We have apologies from Senator Lynn Ruane. Senator Higgins will be substituting for her this morning.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who have given evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to this committee. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty, as Chair, to ensure this privilege is not abused. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome everybody back to our first meeting following the summer recess. We are continuing on the topic of artificial intelligence, AI, and the environment. It is a very important theme and I am glad we can continue to discuss it here today. We are joined by Ms Rosi Leonard, data centres campaign lead, and Ms Deirdre Duffy, CEO, both from Friends of the Earth; and also Mr. David Jensen, who is joining online from Geneva. Mr. Jensen is a former global regional co-ordinator for digital transformation with the United Nations Environment Programme and he has over 20 years' experience in institutional strategy on digital and AI-enabled transformation. The witnesses are all very welcome here today.

I invite Friends of the Earth to deliver its opening statement.

I thank the Chair. We welcome the opportunity to address the committee today. We note that AI as a whole means a number of different tools and applications with varying degrees of public benefit.

AI meets pollution and climate policy most directly through data centres. As the International Energy Agency has acknowledged, the main driver of data centre demand is inefficient and bloated generative AI models.

The model of hyper-scale data centre expansion in Ireland comes with real costs for the electricity system, our climate, our energy bills, our ability to decarbonise our public services and, crucially, the communities who have to live beside these developments. These risks are being exacerbated by current Government policy, but with political will we believe we can mitigate those risks. I will speak to three immediate recommendations in that regard.

It is our view that a moratorium on new data centre development is urgent and legitimate as a policy measure, justifiable in the interests of energy security, reducing bills and fulfilling decarbonisation and climate objectives. We recommend that a prioritisation framework for electricity connections based on societal need is introduced, similar to that of Denmark. The European efficiency directive should be transposed with urgency in order to provide greater transparency on the resource use and impacts of existing data centres. Ireland is now faced with an active infringement case in the EU due to its failure to transpose this directive. Operators face no penalties for failing to submit data.

Looking beyond a moratorium, we believe that data centres should only be permitted where they meet strict conditions around bringing 24-7 additional hourly matched renewables with limitations on water use, overall size and clear justification for build-out.

As members of this committee know well, Ireland is currently regarded as a cautionary tale by the UN when it comes to data centre development. Despite this, we are now entering a worrying era of hyper-scale build-out in Ireland. There is over 700 MW of data centre development in the planning stage around the country. Applications such as these in the planning process represent a potential 11% increase in the country's peak electricity demand. This is potentially the same as adding a county the size of Cork to our grid in the next two to three years. The market intelligence exercise from the Commission for Regulation of Utilities, CRU, suggests further potential demand of 5.8 GW from data centres, which would potentially double the peak demand of this island.

We need to be clear that the need for this additional demand is not clear. There is mounting evidence that many existing data centres are not at capacity. As European think-tank SOMO has pointed out, the assumption that Europe faces an imminent shortage of data centre capacity remains contested. Figures from Europe, particularly the Netherlands, indicate that providers may in some cases be less than two thirds full. Furthermore, the European Commission has noted that the ongoing expansion of data centre capacity in the EU is driven by non-European cloud service providers. Not only is this rationale for the level of build-out highly speculative, but it is unlikely that the demand is being created solely for the needs of communities or services in Europe. This is now having an effect on our electricity bills. Research recently commissioned by Friends of the Earth shows that an additional €715 million was added to household bills as a result of the scale of data centre build-out that we have seen in Ireland. This model of development is oppositional to our climate targets and hyper-scale development is locking in a new era of fossil gas in Ireland, a relationship which we believe is being baked into these policies.

I note that Gas Network Ireland's own projections confirm that industrial demand, driven primarily by data centres, is now the main source of sustained gas reliance in Ireland and that a further 17 industrial customers, many of which are data centres, are seeking connections to the gas network. The most serious impact for us here in Ireland of this additional gas demand is the push towards new, expensive, uncosted fossil infrastructure, such as the liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminal planned for Shannon, which will have serious costs to environmental health and our energy independence.

On renewables, the current scale and pace of data centre development prevents renewables from displacing gas on the system and that is a critical issue. As the Climate Change Advisory Council notes, data centres are at risk of cannibalising renewables on the grid. There is currently no mechanism by which clean energy can be prioritised for housing, schools, hospitals or transport over data centres.

Moving to the narrative of the twin transition, we at Friends of the Earth are questioning how other countries can build out renewables without this seismic trade-off of allowing data centres to consume one quarter of the national grid. Importantly, this unchecked expansion without democratic consent has consequences for public faith in the energy transition. In our experience of working directly with communities facing these large data centre build-outs, it is exacerbating fears regarding renewables and compounding underlying anxiety about the loss of farmland; for example, the use of land and access to nature. We are worried that this could lead to further delays to renewables.

On data centres and gas lock-in, and the issue of AI becoming more efficient or increasing capacity, we note from organisations such as Enabled Emissions that AI is being used to increase fossil fuel extraction and oil drilling, so it is increasing emissions globally. We welcome a discussion with the committee on the appropriate use of AI. Expanding data centre build-out on the basis of supposed benefits from AI, without the regulatory clarity and significant constraints on what this AI is ultimately being used for, has a serious cost.

I will make a final note referencing the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, who has very clearly stated that we as a country are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy. We would make the case that the Government's current model for data centre expansion delivers the very opposite. We have a huge opportunity to build clean energy for the public good and to have a healthy, pollution-free world, yet the current policy is moving us in the opposite direction.

I thank Ms Duffy and Ms Leonard for their opening statement. I now invite Mr. David Jensen to provide his opening statement.

I thank the Chair and the members of the committee for this invitation to appear before them today and for the chance to bring them this short statement.

I want to zoom out a little bit. If you ask the average person on the street about the relationship between AI and the environment, it is likely that most people would call out data centres. It is the most obvious relationship between the two. Of course, Ireland, as was mentioned, is a case where there are 129 data centres consuming a massive amount of energy, carbon and water. However, other people on the street might say it is data centres but, in fact, it is also mobile masts and cell towers. In Ireland, according to statistics, there are around 9,000 mobile masts and cell towers across the country and they have their own land and nature footprint. Other people might say that it is actually e-waste. There are 10.8 million user devices across Ireland and that is generating a huge amount of e-waste in order for people to access these AI services.

The fact of the matter is that they are all right. All of these are correct answers in regard to the relationship between AI and the environment, but my main point today is that this is only the tip of the iceberg on this relationship. Today, I want to walk this committee through the full environmental ledger of AI and I want to divide it into three parts. The first we have already heard about: the negative environmental footprint of AI, which it leaves directly through data centres, towers and e-waste. The second, which was sort of touched on a little bit in the first statement, is the positive handprint of change that AI can enable elsewhere in the economy. The third level is really what is called system effects, which can erode or even reverse the positive handprint. I will discuss these three components: the footprint, the handprint and the system effects. I will then close with six concrete steps this committee can potentially take.

Let us start with the negative footprint. We all know that Dublin and Ireland host one of the largest concentrations of data centres in Europe. We already know the statistics around electricity consumption - 23% in 2025, generating 1.53 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023 alone, which is about 2.5% of Ireland's total greenhouse gas emissions and a significant footprint. We also know that data centres in Ireland are currently consuming around 1 billion litres of water per year. We know that consumption doubles during the summer months. There are, however, many things we still do not know. We do not know how much e-waste is being generated, how much land is being converted, or how many critical minerals are being extracted from other countries for the chips, servers and digital infrastructure that makes all of the above possible. The footprint is clearly in Ireland and it is clearly local; it also extends beyond Ireland's borders but we cannot yet really say how. This is an important data and governance gap that needs to be filled. If we are ever going to truly calculate the footprint, we have to look at the full local, national and transboundary footprint. That is the footprint on the negative side.

On the other side of the ledger is the positive handprint. This is all about how AI is used to enable positive outcomes across all different sectors of the economy. From agriculture to transport, to energy, buildings, homes, industry, manufacturing and public administration, everything can be potentially enabled by AI.

However, it is important to understand whether AI accelerates or decelerates resource consumption and pollution. It can be either depending on how it is put to use. The French agency for ecological transition calls this AI for green versus AI for brown. Friends of the Earth already talked about an AI for brown example where AI is accelerating greenhouse gas production and fossil fuel extraction. This is where public incentives and investment are needed to steer the market toward AI for green solutions.

We are very fortunate that Ireland already has many real examples of how AI is being used in a positive sense to achieve different environmental outcomes. There are three we could mention but I am sure members of the committee could think of many more. In my research I looked at an example called VistaMilk, which is using different digital technologies and AI to do real-time methane sensing across the dairy industry. It has already helped to calculate downwards the current emissions baseline and it is being used as a critical tool in emissions-----

We have seen EirGrid's AI forecasting tool, built with a technology called GridZero.ai, which is able to predict grid conditions 38 hours in advance, and research ongoing that is linked to the StopFloods4.ie project, which applies machine learning to flood risk. These are just a couple of examples of where AI is being used for good and to solve different environmental challenges.

The third part of the ledger is perhaps the most complicated; the system effects. This is how AI changes the broader economic system by making things more efficient, reducing prices and therefore potentially increasing demand. This is known as Jevons paradox or the rebound effect. In a nutshell, the efficiency often generates more consumption and that increased consumption can offset or even reverse the positive benefits I just described. The rebound effect is critical in understanding the trade-offs and this net balance between the positive handprint and the negative footprint.

