Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests and all of the researchers very much for this huge contribution. It is important it begins in that first volume with that science and with the planetary boundary piece because we can get caught in particular policies. I will be going back into particular policy areas. We often hear that that we were balancing the economic and the environment whereas, in real terms, the research makes the planetary boundary’s piece very clear. That is the almost the non-negotiable piece. Within that, we have society and the fact we are representatives of society and have our collective values as society. Almost within that, we need economics which serves both that society and operates within the planetary boundaries. Different models were talked about but that tiered piece is very important.

Looking at that first piece on the planetary boundaries, it is first of all very worrying because we know that the carbon budgets mentioned in Ireland are less than 6% of an emission reduction, and are less than the 7% which had been promised or hoped for, and are less than the 7.6% reduction which would be our global fair share. I often find myself thinking in terms of megatonnes. The 495 megatonnes is still where Ireland is using more than it should in the next five years.

When our witnesses come back to me with a reply, can we think about how we can still try to stay within that 495 megatonnes, which is more than our global fair share, as well as thinking about the next carbon budget over the next few years, and then the next five years after that?

This talks about the current policies and actions not being sufficient, and it is there in bold in our witnesses' presentation. With that sense of urgency around the next two carbon budgets, the current and the next, what are some of the examples of the big levers? We talked a good deal about, as I believe did Dr. Heaphy, there perhaps being an over-reliance on individual change. Professor Ó Gallchóir spoke about the role of the public sector. As we talk about the need for systemic change and a shift in institutions and in economic models - these observations do not mean we do not have that shift - rather than perhaps trying to fit climate action into institutions and economic models as they currently operate, we almost need to flip where they are operating.

What would a few ambitious measures look like in that next seven years, for example, on retrofitting, which was mentioned? It seems that quite a good deal has been focused on trying to build within what is there already. It was interesting that our guests mentioned fairness, well-being and equity, which come across very strongly, as the core values. There is almost an unchallenged assumption that maintaining the status quo and profit levels for sectors is how we deliver the fairness, well-being, or equity element. There is almost that sectoral voice piece rather than saying that the way we deliver those outcomes of fairness, equity and well-being may be through radical changes in the status quo.

I will refer to three areas, and one is retrofitting. We have put a huge amount of investment into encouraging individuals to retrofit. Could public retrofitting at scale deliver a bigger change and more quickly in emission reduction?

With regard to public transport, there have been shifts and we have electric vehicles, but it would be far more radical if that change could be on a scale that would be felt earlier and more quickly?

My last point is on land use, which is really important and which we know is the big envelope of mystery emissions. There is a great deal of talk about forestry. I agree with Deputy Bruton on overpayment. If it is an ecological care grant, it need not be framed as carbon farming with measurables. It could be rewetting, for example, with a large focus on forestry and perhaps far less on wet land. In that context, I refer to Coillte. Some 7% of the State's land is owned by that commercial semi-State body, the mandate of which is ultimately the same old cash generative model, as the Ministers' request from it. That means it should deliver cash and operate on a commercial basis. We could have a transformed mandate for those commercial semi-States, which we could do legislatively without the need to persuade anybody. If Coillte was operating under a similar model to Bord na Móna - its number 1 priority is emissions reduction with social sustainability and economic returns - would that make a big difference over the next seven years and to our next emission piece?

I have one last question on research that I will come back to at the end.