Development (Strategic Gas Reserve) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-16 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland As I said, credit is due to former Deputy ,Tony McLoughlin as well as to former Deputy, Thomas Pringle, of course, who brought in the Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill. These were measures, loudly trumpeted by the Government, that came from backbenchers, both on the Government and Opposition sides. We made a decision collectively as a Parliament to say that fracking was wrong and that we did not want fracking happening in Ireland, and it was for very good reason. It was for environmental reasons. It was for safety reasons. It was for all of the climate reasons. It was very real. The idea is a striking and unacceptable hypocrisy. We agreed fracked gas was wrong because the fracking of gas is this incredibly intensive process that produces incredibly dirty and dangerous fuel in an incredibly dirty and dangerous way. It is the cracking of earth deep down to release emissions that might otherwise never see the surface. We said it was wrong, so we should not then say it is okay to buy it from other places. I support amendment No. 3 and the other amendments relating to this, but I also have my own amendment. It is amendment No. 12, which states we should limit importation of liquefied natural gas from any country not party to the Paris Agreement, as well as limiting any LNG produced by hydraulic fracturing. Amendment No. 13 focuses solely on the importation of LNG obtained through hydraulic fracturing. There are amendments tackling the wider issue of fracking and saying fuels obtained through it should not be part of the Bill, but I want to specifically talk about importation. The majority of the European Union's imported liquefied natural gas, approximately 58%, comes from the United States, a country that is not party to the Paris Agreement, which has abandoned the idea of global and national climate targets and whose President is paying energy companies to stop building renewable energy. They are so actively hostile to renewable energy and so deeply committed to "Drill, baby, drill". That is what is happening in the United States right now. It is not just not party to the Paris Agreement, but is actively working against climate action. It has abandoned the concept of common but differentiated responsibilities that is core to the Paris Agreement and to the global movement for climate justice and against climate breakdown. It is a minimum and should be in this law - the Minister of State should accept this amendment - to say it is bad enough that we suspend our own climate Act in respect of this terminal. We have to suspend the climate Act because there will not be a climate justification. The narrative we have heard is about transition and renewables. If that stood up, the Minister of State would be able to work within the climate Act because that logic could be checked against that. If it really was a transition, the Minister of State would not have to suspend the climate Act. It is one thing to suspend our climate Act, but it is another to support and facilitate the efforts to torpedo global climate action that are happening in the United States. We should not import fracked gas because it is immoral. It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet. This is as real as it gets. The idea we would be part of that in terms of fracking is hideous, as is the idea we would take up to 58% of it from a country that is working against climate targets and where we know the drilling part of the fracking will not be measured. This is not a one-off. We will not only buy LNG if it is an emergency. Rather, we will buy and use it every day this terminal is in existence. Every two months, because of the venting mechanism, we will be refilling it. We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal. Every two months, we will get another shipment in. We will actively be part of it. That is not a hypothetical; that is the reality of building this terminal. If it is not going to be used, then let us find our gas elsewhere. If it is going to be such a rare circumstance, then let us not take liquefied natural gas that comes from hydraulic fracturing and let us not import it from a country that is busy destroying climate targets. Let us not give support to the fossil fuel industry, which lobbies nationally and internationally against climate action. If it is going to be such a rare usage, the minimum the Minister of State should be able to tell us is it will not be hydraulic fractured gas and will not come from countries not party to the Paris Agreement. That last is currently the United States, but who knows in the future who else might be relevant there? I think that is a minimum. I hope the Minister of State will accept these amendments. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-07-16/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:17+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-16