This all sounds very complex but I am happy to report two new standards from the International Telecommunication Union, L.1480 and L.1801, that are helping governments do this net calculation between all three parts of this ledger. I am also happy to report there is now independent testing of L.1480 by the European Green Digital Coalition and France's environment agency, and real-world test cases are currently being done across 39 use cases. The results from these are fascinating. The enabling benefit for carbon dioxide reduction is orders of magnitude higher than the carbon dioxide footprint. The footprint is a small amount and the enabling mitigating effecting is a much larger one. There are significant positive effects even when the footprint is taken into account. That is what many of the case studies show but some also show the rebound effect can completely wipe out any of the positive environmental gains, so it is fundamental to look at that as well.

Getting the balance right between the footprint, the handprint and the system effects, and ensuring each is measured properly and netted against each other, is the core challenge of Ireland's twin transition in practice. We must also acknowledge these costs and benefits do not land evenly. As mentioned, local communities often carry the footprint while the economic and strategic benefits are national and often reach all the way to the EU or to the international goals. Any credible accounting has to work at all three scales, local, national and transboundary, and not just one.

I will conclude with six concrete steps the committee can take. Right now, the Commission for Regulation of Utilities connection policy only requires conditionality for renewable connections for electricity. This could be expanded to require disclosure of other forms of impact, such as on water, land, minerals and the creation of e-waste.

Therefore, extending beyond renewables to other potential impacts would be important.

The second step would be the application of net benefit calculations for any public environmental funding. Any project that receives State funding, whether it is a grant, procurement contract, development project or capital investment, that claims an environmental or efficiency outcome from AI solutions must substantiate that claim using the ITU-T L.1480 or L.1801 method. This is really meant to avoid the greenwashing we see a lot of, which suggests that AI is going to save the world. No, we need to make sure we are calculating using a standard international methodology and really looking at the potential net positive benefits.

The third intervention to potentially consider is to give the new AI Office of Ireland an explicit mandate for monitoring net environmental benefits from AI for Ireland. I understand the office has just been established as the AI Act's co-ordinating authority for the EU. Potentially, its mandate could be extended to add environmental disclosure and net accounting verification to its remit. If that is not the right place, perhaps there is another institution that could take on this equivalent function.

I have three more recommendations and then I will finish. The fourth recommendation is to amend the climate action plan of Ireland to require not just footprint reporting for large energy uses but also net accounting that looks at both the footprint and the positive handprint. This also extends into Ireland’s reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, so that, obviously, any claimed digital contribution is verified using a standard.

Fifth, it would be fantastic if Ireland could publish its own audited case study on the application of ITU-T standard L.1480 or the application of ITU-T standard L.1801 so the next time this question comes before the committee, Ireland has actually more evidence from its own use cases, not only from elsewhere.

Finally, it is important to define, measure and report on the twin transition language that is included in Ireland’s own strategies already in use. For example, Ireland’s digital AI strategy talks about the twin green and digital transition but never defines it, measures it or reports on it. The next revision to that strategy should really come up with a twin transition strategy with very clear metrics and a very clear reporting framework.

In conclusion, I believe the committee does not need to choose between the promise and the cost; it needs the accounting that tells the difference between the two and it is the accounting that helps Ireland to get the twin transition right. I thank members very much for this intervention. I am happy to take questions as part of the discussion.

I thank Mr. Jensen. Members will have the opportunity to ask questions according to the rota. Members will have seven minutes each and if we have time, we will go around for a second round. As a reminder, it is seven minutes for questions and answers so members should please allow enough time for witnesses to answer within those seven minutes.

I thank everyone for being here today. It is great to be back in committees. My first question is for Friends of the Earth and is specifically around something the witnesses mentioned, which is capacity. I have a few things I would like to touch on today if I have the time. Ms Leonard mentioned the lack of clarity on data centre capacity in Europe. I would really love her to expand on that and tell me whether it is to do with operators not being forthcoming. Do national authorities monitor this use of data centres? If they were at 100%, would it increase their use of energy and water? As part of that as well, is there any way to get a figure or an approximation on how much data centre capacity and data centre energy capacity specifically is being used by generative AI versus data storage or other uses? We will start with that, please.

No problem. That is a great question. On the first question on capacity, a lot of the detail emerging around data centres not being at capacity is basically coming from data that is being submitted through the energy efficiency directive, particularly within the Netherlands. Leitmotiv in the Netherlands has done analysis of what companies have been reporting and through that it is realising that possibly not all of these centres are at capacity. We have a real blind spot in Ireland because we have not transposed that directive. Therefore, we have no companies needing to report or facing penalties if they do not report on their energy use, their emissions and their water use. That, as a starting point, is vital. Ireland has the capacity to do that under Article 12 of that directive. It could be done tomorrow.

On the second question, in terms of what is being used for generative AI and what is not, it is extremely hard to tell, again, because companies do not disclose this detail.

The International Energy Agency stated that about half of the growth in the coming decade will be from accelerated servers. The proposals in Ireland at the moment are extremely large and I would be very interested in companies needing to justify why data centres use a quarter of our electricity in Ireland. There is perhaps a need for a national as well as a European database, so that we can examine the data that is submitted. There should be a little bit more interrogation of why it is needed.

Would the category of data mentioned give us intelligence around how much is being used for generative AI?

No, not necessarily.

That would have to be separate, either legislation-----

Yes

It sounds from the answer that they are not forthcoming and measures are required to get this information from national governments.

I will move on to twin transition, which is slightly connected. We heard a lot about twin transition in Government policies. It is something the witnesses have raised today. A lot of the wider harms done by technology often come back to the profit-driven nature of technology use. If AI slop is getting tech companies more revenue than weather prediction services, that is what they will pursue, with little regard for the social usefulness or environmental impact. I have worked in the tech sector; that is simply what happens in a profit-driven environment. Do the witnesses think a twin transition is possible in the current circumstances? There is no real mechanism or buy-in from tech companies and generative AI, which does not have the same environmental benefits, is driving the carbon footprint? Does that make sense?

It does.

I will start with Ms Duffy and then ask Mr. Jensen to come in.

Issues raised by Mr. Jensen around heat usage and other metrics come under the EED directive. We are all agreed that more transparency, information and data will increase governance and accountability. On the twin transition, it is interesting to note whether a technological sector is being established for the public good, is prioritised for the public services we need or is being siphoned off to create more profit. Of course, the questions are always who benefits, owns and reaps rewards from what is happening.

There was some very interesting data published a couple of weeks ago in the TASC report around the use of generative AI in the 2026 Scottish election. It found that 34% of the information coming from generative AI chat bots was disinformation or inaccurate information. In the context that we are talking about twin transition, communities on the ground are organising resistance against data centres because they see how their land is being used. There not getting any benefit from it. They do not know who owns it or what it is using. It is to their detriment in terms of water in the summer time and the cost in their electricity bills. That is in addition to the fact that we do not know how much is being used in generative AI and the real harm it can cause. I hope that answers the question.

Absolutely.

The only additional point I would make is that we have not seen twin transition coming with data centres and renewables on the ground. It was acknowledged in this committee by Professor Hannah Daly, the SEAI and the Climate Change Advisory Council that renewables are being outstripped by data centre demand because the energy consumption of data centres is so high. If we want to seriously roll out this model, we would need to think about 24-7 renewables matched on an hourly basis. We also would need to think about energy caps because we cannot keep building data centres in the order of magnitude of entire towns overnight and expect renewables to pop up at the same time. It is not happening on the ground.

I will give Mr. Jensen a chance to come in on that.

Can I come in on the first question before the second?

Of course. There is a minute left.

In terms of the AI load of data centres, it is roughly between 30% and 50%, but we do not know the how the figure breaks down in different forms of AI. We cannot necessarily say that generative AI is X percent. Generally speaking, AI as a percentage of workload is between 30% and 50% in data centres around the world globally. As the Deputy probably knows, 10% to 20% of AI relates to training and about 80% to 90% is around inference and using it day to day. That is the breakdown.

On the twin transition question, the answer is definitively "No".

The twin transition will not happen without regulation; absolutely not. There needs to be a regulatory push and incentives must be put in place to push it in that direction. That is exactly what I was hinting at, and it is exactly why standards are so important. There are a lot of false statements being made right now by tech companies that they are contributing to this twin transition, when, in fact, they are doing no such thing. That is why it is so important to have international standards and for governments to really require them. When a company makes a statement, there needs to be some kind of standard in place to enable that statement to be verified and validated. When the Government is issuing procurement contracts, part of those contracts should reference the standards that must be used if a firm is to be hired, with a requirement to report back on the net benefit of the technology. Without Government regulation, it is very clear that the twin transition will not happen.

I thank Mr. Jensen.

My first question is for Mr. Jensen. I must admit to being quite a fan of his work and particularly of MapX. I was delighted to hear he was available to participate here today as a witness. The committee certainly should consider in more detail the six specific recommendations he outlined. I welcome that he is looking at the issue from a broader global perspective. From an energy efficiency point of view, when we look at how we use data storage over the decades, is it more efficient to use centralised data centres as opposed to distributing equivalent computing power around home, office and business servers? I am referring here to the general business model.

That is a very difficult question. I have seen different studies done by Microsoft, IBM and Google suggesting it is more efficient to have centralised data centres because they involve state-of-the-art technology, algorithms that can optimise everything and all kinds of quality controls, whereas, with decentralised, old-school kinds of approaches, there is a real mix of technologies, differently aged equipment, etc. Of course, those studies are very biased, going in the companies' favour to further justify data centres. I must admit I have not seen studies that argue the opposite. There might be information on that but, to be frank, I have not looked into it. I have seen the positive confirmation that data centres are more efficient but it may be that there are other studies out there, which I have not seen, that suggest the opposite. The witnesses from Friends of the Earth might have something further to add in that regard.

