Bord na Mona Climate Change Villains

national | miscellaneous | news report

Friday February 15, 2002 00:33

by David Healy - Friends of the Irish Environment

verdire at eircom dot net

An Bord Pleanala gives permission for the burning of Ireland's carbon sink peatlands, which are protected under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The extra expense of burning the worst fossil fuel will be added on to everyone's electricity bill.

Cairde Chomhshaoil na hÉireann

Friends of the Irish Environment

Lanesborough Peat Plant approved through

"Victim Pays Principle"

The grant of permission by An Bord Pleanala for the proposed peat burning station at Lanesborough is contrary to sustainable development and will contribute to global warming.

This decision turns the "polluter pays" principal on its head and introduces the "victim pays principle".

Every user of electricity in Ireland will pay a surcharge on his bill, a victim to a proposal that concerns itself only with short term survival of Bord na Mona. Every citizen will pay AGAIN when emissions trading is introduced in 2008.

These new plants are opposed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and by our own Economic and Social Research Institute. It is nonsense to defend them on grounds of national security, when leaving the turf in reserve, not exhausting it, is true security.

Ireland must wake up to the fact that our unsustainable decisions impact directly on the poor of the third world, where global warming has its greatest impact. The continued existence of Bord na Mona will cost lives in the third world.

"VICTIM PAYS PRINCIPLE"

Sustainable Energy Bill, 2000: Order for Report Stage. 5 February, 2002

Mr. T Sergent: The Minister mentioned security of supply. Security of supply is a short term consideration when it comes to peat. We are running out of peat. I fail to see how he can argue that this is helping security of supply. It would be far preferable to focus on energy conservation and renewable energy sources if we are serious about security of supply and having our fossil fuel resources safeguarded for use in emergencies rather than burn them as quickly as possible and then wonder what we will do next. That appears to be what is happening.

When the Minister mentions environmental protection as a reason for this PSO it is even more mystifying as to where he is coming from. It is widely known, and the Minister knows it as much as anybody else, that peat fired electricity generation is not good in terms of greenhouse gases. It may be cleaner than it was in the past but there is still a low level of compliance with greenhouse gas emission targets. When all is said and done, this set of amendments turns the "polluter pays" principle on its head and we have a new principle, the "victim pays principle". Not only will there be a surcharge on the ESB bill initially from this public service obligation to burn environmentally unsound peat but in only a matter of years, 2008-2012 most likely, greenhouse emissions trading will be introduced and again taxpayers will pay on the nose, on top of the surcharge on the ESB bill, for having overshot our greenhouse gas emissions targets once more. It is astonishing that we have integrated into a Sustainable Energy Bill, if the Government amendments are passed, dimensions which are at variance with the principles of such a Bill. That is the view of many environmental NGOs and people who are interested in the energy question. It is important to relearn our obligations under the Kyoto protocol and the definition of "sustainable energy" because these amendments are an oxymoron when set beside the principles and objectives of an energy sustainable policy.

Mr. J. Bruton: I am completely opposed to the amendment. It is an imposition on consumers for a project that is environmentally wrong from every point of view. This country is one of the worst offenders in Europe as far as the global warming problem is concerned. Not only does our agriculture contribute to methane, but our transport and, particularly, our electricity generation sector through coal and peat burning contribute disproportionately to Ireland increasing its emissions of global warming gases such as methane and CO2 more quickly than any other country. This is a serious problem facing the country and will cost us major amounts of money.

I had the privilege of attending a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs last week where representatives came before us from the Department of Enterprise and Employment to explain, which they did extremely well, the situation in regard to emissions trading. As the House is aware, CO2 emissions trading will be introduced from 2004 and from 2006 we will have emissions trading for all the others. This means that the Irish people will be paying hard cash for the privilege of polluting the world's atmosphere, but what is proposed in the amendment is a form of double taxation because the Minister of State wants the permission of the House to impose a levy on us, as electricity consumers, in order that we may have the privilege of paying a further levy when we have to buy the right to pollute when an emissions trading regime is brought forward and we exceed our quota. This is a classic case of double taxation. Many left-wing politicians complained about double taxation when water charges were introduced and on other occasions, but I have heard no such complaint from Deputies of the left today.

I am amazed the parties that purport to be concerned about the environment have been silent about the outrageous proposal to introduce a levy on electricity consumers for the privilege of building something that will emit gases that destroy the environment. Non-polluting means of generating the same amount of electricity are available. Natural gas is available in abundance.

It has been argued that generating electricity in this way secures power supply. I respectfully suggest that such a notion is arrant nonsense as, once burnt, peat is gone. I understand the argument for building a peat powered station so that it would be there when all other means of electricity generation are unavailable. To operate such a station, however, does not make sense in relation to security of supply as every bale of peat that is burned reduces Ireland security of supply. As the House knows, there is a finite amount of peat in Irish bogs. If we want energy security, it makes sense to build a station for use in times of need, but it does not make sense to operate it now. Every day that the station operates will diminish the amount of peat available.

FULL DEBATE
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tonylowes/peatdail.htm

save preference

Comments (1 of 1)

Turf

by Culchie

Sat Feb 16, 2002 08:44

Eliminating BnaM would be good but do not support moves to prevent locals, who own the peat in some parts of commanage from cutting their own turf.There should be a limit of one load a year per household,that works,without dpletion ,especially with the depopulation.Otherwise you're going to have old farmers being arrested regularly.

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Bord na Mona Climate Change Villains

Comments (1 of 1)