Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

49. To ask the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment if he will reverse his support for liquefied natural gas infrastructure in Ireland, in light of evidence that it is more polluting than coal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41621/24]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question is on the same topic. I do not know if the Minister just takes everybody for a fool. Does he really expect people to believe that after the Government brings in amendments to designate LNG terminals as strategic infrastructure, which gets to bypass the normal planning process, it is a technical thing? This is in the context of many of the Green Party's coalition partners being on the record forcefully and repeatedly advocating for LNG terminals. Get real here. Either the Minister is incredibly naive and I do not believe he is that naive, or he is playing a game. There is a massive push to get fossil fuel infrastructure, LNG terminals, developed. The legislation is being amended to make it easier for this to happen.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no game here and nobody is being taken for a fool. Not only am I not naive, I have a record going back 30 years of absolute commitment to climate action in our country, particularly in the area of keeping fossil fuels in the ground. For decades, we have campaigned and worked in that area and nothing has changed in that regard. The Government position has not changed. The Deputy has heard no one from the Government side say that we are going back on the energy security strategy statement, which said we would not have a commercial facility. This was very clear. The amendment was purely technical in nature but we also had a court decision. We have to be careful not to comment on court decisions but some may have drawn an inference from this that there was a change and Government policy would be undermined. I do not believe the court decision had anything really to do with Government policy. It was addressing more technical issues regarding how An Bord Pleanála goes about its processes. The actual Government position has stayed the same. We are not doing commercial facilities. That is rock solid, 100% certain and as clear today as it was three weeks ago, six months ago and a year ago. I hope that certainty puts the Deputy's mind at rest. We do have security issues that need to be looked at. We have always been upfront about this. We printed the policy and published it, agreed it in this House, and discussed in some detail how we would manage a situation where Russia or another actor was to be able to take out a gas pipeline, which has happened in other European countries. I have looked to see how we manage that question in a proper, scientific, engineering and analytical way. One option would be to go with a facility like the FRSU, which would be temporary, State-led and, as Deputy O'Rourke said when he set out all the conditions, not in breach of our climate laws

It is frustrating that it can take time, but further analysis is warranted to see if we could do it in a different way. That is what I am working on.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry but that does not assuage any of my concerns. Oisín Coghlan is chief executive of Friends of the Earth, which is not the wing of the environmental movement that is most critical of the Green Party. It has sometimes spoken positively about the party's record in government. Oisín Coghlan has said:

You don’t legally designate something you oppose, or aren’t sure we need, as strategic! The contradiction is so absurd it feels like the Government is gaslighting us.

He goes on to say that if facilitating an LNG import terminal getting approval is the last thing the Government does, the legacy of the Greens in government will be in tatters. That is the truth. That is the reality. The arguments the Minister has made about it do not give me any confidence. For example, in response to the earlier question, the Minister said that a way could be found to ensure that only non-fracked gas is imported. He keeps citing the Government's policy statement. That statement is very clear that there is no legal way of doing that under current EU law. It sets that out. Will the Minister outline how this is going to be done without EU laws being changed?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The key document here is our energy security paper from November last year, which looked at a whole range of different risks to energy security. That is the place where we say that the only facility we could or would introduce is one that is purely temporary, strategic and security oriented. In those circumstances, where the project is State-led, I believe conditions could be set as regards the amount of security to be provided, not having fracked gas and so on. I am absolutely confident that is deliverable and doable.

To my mind, Friends of the Earth is misreading what the amendment is about. It is complex and technical and goes back many months in a very complicated Bill. There was a potential risk arising from onshore facilities and offshore facilities being under different planning regimes. We had to ensure a standardised approach. Strategic infrastructure provisions are very common. A number of wind farms have to go through it. It is not just fossil fuel infrastructure. It does not mean that the planning process is avoided. It still has to go through An Bord Pleanála. The amendment was just made to make sure there were not inconsistencies in our planning system. The fundamental question is whether we want such a commercial facility. Clearly, the Government is saying "No"

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is saying that it could be ensured that fracked gas is not used in this so-called State-led LNG terminal. However, the Government's policy statement from May 2021 is clear. It is not possible for Ireland, under the European treaties or EU directives concerning common rules of the internal market in natural gas, to legislate for a ban on the import of fracked gas into Ireland or to prevent the processing of fracked gas in the State. Will the Minister enlighten us as to how this is going to happen? The truth is that importing LNG is worse for the environment than burning coal. Oisín Coghlan made the point that we may as well leave Moneypoint open and burning coal rather than building a new LNG terminal.

The Minister relies a lot on the term "State-led". What does that mean? Again, under EU law, it is not possible for a State to exclusively own or operate a fossil fuel terminal. What does the term "State-led" actually mean? It is designed to give the impression that this is in some way publicly owned or controlled but that is not the reality.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take the Deputy's point that LNG potentially has the same emissions as coal. We will not be increasing our importation of LNG gas. That is agreed. We are not going to breach our climate change targets through any of this. That is an absolute given. That will hold firm in any court, in any debate and in any government, whether a future government or this Government. With a State-commissioned facility, we would be within our legal rights to say we would like a given amount of security, for the facility to operate within certain conditions and for it not to use fracked gas. If that is outlined in the commissioning of a project, I do not see a prospect of it being legally challenged. In commissioning, we would be looking for a facility to have certain characteristics. It is just commissioning by the State. I believe it can be done without any fracked gas. The key question here is what type of facility we want and whether, based on the further analysis I have asked the Department to do, we need any facility, which we may not. That would require loads of different elements including further interconnection, better storage and using the new anaerobic digestion source of gas and back-ups in our power stations and strategic oil reserves. There are a number of ways in which we can provide security. That is the key thing we need to look at.