I will come to them specifically on this point, which comes down to a crucial question. If the argument is that our data centres are using large amounts of energy, what is the alternative if we switch off those centres? Do we go back to a model of decentralised computing power? Data centres are not used in the abstract. We are all using data centres. In fact, Mr. Jensen appearing on a screen at this meeting today involves a data centre being used. People talk about a moratorium on data centres but that will not stop all the problems. We have had the debate about AI for good versus AI for bad. What is the alternative to data centres?

I do not disagree with the Deputy. We are using data centres and we are using AI. However, for us, as an environmental and social justice organisation, and, I believe, for every Member of the Oireachtas, all policy is now climate policy. We are at irreversible tipping points. Europe is the fastest-warming continent, as the Deputy knows, and we see the real-time impacts on people. Members will be discussing the budget in the next few weeks. Some 90% of our heating is dependent on fossil fuels. That is the context within which all policy must be made.

What we are seeing at the moment is that the data centre expansion is pushing us way off our climate ambition and climate targets. That is ultimately the issue for us in relation to a moratorium. If we can put a moratorium in place, we can calm down the pace for a little bit. There has been unchecked expanded growth over a number of years without regulation. A moratorium would allow us all to take a breath, figure out what we want to do, put the regulation in place and not repeat the same mistakes that happened previously.

Look at what is happening with social media at the moment.

I am not disputing that but given the nature of the digitalisation of the economy and society, part of what has not been communicated to people is what exactly that means. That may mean that some of our daily interactions will be very significantly challenged. I argue that we have to continue to allow the expansion of data centres but it has to be linked to the development of renewable energies. One thing the Commission for Regulation of Utilities has stated very clearly to us here is that there is a big contribution by those data centres toward the development of the grid and that, in other words, when those data centres are being built they contribute towards the grid.

I have a problem with the idea that is presented that data centres are inherently evil and that we as humans, as individuals, as consumers and as businesses have no connection with them. We are all using data centres and we will continue to use them. A modern economy and society depend on them. The challenge, which comes to Mr. Jensen's point about AI for good, is about how we marry the increase in demand for energy, which is coming not just from data centres but from other areas, and get that from renewable sources.

I will come in briefly on the efficiency argument because it is really interesting and I have seen companies make this claim. Mr. Jensen asked if we have seen evidence of this. Not really, to his point, it is very heavily biased and written by the companies themselves. In respect of the energy efficiency directive, which as I mentioned we have not transposed, the SEAI has warned that we will not meet that target. If we are talking about whether our data centres as they are being built right now are efficient, no. I would come back to the international-----

Can I ask which is-----

Can I just finish my point, Deputy?

It comes back to this. Let me speak because, the critical question is whether our choice is toward the development of data centres or a distributed computing power model, which basically means every house and organisation will go back. I am pretty certain Friends of the Earth does not have a server in its office. The Houses of the Oireachtas do not have a server. I am quite certain the UN does not have servers; it uses data centres.

One thing I would say again is that the International Energy Agency has stated the main driver of this demand is generative AI; it is not personal computing. The second point I will make seems quite interesting. The Houses of the Oireachtas did commission the building its own data centre in Kildare, which is 50 times less energy intensive than the data centre down the road. Are the private builds we are seeing in Ireland, which are in the order of magnitude that Professor Hannah Daly has already told this committee will contravene those climate targets, efficient? No. That has been demonstrated by the fact the Oireachtas has built a data centre that is significantly less energy intensive for the medium term uses of the Government than the private ones being built.

As Deputy Gibney pointed out, they have not justified it.

We should allow it to happen in those circumstances. That is where I think, particularly in the context of the use of small language models and targeted AI, we have to allow for that AI. I do not dispute it and it comes back to some of Mr. Jensen's points around transparency and so on. We will continue to need to build that digital infrastructure and it is dishonest to say we will not need to. We can have a debate around certain types of it but I do not think that a moratorium is fair in the circumstances.

Can I add to that point?

Mr. Jensen can answer briefly. We are just over time.

Very clearly, if there is a moratorium in Ireland the data centre companies will take their investment elsewhere. That is clear and where the capacity will come from. It could be a good idea to have a moratorium in the sense that it does not feel like there is a game plan in place as to what the actual, real footprints of data centres are. There are a lot of missing numbers right now. It could make sense to pause but the consequence of pausing is that investment could go elsewhere so it is a trade off. All of this is a trade off and that is something that has to be put on the table.

I wanted to pull in a couple of the issues that came up. One relates to the energy efficiency directive and all of that information and the fact we are not getting it, as Ireland has not transposed the directive. I am a bit concerned now that we are discussing this new labelling system which is being talked about and which does not seem to be any kind of substitute for the actual data and information. Will the witnesses comment on the importance of having the actual information on water, carbon emissions and all of that and it not simply being a matter of there being yellow, blue and green badging attached?

I also wanted to look at PFAS materials because this is emerging as a major issue. I do not know if it is even captured under the energy-efficiency directive but it is another huge data gap. Research from Sweden and other places shows that there has been a very significant increase. There has been a rapid surge in PFAS as a climate use. I will not go into the full reports with the Swedish non-profit ChemSec. There are PFAS at every stage of the operation and production of data centres. That is an environmental issue on which we simply do not have data. Where we have data, it is worrying from an environmental climate impact perspective and in terms of the many negative health impacts of PFAS. Could the witnesses comment on that?

Regarding centralisation, which was mentioned earlier, it is interesting to note the example of Latvia. There are arguments about centralisation in terms of our public data. We hear that we are using these data centres in different ways. There is a lack of transparency regarding what is happening in data centres. Latvia has national public data centres that are owned and are separate to commercial operations and avoid the kind of diffuse vulnerabilities in terms of overexposure of our public data to data centre structures, which are really escalating at such a speed and have so many issues. Could the witnesses comment on the sensibleness of having that separation on that area?

I will comment not just on regulation but on LNG. We should talk about the elephant in the room and the fact that there was direct lobbying for LNG from the US, a country that has left the Paris Agreement and where major companies are headquartered. Amazon is building the largest gas refinery in the US in Texas. They have clearly moved. They literally said that they are in a different time now than they were in the past when they made climate commitments, and they have increased their emissions by 16%. The big companies are not just operating here in Ireland. What we see from the US might create a new requirement for caution here in terms of what this is fitting into and what political pressures and indeed backwards steps we are seeing not just within the US but being advocated for by the US elsewhere. Could the witnesses comment on that?

I might speak briefly on the Senator's first question on sustainability and labelling and maybe let Ms Duffy come in on LNG. We are seeing plans at EU level involving tripling data centre capacity and bringing in a sustainability labelling scheme as part of that. As the Senator mentioned, it is putting the horse before the cart as we have no idea of the sustainability metrics of data centres in Ireland because we have not enforced Article 12 of that directive. Mr. Jensen has spoken to that. This is basically why we argue for a moratorium. The lack of good data is creating a massive blind spot. We have heard warnings from multiple agencies. Putting a pause on new data centre development right now would be quite sensible and legitimate. We also have not talked about the cost issue. Data centres are becoming a cost-of-living issue in terms of how much they are increasing bills. Research is being published on that as we speak by Lynn Boylan MEP. It is a real blind spot. I do not think we should go in hard for a sustainability labelling scheme before we have basic information and before we have clear criteria around the need for additional 24-7 hourly matched renewables rather than just annually matched buying carbon credits from countries like Norway, which does not add to the stock of renewables in Ireland. Ms Duffy will come in on the LNG point.

It is well raised. We know from talking at the climate committee that one of the issues for LNG fossil fuel infrastructure relates to energy security. I do not think anyone can disagree that we need energy security, particularly at this time, and that citizens deserve it. What is not clear with the LNG roll-out is whether there has been a transparent and legitimate assessment around demand. Regarding data centres here, Red Admiral is building a data centre and a fossil gas plant next door so, again, it comes back to climate objectives. While this industry is required in certain circumstances, it should be regulated for the public good. However, it is now on a runaway train and is moving us in the opposite direction to our climate objectives.

It is moving us in the opposite direction to our climate objectives. Regarding the N-1 security standard that the European Commission uses, one of the things that countries should be assessing before they bring in new LNG infrastructure - which this Government wishes to do - is gas demand and its alternatives. We have not seen a transparent assessment of that yet. It is very worrying that not only do we not have the regulation we need for data centres, particularly if Members are saying they are critical infrastructure, which I think people agree with. This is part of our infrastructure, but they are not being regulated in a way that other critical infrastructure is. In fact, they are exacerbating our fossil fuel dependency.

Was Mr. Jensen indicating? I was not sure.

A question was asked about public data centres managed by governments. It is a really interesting potential solution to this question of data sovereignty. It really depends on the companies and where those companies are headquartered, and if there is extra territorial legislation that covers their operations in other countries or not. If a government's data is housed in a Microsoft, Google or Amazon data centre, technically extra territorial legislation would apply to those, and it is not necessarily protected and sovereign. The only solution there is a publicly-governed data centre that is not managed by one of the big technology firms. It is an interesting model, and I do not think it is decentralising back to the old school. It is just realising that governments are unique entities that require certain sovereign control over their data. It makes a lot of sense to have those government-managed data centre to protect that sovereignty.

Just on PFAs, I know there is not time but if people had written pieces they could send me.

You will have a chance to come back in, Senator.

In case I do not, just to see a written contribution on PFAs would be useful.

