Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the work they did on the ICCA report.

Clearly, the report will be an addition to the volumes of work we have to support our reliance on science to get movement on all of this. In general, there is agreement and consensus in these Houses that the climate crisis is real, must be dealt with and worked on. We may disagree sometimes on the details but in general everybody is faced in the right direction and want to make things happen.

During our discussion I realised that all of us in politics are out on doorsteps during these times meeting people and talking to them about local elections, etc. I am quite alarmed and surprised by the number of people who will say that the climate crisis is all nonsense or farmers who believe that the agenda is to get rid of farmers. Of course, politicians try to appeal to people's intellect and talk to them about various issues. However, we have a body of work to ensure we keep on track because the reality is, which we see across Europe and many other countries, there is a resistance to science that is based on people taking their information from the Internet and multiplying that into an argument that, in most cases, is founded on very soft ground or on nothing at all. Clearly, we can stand over the volumes of work done as part of the report and will prove very useful in the context of all of that. How can we convey a message in simple and clear language in order that people understand we have an opportunity? I realised there is an opportunity when volume 4 of this work was mentioned. People continually see climate change as something that will punish them and their lives, and it is going to be a negative. How can we show people the positives that can come from all of this?

Professor Caulfield talked about restricting parking, etc. All of that conveys the message that combating climate change is negative and people will have terrible hardship in the future. When the rewetting of land is suggested, people immediately think that it is not just one farmer's land will be rewetted because the land is connected to every other surrounding farm. In addition, say that farmer is fine, how does we pay all the other people who will be impacted by the measure? People view all of those issues as a negative. It is an uphill task to convince people that there are positives in all of this and our future can be bright. That is the challenge that us, in politics, certainly have but academics face a challenge in respect of that. I welcome any comments by the witnesses in that context.