Sir, – In The Irish Times ("Why Europe needs to set the pace on climate change", Opinion & Analysis, October 20th), Mary Robinson called for us to show climate leadership by tapping into our abundant renewable power supplies, while in the same edition Colm McCarthy argues for the abandonment of just such a policy ("Scrap wind farm plans, urges McCarthy").
Who is right and who is wrong? Perhaps Colm McCarthy could help by clarifying if he accepts the scientific consensus that tackling climate change will require us to build a completely clean power system within a few short decades. If he does accept that assumption then he needs to show how he would do so without having recourse to additional wind power. If his concerns are limited to the immediate issue of excessive power supplies and electricity subsidies in the Irish market, then why does he not argue for the closure of the peat-fired power stations which are more expensive and polluting than the wind farm alternative? But perhaps the difference is bigger than that. Perhaps he thinks economics trumps science on this issue? Given that the science is based on physical realities, then surely it is the economics that is going to have to change and fit within the limits that exist in the natural world. As Mary Robinson said last week, if we don’t deal with this issue appropriately now, we won’t have a world to do business in. – Yours, etc,
EAMON RYAN,
The Green Party,
Suffolk Street, Dublin 2.
Sir, – At long last an Irish Government is putting forward arguments in favour of Ireland being treated differently to the other countries in the EU as regards limiting greenhouse gas emissions ("Ireland's reliance on agriculture recognised in EU climate deal", October 24th).
Our country has a very different emissions profile and does not conform to the European norm, being comparable only to New Zealand which, the last time I looked, was not in the EU. Yes, we do have other sources of emissions from power generation, domestic and industrial usage and transport but these are quite small and appropriate to our status of a developing economy. Our principal emitter, the coal-fired Moneypoint power station, despite irrational calls from supporters of windfarms for it to be closed or converted to burning biomass, is a vital component of our strategy to keep the lights burning. Coal is abundant and can be sourced from many different countries, which increases our security of supply. Contrast this with the potentially perilous state of supplies of natural gas which we import.
We still suffer from an indifferent electricity grid which loses more power than it should because of a lack of investment during our glory years in particular. Our motorway network is still nowhere near complete and many subsidiary roads require upgrading to reduce traffic hold-ups which lead to wasteful delays. Public transport within our cities needs bringing up to international standards.
Finally, something that is often forgotten is that global greenhouse gas emissions have been rising because the world population is increasing from the current 7 billion people to a projected 11 billion and because the emissions per capita are also rising as people in the third world buy their first cookers, refrigerators, mopeds, etc. Neither of these root causes apply to Ireland and it seems paradoxical that strict limits should be imposed on us because some idiotic committee decided that we were the second-richest nation in the EU and as such should be forced into extraordinary measures to solve a global problem.
The only factor which is acting to decrease emissions are technological improvements in the generation, transmission and utilisation of energy. Here is where our efforts should be concentrated, not in the arbitrary imposition of penalties. – Yours, etc,
JOHN M SIMMIE,
Furbo, Co Galway.