No, you will have a chance to come back in.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. From reading Friends of the Earth's submission, it is clear that the UN has described Ireland as a cautionary tale in relation to this. What we are hearing this morning, and much of what we have heard at this committee, is a cautionary tale about data centres. That is not to say that it is black and white and that data centres are fundamentally bad, but we need to be very cautious in relation to this. The fact is that they are using 23% of our electricity currently, and with current planning projections, this is set to rise by potentially 11% in the next two to three years, adding the size of the county of Cork to the grid, effectively. As someone from Cork, that is extremely worrying for me. This will affect people in our society in so many different ways, in relation to the environment, the effects of decarbonisation, energy security and also bills. We know that thousands of people across the country today are probably opening bills coming in the door. They cannot afford to pay their electricity bills. People are suffering from the cost of living crisis, and I think it will be the less well off who will suffer the most because of this. We need to take that into account.

A very compelling case for a moratorium has been made. I want to delve into that more deeply. What would that look like if we were to implement it immediately? What needs to be put in place? It was also mentioned that some of the centres are not at full capacity, so how can we ensure that is addressed in terms of a review as well? I would also welcome if any of the witnesses want to come back to me on the issue of democratic consent which was mentioned. What does democratic consent look like? What do we as legislators have a responsibility to do in communicating with the public about data centres and raising awareness? Let us be honest, even in these Houses, there is a lack of awareness around data centres. If we are the ones who are actually legislating, the general public needs to be made aware of the implications of these down the line. Are there any examples of other countries where there has been a moratorium in place or where it is being considered or where it might have worked?

I can come in on the moratorium. Yes, a legislative moratorium on new data centre connections is legally possible. There is some precedence for this in Irish parliamentary history.

It is legally possible and the Minister can issue that directive. At the moment what we hear a lot is the buck getting passed back to the energy regulator but actually it needs to come from this House. It needs to come from the Dáil because that is the only way to ensure it. In terms of other countries, a de facto moratorium has actually just been issued in Scotland, as of Tuesday last week. They have said that no new planning applications will be reviewed for 12 months. It is worth saying that Scotland has, as of 2024, about 11 data centres while Ireland has over 100. They have clearly seen that these risks merit a pause, so there is precedence. We have also seen precedence in the US. There is a different regulatory system in the US but we have seen states like New York issue a moratorium. The Netherlands has had moratoriums under certain conditions as well. We are also seeing countries like Denmark, as I mentioned, introduce prioritisation criteria so that new data centre connections would be put at the back of the queue in order to make sure that emissions reductions targets, houses and services are met first and foremost. Like Senator Harmon said, there is a very real cost issue. PR6, which is coming into effect now, will increase bills for everyone. There is additional data centre demand forecast built into those bills so even if we have a moratorium tomorrow, we will need to go further than that in the coming years to ensure bills are fair. That demand is baked in and it is quite worrying. A moratorium is legally possible and it should come from this House.

In response to the question on democratic consent, I could be wrong but I do not remember the last general election being run on data centres as core to our economic model. Potentially, they were part of it but if we look at democracy, we see it is transparency and all of the data issues that Mr. Jensen brought us through so well, accountability, reporting and, most importantly, listening to communities. We are working with communities across the country. Just last week we were in touch with a community in Waterford, for example. There is a motion in Naas on Monday and there are lots of people who are very worried about data centres in their locality for various reasons, including that they are bringing chemicals and fossil fuels into their communities. Democratic consent at its most basic means listening to them, not just consulting them or batting them away but really listening to their concerns. That is the other reason we think a moratorium should be brought forward by this House to give everyone the space to really engage with that democratic consent. We know that over 80% of people in Ireland want more action on climate. They are scared and anxious about it and yet, at the same time, we are not willing to engage with them in relation to huge data centres coming into their communities.

Does Mr. Jensen wish to come in on that as well?

I just want to come in on the global perspective for a minute and position the reality of the challenge we face. Across all of the different environmental agreements we have in place right now, every single one is not being achieved. There is not a single indicator that is going in the right direction. It is all going the wrong way so, over 50 years of global environmental governance, we have generally failed to really start changing business models in the right direction. My personal opinion is that we are not going to do that without AI. AI is going to be essential and the digital transformation is going to be essential to start integrating environmental data directly into algorithmic decision-making and directly into AI algorithms. I see it as a solution and we need a positive narrative that is not just a doom and gloom narrative about the footprint of data centres. What could AI enable Ireland's economy to actually do? How can it become an engine for becoming more sustainable and more green? We need both narratives. We need to understand the footprint of the data centres but, at the same time, we need a positive narrative that says this technology could actually make the quality of life in Ireland, jobs and everything better as well. I just want to emphasise the importance of also investing in this AI-for-good narrative and trying to understand how AI is really being used across these different sectors to generate positive environmental, economic and social outcomes.

Thanks a lot to all of the witnesses and I thank in particular Friends of the Earth for the work they have done on putting information into the public domain, not just about the environment but also about the costs, for example. Ordinary householders are paying hundreds of euro extra as a consequence of data centres using so much of our electricity. There was a report by Seán Fearon and a report last week by Dylan Murphy on the energy efficiency directive. I want to ask a related question.

Obviously, to have a public debate on data centres, we need information and then we can make democratic decisions about whether this is the right or the wrong thing to do. I do not know to what degree the witnesses followed the FOI requests in relation to the KPMG report. The Government commissioned a report by KPMG and the public paid for it, at just over €1 million. Responses to a couple of FOI requests effectively suggest that an original draft was changed at the behest of the Government to remove negative points. A section on the potential for higher electricity prices due to rising data centre demand, which was part of the original terms of reference, was gone. Sections on the impacts on transport, housing and making choices about how we use our energy were also gone. A Department official emailed KPMG to say that the executive summary needs to present a strong narrative that considers the full gamut of the economic analysis and provides the evidence base that supports the position that we should continue to further develop our data centre landscape post-2030 in the context of our climate objectives. In other words, KPMG was told what report to produce. It was told the outcome. It was not a question of being asked to go and look at the evidence and come back with the information. Is this something that concerns the witnesses in terms of having an open, evidence-based, democratic discussion on data centres?

Yes, it is concerning. The opportunity costs were not examined fully, as the Deputy has said. There was also data put into that report originally around water consumption and that was removed. One of its recommendations actually went beyond transparency and suggested limitations on water consumption, which was quite a strong recommendation. I do not think many NGOs have even recommended that. It is a concern. What I find challenging about revelations like that is that we get evidence that the Department of trade or enterprise has suppressed these findings but then, when we ask the Minister for climate and energy for more transparency, we are told that it is not at their behest. There is a contradiction in terms of the levels of transparency here. The public deserves better, especially given the evidence around data centres increasing bills and the opportunity costs that come with that. We talk a lot about construction investment that comes from data centres but we have a profound housing crisis and a profound crisis in services. There is not a shortage there in terms of the need for construction. It is very concerning. A very hard look at the reality of the costs of data centres in Ireland in the context of electricity bills is needed and the Government should respond to that. We have not really heard a compelling response in terms of whether that is fair and how it will be mitigated.

I do not think we can have our cake and eat it. We cannot be saying on the one hand that this is really critical infrastructure and it is core to our economic model while at the same time not having a fully open, transparent, cohesive view on this industry in the country. At the moment - I see Mr. Jensen nodding - we are straddling between the two positions but it is either one or the other. That would take away from the harm that was caused by this report, which did not look at this issue in the round.

Does Mr. Jensen want to add anything to that?

It is shocking but it is not surprising. How about that? KPMG is a reputable firm but they have a client, the client wants something and they deliver that to the client. To get an independent assessment, one would need to go elsewhere and not to one of the big four consultancies. I am shocked that they would do it but I am not surprised at all that they would water it down. As was just said, we are straddling these two realities and we need the data in order to make a decision on the strategy here and to figure out what the real trade-offs are in the short term and the long term and what the positive opportunities are from making these investments. It is very clear that the data just does not exist yet.

Let us go there now. As Mr. Jensen said earlier, if we introduce a moratorium, it is likely that the investment goes elsewhere. We can have a discussion later, if we have time, about what is socially useful, what is not, and whether we want this expansion. It is probably true, in the here and now, that if we have a moratorium the investment goes elsewhere. I think it is a good thing that the investment goes elsewhere in the sense that such investment means using up more and more of our electricity, driving up our electricity prices and diverting labour away from constructing homes towards constructing data centres. What do the witnesses think is the opportunity cost of the investment going elsewhere by implementing a moratorium?

The first point I would make on that is that a data centre moratorium would not result in the closing down of any existing data centres, which is really important because sometimes we hear that. Those companies would still be doing business here. As Ireland has a very low corporate tax rate, I find it hard to believe that lots of them would flee en masse. I think they will find it hard to find countries that will accept the level of building that Ireland has. One thing I have heard of quite often is that data centre investment will go to the Nordics, but the Nordics are enforcing stricter regulations around data centres than we are. I have also heard it about Spain, but Spain is enforcing stricter regulations than we are. Ireland has an incredibly favourable regulatory environment and I do not know if companies are going to find that elsewhere. This scaremongering is maybe a little overblown. We need to be thinking about limitations in terms of our own resources, renewables build-out for existing users in Ireland, cost fairness for consumers and households, and the ability to reach the climate targets that we voted in.

The opportunity is conditional on those investments and putting in place requirements. I thought Ireland had a policy that 80% of all data centres have to be supplied by renewable energy. If that is the case, other conditionalities like that could actually help to make those data centres as green as possible. Conditional investment and emphasising benefit-sharing between data centres and those communities would be fundamental. I refer, for example, to the heat generated by some of these data centres. I am not sure what the situation is in Ireland but in other places, like Switzerland, some of that heat is reused for heating local pools, municipal infrastructure or even housing. Looking for win-win opportunities and putting a heck of a lot of conditionality on those investments is, I think, the opportunity.

