Dr. Brian Ó Gallachóir:

I thank the Chairman. I am delighted to address the committee. This is a very important topic and is also very urgent. I propose to summarise the opening statement that I have provided to the committee.

The most recent assessment report from the IPCC concludes that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. That is its analysis as published in 2007. A more recent report published last month by the International Energy Agency concludes that the world is not on track to meet the target of 2°C agreed as part of the international process on climate change negotiations, the Cancún agreements. According to the scientific analysis, this means we will have more extreme weather events which will become more frequent and intense. I understand the committee has addressed the impacts of flooding as a separate issue. According to the International Energy Agency, we are likely to have a temperature increase of between 3.6°C and 5.3°C compared with pre-industrial levels.

Greenhouse gas emissions are associated with two things: energy on one side and agriculture on the other. What I call energy includes energy used for transport, energy for heating our homes and businesses, energy for industry, and power generation. Energy is at the heart of the challenge. The increase in emissions is largely due to what we have been doing in terms of energy and is also where the solutions lie. The focus of my research is energy modelling to inform policy decisions. We have built the only software model in Ireland that allows us to examine different scenarios in the period to 2050. It is on the basis of that analysis and research that my comments have been generated.

I would like to raise five key points which will, I hope, inform the deliberations of the committee. One is that Ireland has distinct challenges in making the transition to a low-carbon economy. That is not a reason to abnegate our responsibility, but it is a contextual point of which we need to be aware. Second, policy to date has been effective in isolated areas but has been insufficient. Third, growth in beef and dairy farming is not aligned with developing a low carbon economy. Fourth, we should be ambitious and also realistic. Fifth, we need more evidence-based policy.

In the context of the first point, Ireland has distinct challenges. I want to draw the attention of the committee to two of them, which are related to some of the comments made earlier. Our emissions have grown while EU emissions have declined since 1990. When we talk about targets relative to 1990 and 2005, we can have a very different perspective from other countries. Reference was made earlier to the EU low-carbon roadmap, whose target is a 40% reduction in emissions EU-wide by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. That is equivalent to a 36% reduction relative to 2005 levels for the EU, but if we apply a 40% reduction relative to 1990 levels to Ireland it is equivalent to a 52% reduction relative to 2005 levels. If we simply apply the EU low-carbon targets for 2030 to Ireland we end up in a very different situation compared to the rest of the EU.

The second point in regard to our distinct challenges is agriculture, which has been discussed. Essentially, 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, whereas 10% come from agriculture in the EU as a whole. This does not mean we are bad at reducing emissions from agriculture; rather, it reflects the fact that a significant portion of our agricultural output is exported. The emissions are calculated based on production rather than consumption. The fact that cows are belching here means they contribute to our emissions even though the resulting steaks and milk are consumed elsewhere. About 80% of our beef and dairy sector output is exported. That raises a key challenge, a point to which I will return.

The second key point is that policy to date has been effective in isolated areas but has been insufficient. I used two examples in my submission. One is the fact that in 2000 we started to take wind energy deployment seriously and moved from a situation in which wind energy represented 1% of our electricity generation to one in which it represented 16% of the total, in 2011. That is a very significant achievement and was delivered through policy. It was largely the work of the renewable energy strategy group in 2000, which effectively transformed wind energy from a peripheral policy issue to one which achieved almost full stakeholder support. That is not to say that wind energy does not face challenges, but it is a success story.

The second issue relates to the purchasing of new cars. We changed our car taxation system in July 2008. The emissions performance of new cars purchased in Ireland has significantly improved. In 2008 every kilometre travelled by car resulted in the emission of around 166 g of CO2 per kilometre, but now the weighted average for new cars is 130 g of CO2 per kilometre.

These successes are in isolated areas. Problems arise in the energy system as a whole and we have not been successful in dealing with that. There are areas of the energy system that we have neglected and, as a result, despite these successes, our energy system continues to be dominated by fossil fuels with high import dependency. We need a plan for the full energy system - that is, energy used for power, electricity and transport, and in buildings.

The third key point is that growth in beef and dairy farming is not aligned with developing a low-carbon economy. This presents a huge challenge for us. As I mentioned, our beef and dairy farming has a low carbon intensity but we export a lot of our output. Beef and dairy farming make a significant contribution to emissions. The decision Ireland has to make is whether to stop or continue with beef and dairy farming in the context of moving to a low-carbon economy. If we stop it, the chances are that beef and dairy products will be produced elsewhere, resulting in greater emissions. We are working with Teagasc, but based on my analysis, a reasonable target for the agricultural sector would be to have zero growth in emissions from agriculture between 2020 and 2050. That would allow for growth in agricultural activity, coupled with an improvement in the emissions performance of agriculture. If we combine that with an 80% reduction in the remaining emissions from the energy system, we end up with a target for 2050 of 50% below 1990 levels. That does not sound ambitious in the context of goals of 80% to 95%, but they are the figures we need if we want to keep the beef and dairy sector going.

That ties into my fourth point, namely, that we should be ambitious and yet realistic. The 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions comprising 0% growth on the agriculture side relative to 2020, protected levels until 2020 and an 80% reduction in energy emissions relative to 1990 levels are ambitious but realistic challenges.

We explored the idea of going further in the energy system, such as achieving a reduction of up to 95% in emissions by 2050. We found the marginal abatement costs - that is, the cost to squeeze out the last tonne of carbon dioxide in 2050 - increased fivefold when one moved from a goal of 80% to one of 95%.

More evidence-based policy is required. Mitigation strategies for deep cuts in emissions require significant financial investment. The development of strategies based on poor information and analysis will be expensive and wasteful. This is needed for two reasons: to develop national policy in an informed and considered way, and to strengthen our negotiating position at EU level. I have cited one example in my presentation in which our research suggests that the non-ETS target for Ireland was based on flawed analysis and that the cost of the misinformation is approximating to between €3 billion and €4 billion. Our negotiating effort at the time was diminished because we did not have modelling tools such as the one we have developed. We have that tool now so we can have a more informed negotiating effort and, I hope, negotiate a better result in the future.

I refer to eight recommendations which I submitted to the committee. In order to allow time for discussion and questions, I do not propose to read them now.