Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have been clear that of course we need to keep the lights on. That should be our priority and that is why we have not opposed the concept of emergency energy generation. What are the actual measures in prioritising how our energy is used and ensuring it is directed towards keeping the lights on that everyone is so keen on and that is so necessary? We must keep our essential services running and our public records in place. We must ensure the essential services families need in terms of energy, heat and electricity. What are our measures of prioritisation? On energy demand, we could have much clearer measures and policies in the medium term. We could have been measuring it. We could introduce hard measures that allow us not just to ask but to require large commercial energy users to curtail and limit their energy usage at certain times. The Minister might comment on that. We could plan better. It is clear that the Department's concern going into next winter is not keeping the lights on but the growing demand of large energy users. That is what the Department names as being a reason we need dispatchable energy. That is the identified reason. Keeping the lights on is of course crucial. It should be a priority underpinned by legislative measures. We could have legislation to address demand issues. That is what the legislation could be doing.

In respect of this legislation on emergency generation, I have some specific questions and I would like answers to them. How is it anticipated that we are going to ensure the first port of call is asking the large energy users to curtail their use when the emergency energy demand is coming through? Will it be measured by where the demand has come from and what measures have been taken to curtail that demand? We will ask Europe to suspend environmental law and say it is an emergency. We are saying that we want an alternative mechanism. The Minister of State should be clear that this is the basis - an emergency context in which an alternative assessment process would be sought. If it is temporary emergency measures, we need to be clear on our overall case. When this emergency additional capacity is being deployed, we also must be clear on what it is being deployed for, what other measures are taken, and how we ensure it was being deployed for those genuine causes on which we all agree such as keeping the lights on. Could it be deployed because a centre wants to run overnight, over 24 hours, or has an increasing demand? Will increase in demand be measured in the areas served?

It does matter what Ireland does. It really matters. Ireland has among the higher levels of carbon emissions per capita. We should not start down the road of everybody saying it does not matter because of somebody else.We are talking about a brand-new industry that we like and want, data centres, and it is great. How are we meant to talk, however, to countries that are trying to build their basic infrastructure? These countries are using fossil fuels to build up early infrastructure and industry that will bring them out of deep poverty. At the same time, here we have one of the wealthier countries in Europe saying it wants more money. I was disgusted to hear someone at one of the debates in our committee, and I will not say who it was, speak about Ireland's demand going up by 9% but that this was normal for a wealthy developed country. I am paraphrasing. It is not okay for wealthier countries to say this is about us getting a bit wealthier and that this is sufficient reason for us to suspend our climate laws while we are asking other countries, that are trying to bring their populations out of deep poverty, to choose sustainable paths of development instead of, for example, selling oil, access to coal or signing contracts that they will not be able to get out of in terms of fossil fuel exploitation.

This aspect, therefore, does matter. It matters not only in the context of the example I have given. We must acknowledge that the example matters, but equally our emissions and each share of the emissions matter. This matters in terms of the example and of the credibility concerning international negotiations when wealthier countries are going into them willing to make all kinds of exceptions for themselves all the time. However, they are still looking for global targets despite the historical emissions record.

In a way it is useful to have had this said. When I see these policies, I worry sometimes. Senator McDowell suggested it may perhaps not matter in the bigger picture. Maybe secretly, the Government does not think it matters. Maybe officials think it does not matter. Maybe a lot of people are going, "Well, there is the next five-year election cycle and the next ten years after that, and we are okay". They have their plans for how they are going to retreat and live in the countryside, or whatever it might be. The specific amendment we are talking about is concerned with suspending the climate legislation in respect of how this new policy will be implemented. This is acting as if it does not matter, but it does matter. It matters in every Bill. To be honest, pretty much everything we do should consider the climate legislation and the carbon targets attached to it. The idea that the things that already have these elements attached would have them suspended is, frankly, ridiculous.