On investment going elsewhere, there will always be countries that will accept those investments. There will always be governments that will be desperate for that kind of investment and will offer a regulatory environment that will attract it. I do think that investment would go elsewhere and, again, it is just a question of what Ireland's vision is. What are the trade-offs and what is the vision Ireland wants to put forward? I will go back to the opportunities. How can Ireland become a place where AI is used for sustainable development and better well-being?

I thank the witnesses for coming this morning. I have a few small questions. What future threats do the witnesses see for the environment based on the current trajectory of the growth of AI, its rapid development and its high demand for consumption of energy water and rare-earth minerals?

I can speak briefly. I am sure Mr. Jensen would have points on that too. One of the fundamental challenges right now is the impact of data centre growth on renewables. We are the fourth most dependent country in the EU with regard to fossil fuel imports so we are very exposed to global price shocks and the geopolitical tensions we are seeing now. Our households are paying some of the highest bills in Europe. We cannot, according to the Climate Change Advisory Council, build renewables to the degree we need to if data centre demand continues because it is outstripping the growth of those renewables, which is significant.

On the water and land side, we are also seeing a worrying trend of land being zoned specifically for data centres. We have seen that in Kildare. Those are large land banks and it is not clear why that is being pursued. In regard to water, this summer, we had the hosepipe ban. One thing that is really important to understand about data centres and water is there was a lot of information this summer about data centres consuming millions of litres of water, which is true, but what is particularly worrying about it is that data centres use most of their water when temperatures rise. When there are already concerns around water shortages, data centres will exacerbate those. That is why limitations around water use would be very welcome to mitigate localised effects.

It is a thing we keep coming back to but, again, there are no good data on how much water data centres in Ireland are using and that is very severe. Yes, it will potentially exacerbate water shortages when the water shortages are already present, which is the real threat around data centres and water.

Regarding the protection of our environment, do the witnesses think the EU AI Act is far more focused on the human-centric to the detriment of the ecocentric?

Possibly. Would Ms Duffy like to come in there?

No, Ms Leonard can go ahead.

We are not considering these things in the round. As Mr. Jensen mentioned, there is a balance to be struck there. These things are material and physical infrastructure so rolling out this technology, and the way we are seeing it being rolled out at such scale and pace without environmental limitations, is potentially very worrying and damaging.

Given that, from our perspective, we are at such a critical period with the tipping points and the global warming we are all experiencing in our lives, everything has to be climate policy at this point. I would probably say that, no, it probably does not go far enough.

Mr. Jensen spoke about net accounting data. The irony of the fact that we have data centres is that we cannot get data on them.

The reporting mandate contained in Article 53 of the EU AI Act forces general-purpose AI to document energy consumption but it is only during training phases. Do the witnesses think this should be changed? Do they think this inference phase should be removed and all day-to-day consumption should be documented?

Of course. As I said, the training phase is only 20% to 30% of the footprint. The inference phase is the most critical part so it should absolutely be extended. As was mentioned, the AI Act is very much human-centric.

I will go back to the Deputy's other point about critical minerals. I wanted to put two steps on the table. First, if you look at the critical minerals needed by the clean energy transition and those needed by the digital transition, they are about 98% of the same minerals so the demand for critical minerals is set to skyrocket. Different estimates are out there. The World Bank, for example, estimates that lithium demand is going to surge by about 300%, graphite by 131% and nickel by 69%. There are estimates out there that there is going to be surging demand. This is exactly why we also need to be thinking about the downstream e-waste. How do we actually manage that e-waste from data centres, mobile phones and digital infrastructure? How do we capture the critical minerals in that and try to transform that into some kind of circular business model? I think that is an important aspect we are not really touching on yet and this surging demand for critical minerals is going to be fundamental. These trade-offs are going to have to be made between which technologies we invest in and how we recapture that value at the end of its life cycle.

Are there any changes the witnesses would like to see to the law or any they would like to see included in the current EU AI Act?

I can come in briefly. I think environmental assessments should be mandatory. Limitations on water and energy caps should be mandatory. A very clear plan on how this all aligns with the energy efficiency directive needs to happen. Europe has climate and energy efficiency goals. I am not sure that has been evaluated against the ambitions in the AI Act.

To add to that, this goes back to the point I was trying to make. Any claims that AI is contributing to positive environmental outcomes like climate mitigation need to be made against a certain standard. Those claims need to be looking at both the footprint of technology and the handprint, and the net calculation has to be made. I would say that mandating ITU-T L.1480 or L.1801 for claims that AI is contributing to some kind of environmental benefit really need a standard attached to them and evidence behind them, otherwise it is going to be the next phase of greenwashing. AI-driven greenwashing is going to be huge unless some standards are put in place to prevent it.

I only have 40 seconds left. Do the witnesses think it is possible to balance the protection of our energy resources against the aggressively competitive nature of generative AI companies and entities?

It is very clear at the moment that they are not in balance. We are way off meeting our climate targets. Data centre growth is unchecked and expanding. Mr. Jensen has spoken eloquently about the ledger and the checks and balances. If we can get there, of course anything is possible but right now we have a runaway train with regard to data centre expansion and we do not have the necessary regulation to provide those checks and balances.

I thank the Chair and the witnesses.

It has been a useful hearing. It is a good balance to have the international perspective of Mr. Jensen as well.

I will tease out some of the issues that have been raised. On one particular point, was Ms Leonard suggesting that the hosepipe ban was linked to data centre water usage in Ireland?

Not necessarily, but given that households were asked to reduce consumption, there was no parallel plan in terms of asking data centres to reduce consumption. They were not even required to submit their water usage.

Ms Leonard said there are not good data points on water usage of data centres. Are there some data points on water usage of data centres in Ireland?

There are some. Some companies have submitted sustainability metrics. Meta, in Clonee, had been submitting metrics on water usage. Their data showed that in the past few years, annually, they have been using approximately 900 million megalitres of water per year.

For the whole of Ireland, for example, are there data points that Ms Leonard can point to that would show the overall water usage of the 90 or 100 data centres in Ireland?

Not completely, because some are drawing off the public system and some are drawing off abstraction and there is no combination of those two figures.

I am only asking this because there is a figure, is there not?

Yes. Uisce Éireann put out some figures but it also said that it was not sure. I think this is from the EPA's own data. They were not sure of the total number of data centres in terms of the usage being drawn through abstraction. It was kind of a guess.

What was the figure that Uisce Éireann put out?

They said that it was 1% of national water usage. My concern about that figure is it is contradicted by the figures that Meta put forward.

I think it is less; 0.3% of water usage is what Uisce Éireann is saying.

If they do not know how much is coming from abstraction, how can they confirm that figure?

The only reason I am asking this question is because water usage is very commonly raised as one of the issues in relation to data centres but that seems an exceptionally low figure in the overall amount of water usage. How do we square the concern with the figures we have?

You need better figures. You need to transpose Article 12 of the energy efficiency directive. You need to enforce penalties for companies that do not comply. We need a national database so that we ourselves can review those figures, not only at EU level. As I said, the real problem with data centres' water consumption is when it goes above 25°C. When there are already hosepipe bans in place and when there is already stress in localised water systems, that is when data centres will use water more extensively. It is at those moments that we need a better picture.

Does Ms Leonard think the true figure is many multiples of 0.3%? Would she care to speculate as to where she thinks it might be? Is it in the realm of 0% to 5% or is it more than that?

Speculating without the data is a fool's game. We need better data. As I said, Meta's sustainability metrics seem to slightly contradict Uisce Éireann's figures, which are not supported by the EPA's figures. We need much better figures than that.

I take Ms Leonard's point on Article 12 transposition. That will be transposed. When it is transposed, does that mean that the water usage from data centres will be provided and we will have the accurate figure?

The spirit of that article is that we will have data submitted by the companies themselves. That needs to come into a full in-the-round view of how Ireland deals with heatwaves, which is an issue for the Department of the environment.

There is always the danger, on the flipside of environmental concerns, that people say they will spray their hose because of what data centres use. There is a public element to this, or a buy-in piece, if we are wrong about some part of the equation. When those figures come out and, let us say, if they substantiate that the water usage is 0.3%, is water usage still a relevant concern when it comes to data centres? Let us say it is proven that the figure is 0.3%. Is water usage a relevant concern, if that proves to be the figure?

Even if that were the figure, which none of us knows, that would still be a concern if we also have what we had this summer, which was no rainfall for months on end. That is worrying. We should be looking at water use in the round in that regard.

Mr. Jensen highlighted the 80:20 split that Ireland has. If I understood him correctly, he thought that was a good conditionality. Ms Leonard mentioned Spain and Nordic countries have different ones. Maybe this is for Friends of the Earth and Mr. Jensen. I do not expect them to know the entire pipeline of offshore wind in Ireland but there is the argument, which they will have read in the KPMG report and elsewhere, that in order to sustain a future ongoing pipeline of offshore wind, we need electricity demand that will go beyond household certainty of demand.

Is that true to any great degree? If not, is there better conditionality we could impose on data centres that might make that true, going back to Mr. Jensen's point about AI for good? If there were tighter conditionality on the 80:20 rule, would they agree that more data centres could in fact result in investment in more offshore wind and renewables? The question is for Friends of the Earth first.

I will speak of what Spain has done. In Ireland, we have the recent regulator of utilities policy. In Spain, the need for a six-year glide path has been dropped. They have said that you cannot have a six-year glide path to build out these renewables and you have to have the renewables on stream already, additional to what is already planned. It has to be 24-7 hourly-matched additional as well. It cannot be matched on an annual basis, which is what we have in Ireland. You cannot wait six years to scale up to that, which is also what we have in Ireland.

