US policy changed - Realities on energy can’t be ignored

WITH a stroke of his pen President Barack Obama has taken one of our self-serving, lazy and threadbare excuses for not doing enough to protect the environment or save energy out of play.

By issuing executive orders on state-level fuel emission standards, setting fuel efficiency deadlines for car makers and on energy savings measures for his government, Mr Obama has made it impossible for us to argue that there’s no point in a tiny country like Ireland mending its ways while America remains profligate.

Not only has Mr Obama signalled his intent to cut America’s dependence on imported energy, he has pointedly reversed President Bush’s policies. The directness of his actions may help convince China and India that they need more effective measures on emissions.

His determination to reduce America’s dependence on imported energy should be a catalyst for Ireland to do the same and revise our very unambitious plans.

America has abundant nuclear energy — we won’t even have a debate. American has abundant coal, oil and gas reserves. We do not, and still import around 90% of our energy. America is making significant progress on renewables. We have, through the ESB, a single-digit target for 2020. Taking a lead from Mr Obama the Government should immediately instruct the ESB to dramatically revise its 2020 renewables target included in the €22 billion Strategic Framework announced last March. The organisation has set a target of around 5% of our energy through renewables in 11 years’ time. This is so unambitious as to be a tacit acknowledgement of the limited potential of renewables, or a reckless belief that we can continue to import energy at today’s levels.

Last November the International Energy Agency (IEA) published its 2008 World Energy Outlook. Even in these chaotic times it makes for chilling reading.

The world’s leading energy authority has told us once again that the end of cheap, plentiful oil is at hand. The facts are as follows: oil discoveries peaked 45 years ago and have fallen ever since. Production lags several decades behind discoveries, and now, the decline of oil production is under way. This is irreversible.

Discoveries and alternative fuels cannot keep up with the 3.6 million barrels consumed across the world every hour. By his immediate intervention Mr Obama acknowledges this. In this context we should ask ourselves if it is wise to have a Minister for Energy who is instinctively, philosophically and emotionally opposed to nuclear power. Mr Ryan’s motives may be of the highest order, but his pragmatism may not be as profound as the inevitable day of reckoning will require.

If we build a nuclear power station, and the discussion seems to have moved from “if” to “when”, it would have a huge economic stimulus, make a massive contribution to energy independence, reduce carbon emissions and help restore competitiveness to industry through cheaper energy. We could export any surplus offering security of supply that could not be matched by the gas moguls of Russia. What’s not to like?

There are difficulties, but it would be tragic if we rebuilt our economy only to discover we were facing an even bigger problem.