled views are important, they must take secondary importance. I also support the Minister's efforts in the area of insulation.

I will make two final points. First, we need to start a debate on the notion that at some fixed date in the future, perhaps ten or 15 years from now, we will move towards zero tolerance for private cars burning hydrocarbons. This would be one way to remove up to 50% of our requirement for hydrocarbon derived energy. Second, we must look rationally, calmly and maturely at nuclear energy. I do not advocate we have, but we must remember that in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster of 27 years ago, there is no evidence that there is any excess of foetal abnormalities or leukaemia that occurred as a result of that accident, an accident which was as a result of a horrifically maintained and obsolete nuclear energy plant. I urge the Minister to keep an open mind on the issue of nuclear energy.