Does Ms Leonard view that Spanish example as an example of more data centres being a force for good for generating renewable energy?

No, and definitely not in Spain. People in Spain have raised concerns about that not being high enough because in Spain there is an abundance of renewables.

Maybe I will ask the question differently. Are there any circumstances where Ms Leonard views, with the appropriate conditionality, more data centres being a driver for more offshore or renewable forms of energy?

If a moratorium is in place to allow the grid to catch up so we can decarbonise existing users, and much stricter conditions are brought in, as have been brought in in Spain, you could even look at raising that to 90%, 95% or 100% renewables, and if there are energy caps so you cannot have data centres being built. We are seeing proposals for Longford and Offaly of 500 MW. Building renewables to match that would be a huge use of land and resources. You would have very strict conditions, a moratorium and energy caps as well.

I thank the witnesses. Will Friends of the Earth expand on the EU energy efficiency directive, the timeline of it and its understanding of the delay or when it will be transposed in Ireland? Ms Leonard mentioned Article 12. What is the potential of that? I understand the principle of it is energy efficiency first. Will Ms Leonard outline what proper implementation of the directive would look like in Ireland and whether it could be an improvement on the status quo?

We have just commissioned research on this which I will send to the members of this committee. As I mentioned, Article 12 means that data centres have to comply in terms of submitting their data. Other countries have brought in penalties for those that fail to comply. We should look to do the same. Otherwise there is no incentive for them to do this.

The EU energy efficiency directive does not necessarily mandate the creation of a national database but other countries have done this. In the Netherlands, they have also made that data public. We should look to do that too in the interests, as Deputy Geoghegan said, of public faith and buy-in in terms of sacrifices that others have had to make. That would be one of the main things we need to do with urgency. Looking at the energy efficiency targets as a whole, it is about how data centre demand challenges our ability to meet that energy efficiency as well. You could be looking at bringing in stricter requirements on data centres' energy use as a result of that.

Ms Leonard mentioned the Netherlands. Are there good examples of how the principles of the directive have been applied in other countries? Is there an example that we should look at in Ireland?

Yes. Germany has gone further. It has introduced stronger regulations around the energy use and requirements of data centres while it has been transposing that directive. As I said, the Netherlands has created a national database as well and made that data public. Other countries have imposed fines as well on companies that have failed to comply.

On the delay in Ireland, it was sometime last year that it was expected to be transposed. Have those questions been asked and is there an indication? I presume the Department of climate and energy is leading on it.

Yes, it is my understanding that it is the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. As for the reasons for the delays, I am not sure. I know it has been raised. Parliamentary questions have been raised. They should be raised again to see where the progress is in relation to that.

I will add to that very briefly. In terms of any notions of sustainability indexes or anything emanating from the industry itself, we believe that kind of transparency - the data collection from a directive that is enforced across the EU going to the economic point about working as an economic bloc - will be one of the most important things we should do. The regulation is with the Government and there is capability in the Oireachtas. Senator Higgins raised the sustainability index previously but from our position, most certainly, the directive should be the priority in terms of the transparency and accountability that is needed.

I presume that information then allows the witnesses to have a greater understanding of the current state of play and projections and trends and the types of conditions they might apply to data centre development or other development, and that is essentially provided for in the directive.

In terms of their argument then around the 80:20 breakdown, Government will say that it is responding, it has moved and it understands. There have been very strong lines; we see it from various representatives, including the Taoiseach and the Department. Is the witnesses' argument on the 80:20 breakdown that the renewables are not coming at the pace they need to?

We have taken a judicial review of that policy, so I do not want to say too much because that will be decided by a judge. However, Professor Hannah Daly spoke very well in this committee previously that, essentially, under that policy, there are a few issues, one of which is the conditions around those renewables themselves. They are annually matched. There is a six-year glide path and during that six-year glide path, data centres are being built with no size limitations, which will obviously exasperate climate change. The other issue is that without a cap on demand, those renewables are essentially being outpaced. Through the modelling she has done, we can see that if all of that demand was realised and met by those conditions, there would be a decrease in the number of renewables on stream generally because data centre demand is so enormous. It is also constant, which is unlike other businesses, industries or households. It is all times of the day, 24-7, constant inflexible demand. That is just from the environmental perspective. Then, from the cost perspective, it would do nothing to reduce the data centre price effect we see on bills at the moment.

On Friends of the Earth's second ask around the prioritisation framework - my colleague Deputy Pa Daly introduced legislation last week - are there good examples of that or what are the key things that need to happen? Is it around prioritising residential and public buildings? Ms Leonard might outline what it means by that.

Yes, sure. Denmark has just introduced proposals around this, which are quite strong. We would not necessarily have to do it exactly the way the Danes have done it, but what they have done is replace the first come, first served scenario. They have introduced four categories, basically. The first is prioritisation to cover increased demand from current customers, new households and small businesses. The second is for projects that support electrification and the green transition. Those two would have highest priority on the grid. It is prioritising non-data-centre customers first and prioritising emissions reductions. Then, new data centres that want to come on stream are last in the queue. There are essentially four categories based around what they have termed societal need. Those proposals are certainly the strongest we have seen in the EU, so they would be worth looking at in detail.

I presume-----

We are out of time, Deputy.

Presumably, in a framework like that, the case can be made that data centres can make their case as well.

Deputy, we are out of time. I have cut across everybody else; I am sorry.

That is fine.

I thank our witnesses for coming in this morning. My first question is for Mr. Jensen. He noted that local communities often bear the environmental footprint of digital infrastructure while the benefits are felt either nationally or internationally. That made me think about a local project that is in the news at the moment called Mayo Data Hub, which is a proposed data centre.

It was a $1.5 billion investment. Mayo County Council had originally granted planning permission in April 2025 and An Coimisiún Pleanála overturned it this September. There are mixed feelings on the ground. Some people welcomed the refusal while others were upset about it, given that there were 300 construction jobs proposed in the short-term and 35 permanent jobs. Unlike in large urban centres like Dublin, in Killala 35 jobs is a significant number. The reasons for refusal were the absence of a fixed grid connection and lack of evidence of grid capacity.

People in north Mayo feel they have contributed so much to renewable generation with wind farms very prominent in the area. Councillor Jarlath Munnelly was in support of the development, but acknowledged there was also a lot of opposition in Mayo. It speaks to the intersection of the twin transition, where a county has given so much to renewable energy but in this case thought it might get some economic benefit. What mechanism would Mr. Jensen recommend to ensure that those communities or communities in general share more directly in the benefits? The Killala community trust fund was originally developed for the wind farm and there was an idea that that might be used. There are mixed feelings on the ground. I would like to hear any thoughts or comments on that.

I thank the Deputy. Reading some of the documentation on the AI digital policy, the climate policy and the industrial policy, as I said the term "twin transition" is mentioned but is never defined. There are no metrics around it or strategy. As the Deputy said, there are no criteria in terms of making trade-offs and balancing local and national interests. At a minimum, I would try to define what it means for Ireland, how it measures it and makes the trade-offs and the core principles. As the Deputy said, we need to figure out how to decide between local and national interests.

Coming up with a twin transition plan or some measure of documentation that defines what it is and what is measurable and reportable would be step one. Step two goes back to something we keep talking about, namely some kind of national observatory for the twin transition in terms of looking at all the data points negatively and positively and trying to understand whether this is a net benefit for Ireland. This is what the French Government is doing with ADEME and DSREP. It has a national observatory for the twin transition, which it calls the digital ecological transition. It aggregates all of the data from all of the sectors and tries to have a national view on whether this is good or bad for France at the net level and where the biggest negative and positive consequences are.

In the French case, by having that data it is seeing that the net outcome is not positive. It is still very much negative. Many sectors are still seeing more impact than benefit. That can only be determined with this kind of observatory and all of its data. The second recommendation is coming up with a national observatory for the twin transition that aggregates all of the data from the different sectors, something that is obviously required through legislation, publishing it and making a determination on whether something is a net positive or negative for Ireland. Again, the local and national view needs to be examined.

I thank Mr. Jensen We appreciate that. My next question is for Friends of the Earth. Ms Leonard spoke about personal computing versus generative AI. People had to get used to personal computing. The speed at which they are starting to get used to generative AI means that it is starting to embed into their lives in a similar manner to personal computing. Some people have multiple agents on the go at the same time. Some people are now using it in their everyday economic activity. I spoke to a lady yesterday who told me she had one task which used to take her 20 hours a month and it now takes her two and a half hours. What would Ms Leonard suggest in terms of meeting the additional demand that is coming quickly without undermining our climate targets?

I refer to the proposed moratorium, which would probably not eliminate the demand. The demand might go to another jurisdiction. The effect on the environment would still be the same, but we may lose jobs here.

What would the witnesses' suggestions be about the fact there is an increasing demand in Ireland and the question of how we meet our targets while meeting that demand?

I will let my colleague Ms Duffy come in on that as well but I do not know based on the data we have seen from the likes of the SEAI, the Climate Change Advisory Council and Professor Hannah Daly and others who have spoken at this committee that we can do both, given the pace of demand coming from generative AI. It is very important we understand the debate on generative AI very clearly. We have all sorts of generative AI models being rolled out. The International Energy Agency has said they are the key driver of demand. That has been built into people's everyday lives and people's phones without consent. I will not speak in detail about it here because it is beyond the realm of what I am here to speak about but we have just seen with the likes of TikTok, Meta and X very significant additional pressures to do with algorithmic designs being built in and the effect of that on mental health. There are really serious questions to be asked about what is a good use of AI.

