Motion on Energy Strategy - 17th May 2006

Motion on Energy Strategy - 17th May 2006

Mr. Norris: This motion is very timely. It
addresses one of the burning issues of the day in
a non-aggressive, non-confrontational way and I
do not understand why every Member of this
House cannot support it as originally placed on
the Order Paper. It states: “That Seanad E´ ireann
recognises the need to develop a national energy
strategy that will address Ireland’s over-dependence
on oil and replace it to the largest possible
extent by energy derived from renewable
sources.” Nobody could argue against this. It
involves no confrontation and no attack on the
Government and therefore I want the Government
side to explain to me — an Independent
Member — why it was necessary to table a totally
fatuous amendment full of exhortation and pious
good wishes but without the slightest bit of
strategy. The year 2020 is invoked as a kind of
visionary period but there is not much vision. The
Swedish Government, on the other hand, has
committed itself to putting a total end to its
dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. This, rather
than the pathetic statement made by the Government
tonight, is what I call real 20:20 vision.
The Minister of State’s contribution contains
some facts but so much of it refers to the vision
for renewable energy, the consultation paper of
last July, the agreed joint paper due later this year
and the intention to launch a national energyefficiency
campaign. This is all pie in the sky and
it is a little too late for this kind of stuff. Let us
have a real, substantial plan and an environment
in which we are friendly towards this sort of
development.
Instead of taking the advice in the motion in a
non-argumentative, non-confrontational way, the
Government sought, in its ridiculous amendment,
to dilute it so it could produce this waffle, a paean
of praise for itself. It alludes to its ambitions,
hopes, consultation papers, Green Papers, White
Papers and intended plans for this, that and the
other, yet we know perfectly well that we will not
meet our targets under the Kyoto Protocol. We
are well short of meeting them already. We may
be reducing the rate at which we are exceeding
the thresholds but that is about all. Even the
Kyoto Protocol will do very little to address global
warming, the effect of which we must now all
acknowledge. All in all, the Government’s
response is pretty pathetic.
The Minister of State referred to an initiative
in which four Dublin colleges succeeded in cutting
their energy bills by 6.3%. More power to
them — it was their initiative and it did not come
from the Government. I launched the initiative
two years ago during Green Week and went back
this year to Trinity College to look at the results.
I am very proud of what the colleges are doing.
The Government should follow their example
instead of quoting them as an easy example in
which they can idly luxuriate.
We have not met our Kyoto goals and we will
have to buy carbon credits in the market.
There will be a cost for this. We need to
provide an environment that is friendly to the
development of alternative fuel sources. I am not
convinced this has been done.
The matter of wind power has been ventilated
today. The manner in which Airtricity was hamstrung
by legal red tape and the constraints of the
ESB grid does not suggest the Government has
managed to create an environment that is friendly
to the development of alternative fuel sources.
We know that wind farms are successful. The first
one was started in Bellacorick, County Mayo over
ten years ago. We now have 186 wind turbines in
45 locations throughout the country. These contribute
500 MW to the grid system, the equivalent
of 315,000 households. Removing that many
households from fossil fuel use is a significant
achievement. The Government should assist
where these developments are being hampered
by red tape. The latest figures available, from
December 2004, indicate that 5.2% of our electricity
is supplied by wind power.
Many of my colleagues will remember former
Cathaoirleach Charles McDonald. Ten years ago
he drove a very nice Mercedes car fuelled by rapeseed
oil. He took me for a drive around Merrion
Square and it drove perfectly. The only downside
was that it smelled like a chip van. He was able to
sustain his fuel needs from one acre of rapeseed.
In the nature of economic cycles one market,
namely sugar beet, has disappeared but farmers
affected by this could diversify into growing rapeseed
for the purposes of producing oil. I listen
to agricultural programmes on RTE because they
are very interesting. The woman who presents
them has a lovely midlands voice and is a joy to
listen to. She interrogated a farmer who stated
that there are two varieties of rapeseed that can
be sown in spring or in October. The yield and
profitability of rapeseed are equivalent to barley
and, in the better seed, wheat. The profitability
they provide is not far from that of sugar beet.
This would provide a method of reducing dependence
on fossil fuels.
I strongly support this motion. I understand my
colleague Senator Quinn may not put this motion
to a vote. If it were me I would do so to show up
the Government side. Every time a motion is put
down by Members on this side, particularly by the
Independents who are distinct from the Opposition,
the Government gets hoity-toity and
insulted and puts down a fatuous amendment.
Perhaps a wind farm could be created on the
Government side. I am irritated by this politically
irresponsible behaviour, a real error of judgment.
The Government has exposed the weakness in
its argument.