John Crown (Independent)

The paths of the Minister and I crossed slightly on the last occasion he was before the House. I will take a slight liberty in bringing up another issue we discussed when the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, was substituting for the Minister.

As I have stated, strategically the Minister's Department is perhaps the most important of Government because he has executive control over a branch of policy which, at the risk of being over dramatic, has existential indications for our species. There is a tendency on the part of contemporary commentators to sometimes ignore the fact we are facing profound energy problems in the absence of new technologies being developed.

They may be developed but those of us involved in technology understand they may not be within a meaningful timeframe for us, our children and our grandchildren. If we are depending on the kind of energy resources we are now we will be in very serious trouble, even allowing for the normal increase in consumption which is occurring, as bigger parts of the world become developed, coupled with the fact that two or three of the most critical nonrenewable energy sources upon which we rely, will run out.

The most spectacular will be oil, which we know is probably at or near peak already. It is at a past peak of the kind of financially extractable oil that we have had on land over the past 60 to 70 years. We will find that even if there are more discoveries they will be much more difficult to exploit. It is against this backdrop that there is a need for a real strategic vision. All of the proposals outlined today are important and are steps in the right direction.

I take this opportunity to say and ask something. When we are looking at energy policy in the future our choice will not be between having a currently available safe supply of energy and something else. We must understand that what we have now, if it is not replaced, will run out. We will not have a socially neutral phenomenon, rather there will be deaths from freezing, cities will be paralysed and transport, food production and all areas of human activity necessary for the sustenance of our species and for us individuals will grind to a halt. This is not make-believe, it is something that will happen. As a famous economist once said, the thing about things that cannot go on forever is that they stop. That is what will happen. There is no doubt that at some stage in the future there will come a moment when there is no oil, no extractable gas and no coal. We must look at alternative energy sources and in this vacuum there are other sources that must be looked at. We hope technological advances will increase the efficiency of renewables but there is a substantial body of serious sceptical scientific opinion as to whether our current energy requirements can be met by the sorts of renewable energy sources in their entirety that will become available, even if we make more of an effort to harness them. I am not saying we should not, of course we should.

The other issue that raises its head is nuclear energy. I have asked many people how many extra cases of malformed children there were as a result of Chernobyl. The answer is zero. This is a well known fact, it is not something put out there by crazy, right wing, pro-nuclear energy activists, these are figures from the United Nations. When the serious epidemiologists carried out the study, the answer was zero. There is no evidence that any child was born with a malformation anywhere in the world as a result of Chernobyl. There is a background level of 2% foetal malformation, which occurs in pregnancies in America, Tallaght, Ballincollig and Leitrim. Everywhere children are born, this is sadly what nature does. There is no evidence this increased at all.

I am throwing this into the mix because if we are to have a coherent, long-term energy policy, we must look at all sources of energy and must do so in a scientifically informed and emotionally dispassionate way. The debate surrounding nuclear energy has not been characterised by those features. I am not today advocating nuclear energy but it would be remiss of us to exclude a consideration of an energy source that has been extraordinarily safe, when remembering that every day in every part of the world, people are killed in horrible ways as a result of accidents involving petroleum products, the atmosphere is polluted by petroleum and other carbon products and there is loss of life on an extraordinary scale in wars over carbon products. All of these things are real, even for those who do not believe in global warming. Those who do believe in global warming must know the environmental consequences of not looking at alternative energy sources will be much more frightening.

For these reasons, I am asking for a serious strategic look at national and international level at the scenarios that might exist. The first scenario is for no new technology, where we have what we have and what we will do when there is no carbon left. We have so much flexibility in the ways we generate electricity that we cannot have a wind turbine on every car or wave machine on every boat but we could look at alternative strategies for electricity generation and then mandate that at some time in the future, making it aphoristic, where maybe by 2025 or 2030, the goal of Europe would be to have no private cars using the internal combustion engine driven by carbon. If we did that, at a stroke we would have a policy in place for reducing our reliance on carbon while increasing incentives to look at alternative, renewable and nuclear energy sources if they are found to be acceptable.

I thank the Minister for attending the House and I apologise for slightly hijacking the debate on important issues pertaining to the conditions of employment of energy sector workers to make these points but I did not get the chance to make them when the Minister had to leave the Chamber last week.