I am sorry to cut across Ms Leonard but in the interests of time I am a psychologist in training, so I understand the mental health effects. We can argue about those but demand is increasing. How do we feed that demand and keep our environmental targets or shift our environmental targets elsewhere? I ask because the demand is going to stay and people will just get it from other jurisdictions.

I do not know that we can do both. On shifting environmental targets, the Dáil voted for the climate law so I do not know if we would want to do that.

I am sorry, I did not mean shift our targets. I meant trying to get both at the same time.

We are out of time. Friends of the Earth may answer briefly.

They are legally binding targets but I understand what the Deputy is saying about the demand being there and people using AI but it is back to looking at it in the round. There is no regulation there at the moment. We are talking about social media and that arrived 15 years ago or maybe longer. We need to examine this. Exactly as Ms Leonard was saying, it is being built into people's devices and they are of course using it without the digital skills and not understanding the impact. We see that when people are shown the impact they will prioritise public services rather than other issues to do with data centres. It goes to the nub of what we have to figure out and we welcome the question but at a bare minimum, there should be a requirement on companies to turn off AI models unless people consent to use the AI through their applications.

I thank Ms Duffy. It falls to me now to ask some questions. One thing that struck me is the fact, as she said, that all policy should be seen through a climate lens. I agree 100% with her. That could be in education or it could be in energy or regardless of what side of society it falls upon. There is a growing and obvious conflict between the growth in artificial intelligence and trying to keep up with our climate targets. Notwithstanding that, I am conscious there is a need for data centres. Does Friends of the Earth agree there is a need for data centres for public services and for healthcare? There may be some elements we might agree or disagree on but data centres, generally speaking, are required in society.

Yes. Just very briefly, we have had the great example from Latvia. We have been talking about the Houses of the Oireachtas. People use data. It is cloud computing. It is the fact it is totally out of sync and the scale is massive. When we talk about jobs or industries moving to other countries, we are a global outlier. Why are we the toxic waste ground for cloud computing that is used all over the place?

Why does Ms Duffy say "toxic waste ground"?

Because communities are living beside the forever chemicals. They are living beside fossil fuel that is being generated as a result of data centres in the area.

What forever chemicals are being generated by data centres?

Senator Higgins raised forever chemicals earlier. What I am trying to say is by the very nature of cloud computing we are providing services for people globally but we are taking an extreme drain on our energy systems. What we have discussed really well today is that we do not actually know the extent of the drain on our water and energy systems.

We are looking at it from a purely Irish perspective here but if we refuse data centres - it has kind of been covered this morning - are we not just pushing the problem somewhere else, be it the UK, the Nordics or wherever? I take the point that they have, let us say, stronger regulations in place but that does not mean new data centres are not going to be established.

Mr. Jensen mentioned that there will always be countries willing to accept investment in new data centres. Are we just pushing the problem away from Ireland to somewhere else so that our climate figures are improved somewhat?

That is exactly what you are doing. If this conditionality question can be used as a procurement lever and the right set of conditions put around it, you can then help that conditionality question generate new markets that other sectors can then benefit from, which has potential knock-on effects.

Rather than a complete moratorium on data centres, should our focus be that any data centre essentially has to prove its energy has been generated purely through renewable energy, which could put our minds at ease in terms of the e-chemicals or forever chemicals Ms Duffy mentioned? Should that be the focus rather than the moratorium, which could just push the problem to somewhere else in Europe or globally? In a western civilisation like Ireland, maybe our focus should be more on renewables and ensuring that these data centres are as climate conscious as possible.

I do not want to say "Yes" or "No". My issue is that Ireland lacks the data to make that decision right now. I find it quite surprising that a modern developed economy like Ireland does not have all the data it needs to assess these trade-offs. Maybe a five-year moratorium is too long but my first priority is getting that data in place immediately and then running the projections and understanding whether Ireland can handle the data centres and what the resource load will be. Once Ireland has that data, it can decide what conditionality it will put upon that and upon new investment. The first priority is data collection, making those projections and then figuring out what those conditions would be.

That is super helpful.

Bear in mind that it is having impact in real time. Our research this year has shown that it is pushing up household bills in Ireland. Members will be aware that this is because of the level of renewables data centres are using. The pricing is at gas level now, which is more expensive, so this is not abstract for people facing into winter. I take the Cathaoirleach's point about where a data centre is going to lie but we are at 23% of the grid. We are a global outlier. That is the reason we are calling for the moratorium. I have heard the train mentioned in this committee. The train is really speeding down the line. All we are asking is for us to pause, put the regulations in place and get the data so that we know what we are doing.

I get that and I appreciate that as well. If we look at the number of new connections by EirGrid for data centres over the past five years, are the witnesses aware of how many new connections have been made for data centres?

The number has slowed down but it is still very high.

Zero.

Okay.

It is important to say that. Any new connections have been zero so any of the connections that have been made were connections that were applied for prior to 2021. We need a balanced view. It is not a case of them popping up everywhere. There have been applications that have been going through the process for a long time and the CRU and EirGrid have rightly been asking more questions and pushing back, as have local authorities to their credit. We need a balanced view. It is not a case of tonnes of them opening up on a daily or weekly basis.

That is a really interesting point. A total of 700 MW of data centre development is in planning, so we know people are applying for connections right now. Whether or not they have got them-----

They have not been approved.

If we look at them in the round, Herbata in the Cathaoirleach's constituency is so big it will triple the electricity capacity of the entirety of Kildare and could take up one quarter of the entire central emissions ceiling carbon budget for the electricity industry. That is really substantial. If we come back to the issue of cost, we have had these figures, for example, a market intelligence exercise that says it is 5.8 GW in demand. We are potentially building a grid with the cost socialised to meet that. The Cathaoirleach is saying is that basically the top demand is speculative. That is a very interesting question. The question of how households will be protected from building out speculative demand, which may not occur, is quite a worrying one in terms of cost-of-living issues.

We will go back to second round questions. We have about four minutes per person and 20 minutes left.

This has been such a fantastic session. It has been really helpful to hear all of the testimony. I will start with Mr. Jensen and the ledger model because it has been comforting to hear him elaborate on it more. It is in the context of where we are. For example, when we talk about moratoriums, we are accused of being totally anti-technology whereas I see them more as a pause, which is what a moratorium is defined as. It is not "no data centres", rather, it is "no more data centres for now until we have better data".

What is becoming very clear from the conversation today is lack of data is one of the biggest issues. When we hear about selective information being provided by Government and about the profit model of these companies meaning that they will never be forthcoming with it, that is why we have to look at it. We are dealing with an unbalanced narrative as it is. With regard to understanding the net benefit, where does social good fit into that? I spoke about generative AI versus a repository or tech archives. AI slop is bad so when we talk about the ledger that Mr. Jensen is promoting - this idea of quantifying good versus bad - how can that fit in? Has he thought about that or baked it into his modelling?

Looking at the positive side of the ledger, we basically look at each of the sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, mobility, transport, energy, buildings and homes to figure out what the green objective is or how we generate our green objectives in that sector while also generating economic profits and generating the social good that this sector generates. It is not about just looking at one dimension. It is looking at the green, the social and the economic together. Typically, in agriculture, using precision agriculture, drones and digital twins can really reduce energy consumption, fertiliser use and pesticide use. Vertical farming can increase efficiency of production. You are looking to see how these technologies can increase the productivity of the sector but also reduce that sector's footprint. Looking at both together is the key. When a digital technology is applied to a sector and these positive claims are made, we also need to ask what the footprint of the AI model, the data centre and the network was, and do that net balancing.

The ITU standard is being revised right now. The first version was issued in 2022. The European Green Digital Coalition has been testing it and one of its conclusions has been that this third tier - the systemic effects tier - is incredibly hard to model. We can model the footprint and the handprint but understanding the wider economic effects and how it changes behaviour is becoming very difficult. At the moment, they are just looking at the net positive versus negative. The AI standard L.1801 was released in February of this year so it is brand new and has not been tested. Again, one of my recommendations is to take those standards, apply them to 20 use cases in Ireland and see what comes up and whether it is positive or negative.

That is really helpful. I would have thought that this will also become a tool - a softer power essentially - to use or simply a basis on which we can build a stronger regulatory framework If we have that information, it will be easier to keep corporations in check, for example.

I just wanted to pick up on Senator Higgins's questions on PFAS and forever chemicals. What information on the impact is available here in Ireland at the moment? Picking up on Deputy Geoghegan's questions around water usage, is that being measured in any way or how can it be?

To my knowledge, it is not but I know that academics in UCD, particularly academics like Jeremy Auerbach, have wanted to conduct research on this because it is related to the water that is expelled from the data centre after it has been used. The Guardian recently published quite good research on PFAS. It is underexplored and we should be investigating it, and we can. We can test water levels. A lot of these data centres are around rivers, lakes or streams.

Is it water and air?

From what I know, it is mainly water, but air is potentially affected too.

Thank you.

I thank our witnesses. In one sense it is a little concerning, when we are talking about AI and the environment, that the conversation has been reduced to just data centres. The potential of being able to use AI, quantum computing and other technologies, as Mr. Jensen as mentioned, to address a lot of our environmental concerns has not been stated. There are proposals coming from the EU Commission. I agree about the transparency on the rating for energy and water consumption. We cannot divorce those issues from broader questions around our investment in renewable energies and in energy security. I find it somewhat difficult that we are debating here that there is only an 80% renewable requirement for our data centres and that it should be 100%, which I agree. However, in China. which is building data centres to beat the band, 70% of its data centres are fuelled by coal. There are some interesting hydro-powered ones that have emerged. Our challenge in Europe is that we tie ourselves up in knots while the rest of the world races ahead.

