Sir, – As a member of the European Union, our Government has already agreed that by 2050 we will reduce our emissions by at least 80 per cent from 1990 levels. Agriculture accounts for some 30 per cent of our total emissions and transport accounts for another 20 per cent.
In one sector the Government seems determined that no real reductions will take place; in the other, the only plan it has is to hope that clean electricity will replace oil in the running of our trains and cars.
In such circumstances it is clear that the building of a zero-carbon electricity power system is the essential first step in meeting our existing commitments. The European energy roadmap for 2050 makes such an assumption explicit. The 2030 agreement signed in Brussels last week once again confirmed that this is the road we are set on. There is a consensus on this. It has been agreed for almost a decade. The only problem is that it is signed off at European Council meetings and never discussed anywhere else. The political parties in the Dáil don’t think decades ahead. They seem to believe you can sign up for action on climate change, without actually having to do anything about it.
Like Colm McCarthy (October 29th) I would support a global carbon tax to promote the necessary technological solutions in a non-prescriptive way. But the chances of international agreement on such a measure are next to nil and the absence of such a perfect economic instrument should not see us holding off on the strategic decisions we need to make today.
The best analysis shows that delaying making the necessary investments will only make the transition more expensive in the end. There are no easy options available. Nuclear would cost twice the price. The technology to burn fossil fuels and bury the resulting carbon is not yet available. Running Moneypoint on a wood-fired boiler makes no sense. It is only the combination of energy efficiency, community-owned renewable power supplies and international electricity interconnection that provides for me a credible path ahead.
I think the transition would lead to a more stable and equitable economy and society. Doing nothing is not an option. – Yours, etc,
EAMON RYAN,
The Green party,
Suffolk Street, Dublin 2.
A chara, – Christie Colhoun (October 29th) laments that “the wonderful view of Mount Errigal, Dunlewey and the Poison Glen in Co Donegal being ruined by a massive wind turbine had me choking on my breakfast cereal”. Equally, it could be claimed that the view is enhanced by the presence of the turbine in the same way that O’Connell Street is enhanced by the presence of the Spire or the Champs de Mars by the Eiffel Tower. Might the banks of the Nile look more splendorous if there were no pyramids defacing the landscape?
It could equally be argued that the invention of the internal combustion engine has brought untold misery, death and serious pollution of the air that we breathe, but not many of us will easily forego the perceived advantages of personal motorised transport. – Is mise,
GREG SCANLON,
Shannon, Co Clare.
Sir, – It would take an awful lot more wind farms to make any significant impact on our energy-related carbon emissions as wind currently provides only 2.6 per cent of our primary energy requirements. Maybe wind is not the answer.
At the risk of being heretical, could there be a better option evident in France where 80 per cent of electricity is nuclear, where per capita carbon emissions are about half those of Ireland (and Germany for that matter) and where domestic electricity is more than a third cheaper than in Ireland? – Yours, etc,
EAMONN O’REILLY,
Glenageary, Co Dublin.