The questions around data sovereignty are also critical. This comes to small language models. I certainly do not want European data on Chinese servers. Increasingly, concerns are being raised about European data being stored on servers in the United States. I am strongly opposed to a moratorium. We need to be looking at building the best possible, most sustainable data centres that we have. I am strongly supportive of Echelon's moves just outside Arklow, which will be converting a disused fertiliser manufacturing site into a green energy park, using that energy for district heating models. I disagree with Deputy Paul Murphy. I am concerned about losing jobs from Ireland on this. What is the ideal model for data centres? Ireland should continue to be at the fore of the sustainable digital economy. That is really about identifying the model we want to see in place.

We do not disagree with the Deputy in many respects. Let us start from where we agree. We do need a sustainable model. At the moment, without being combative, the question I would have to pose is whether the Government is prioritising this over decarbonisation. Even with the large energy users action plan, that is a six-year glide path and it was introduced in 2025. We are not going to meet our legally binding climate targets in 2030, which this House voted for. We can talk in abstract terms about climate targets but they are having a real impact, as I am sure the Deputy knows well from his constituents and going door to door. The primary reason we are looking for a moratorium is the scale and pace. It is too much at the moment. We are out of sync with our climate targets. Professor Hannah Daly spoke about it very well at this committee also. We have to regulate and we have to put in a framework.

I referred to the Echelon model as a green energy park that is being proposed for Arklow, which will be tied to renewable energy. Is that the kind of model that Friends of the Earth could see working well?

I can come in there. The Echelon case is very interesting. From my understanding, it would take 50% of the capacity of the Arklow wind bank, which is quite significant if we have not decarbonised.

A lot of the energy is going to be generated by solar on site.

How big is that data centre? Is it 4 acres for one megawatt of solar? It is quite big. I have been to the Echelon data centre in Clondalkin, the one that was in the news because it was noisy. It is full of gas turbines. They are the first thing you see. Gas is propping up the data centre industry in Ireland very significantly. There is the question of additional renewables. Will we already have decarbonised existing users in Wicklow and Wexford, for example, that we can afford to lose 50% of the capacity of Arklow wind bank for a large data centre? What would be the land footprint of solar? Meeting a data centre's energy demand by solar is very challenging. Gas turbines are everywhere. In Clondalkin and Grange Castle it is gas, eight hours a day generally. Their own EPA licences say they are reliant on gas.

Would Ms Leonard support a small modular reactor?

I need to move on, to have time cover everybody.

On the jobs issue, there was a suggestion that if we had a moratorium, we would lose jobs. Is there any evidence? According to KPMG, there are 3,300 direct jobs in data centres. A moratorium would not affect those jobs. The construction jobs are temporary in any case. It is true that there are construction jobs on data centres now because they are constructing data centres that have approval. Presumably those jobs would not be affected. Would there be any job losses as a result of a data centre moratorium?

That is something that should be modelled because there is no data on it. I do not think so, because we are talking in the abstract. We are seeing job losses related to AI, and we are seeing those job losses in Ireland. I think it is in the order of a little over 1,000 potential redundancies from TikTok and others. The Communications Workers' Union may have been in here already. We are seeing job losses related to the growth of AI. That is a fact.

I really fear that some of the world is going to be fooled into thinking that the massive expansion of AI and data centres is going to be fine because we are going to use it for addressing climate change. In the dim and distant future, there is this technological solution. There is a great report from KPMG which I often cite, which asked 1,200 executives what they thought about AI and climate change. I do not really know why they were asking executives but 97% of them describe AI as a net positive for accelerating progress towards net zero goals. Instead of asking executives, I will ask Friends of the Earth if there is any evidence for this belief that AI is going to solve climate change as opposed to making the crisis even worse.

We are not an economic organisation, as the Deputy knows. What we do see is that the old, tired economic models are being perpetuated through the AI roll-out. We talked about minerals earlier. Amnesty International is reporting serious exploitation in certain African countries that are not seeking the rewards of the resources. I will pass over to Ms Leonard to take up the point, but the reality is that it is just building on old patterns. It is not clear that it is going to help us with our climate targets, or that ordinary people are going to benefit from it.

I would really direct the committee to the work of Enabled Emissions, former Microsoft employees who are working on that issue. Just as Mr. Jensen has indicated, AI is not all the same. The International Energy Agency has said that AI is driving the surge in demand, and that the AI that is helping manage and improve the energy system is not always the same thing as the AI driving this demand. Enabled Emissions has indicated very clearly that a lot of the big companies such as Microsoft and Amazon are entering into deals with oil companies to expedite the extraction of oil and drilling of wells internationally. That will increase emissions quite significantly. When we talk about the projected benefits of AI, we need a lot more clarity on what it is being used for, who is using it, where it is being used. It absolutely should not be used to expedite any fossil fuel drilling at this moment in global warming. It is very ambiguous.

I have a final question for Mr. Jensen. It follows on from Deputy Gibney's question. I agree about all of this accounting and so on, but is there not a fundamental problem? I did not feel Mr. Jensen really answered it earlier. What is happening in the data centres is a black box to us. We can say that AI used to perpetrate a genocide is clearly bad. We can say that using AI to create sexually abusive images is clearly bad, or to target kids with pro-eating disorder content. However, we cannot see inside these black boxes because they are private corporations. Is that not a fundamental obstacle we have to coming up with a good accounting system for the positives and negatives?

Not necessarily; not at all. We need the data centre itself to be able to disclose the footprint it is having, but in terms of the benefit it is generating, the question of the sector it is used in is very different. There is a lot of evidence, as I said. The European Green Digital Coalition and the French environment agency are looking at case after case to try to figure out if the net benefit is positive or negative.

In the majority of cases I would say it is positive. Per unit of energy used or injected, ten or 20 times more CO2 is reduced, so there is a benefit, but there are cases where that handprint is erased due to rebound effects, so it is not always the case. It is case by case, sector by sector, AI technology by AI technology, and the devil is in the detail. It might be said AI will solve climate change. We cannot solve climate change without AI, but solving climate change with AI will need a strong government hand, a lot of good incentives and disclosure of these exact metrics we are talking about.

If people are doing bad things with AI, that is not necessarily within the domain of AI regulation. It is within other regulations as well. AI is a tool to do good and bad things and if people are breaking the law with it in another sector, they are breaking the law with it. However they break the law, whether it is with or without AI, they can be gone after for breaking the law. It does not always have to be an AI law that is being broken.

I have to step in. We have a few minutes left for Deputy Geoghegan.

We are much more polite to our international guests. Mr. Jensen got more time than the domestic guests.

I did not get to talk to Mr. Jensen in the last round. He mentioned that he is surprised that Ireland does not have the data points. Ireland has a lot of data points. We have the KPMG report on the economic impact that has been referred to. There is an Irish Water report. It is disputed, but we have a figure for water and know how much is used. To be fair to the Irish Government or State, we understand the trade-offs. One of the trade-offs we have imposed, as has been discussed, is the 80:20. Other trade-offs are local. Commercial rates, which is the local tax, is paid to the local authority. That is different in other countries. In Germany, the state governments, to the best of my knowledge, do not even get the benefit of the income communally.

The longer term play for Ireland is a lot more straightforward. AI is a fourth industrial revolution. Ireland does not have a natural industrial base. The Irish economy is built on the back of foreign investment - that is the bedrock - and an open economy. We have to be in this race, but like Deputy Malcolm Byrne, I find it frustrating that when we are trying to do the right thing - we are trying to get investment by doing 80:20 - jurisdictions outside Europe and perhaps in Europe are using a lot more fossil fuels to ramp up their data centre investment. Where is the fine line? Having listened to this discussion, where does Mr. Jensen think Ireland's stands in comparison with other European countries?

I will turn to something we have not really touched on. A big discussion is going on in Europe now about how to use data centres in the sovereignty discussion. Europe is not the innovative frontier. Most companies are outside Europe, with the exception of Mistral, so we cannot just regulate AI. How do we maintain sovereignty? Perhaps there is a piece about the physical digital infrastructure and how Europe can use it to get trade-offs in a regulatory sense from the frontier AI companies. I do not know whether that is in Mr. Jensen's field or he has any observations to make on those two questions. Can we Europeanise this debate a little better?

It should be Europeanised, absolutely. Ireland should be looking at a European footprint and handprint and asking what Ireland's contribution to it is and should try to look at the trade-offs in a transboundary way at a European level. I do not have expertise in how that might be done fairly across all of Europe. It is a difficult political economy question, but it is fair to ask the question. Especially if Ireland is taking a lot of the digital footprint, what is the compensatory measure for that? How can that trade-off be made to make sense for Ireland?

Regarding where Ireland stands relative to other countries, when I saw that 22% of electricity is already being used by data centres, I thought Ireland was already hitting a red line. That is an important red line Ireland is butting against. It is a threshold that would concern me. The reason it is a cautionary tale is that it is one of the highest percentages of energy use, at least on the European side. I understand why people are concerned and why the moratorium is being called for.

I could not find the data that I would have needed to make a better judgment call. I could not find the projections. I could not find a digital twin or a digital observatory where all this data is aggregated, and where citizens can inform themselves on which policies to support and how we might do this in a more sustainable way. I am not convinced that all the data is there. It might be, but I just could not find it, so it could be a transparency question. The Deputy's broader point is a good one: how do we take this conversation into the Union and look for this question of trade-offs in a more equitable way across all members?

That brings our discussion to a close. I thank the witnesses for an insightful and worthwhile discussion this morning. We appreciate the attendance here of Ms Leonard and Ms Duffy, and we thank Mr. Jensen for attending online. The committee is adjourned until tomorrow, when we will meet with the Minister of State, Deputy Niamh Smyth.