Dr. Brian Ó Gallachóir:

I equate Kyoto and other obligations with targets. Kyoto is an international agreement and there are also targets from the EU non-ETS burden-sharing agreements. I equate those with targets in that they are mandatory once we have agreed to them. I am not familiar with the New Zealand legislation. My expertise is in energy rather than in agriculture. I study the consequences for the energy system of not being able to achieve targets in agriculture, based on other people's analysis of what is feasible in agriculture. That touches on the implications of Harvest 2020 in the short term.

Ireland's short-term target is to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the non-ETS sectors relative to 2005 levels by 2020. Our analysis shows that the targets of Harvest 2020 mean that the energy system will have to deliver a reduction of more than 30% in greenhouse gas emissions in the non-ETS sectors. The non-ETS sectors in energy are the most difficult ones in which to achieve reductions, and these are the ones that have been neglected. The focus of the energy policy has been on electricity. Electricity will not help us to meet our non-ETS targets because it is part of the ETS grouping. Transportation and the heating of buildings, homes, shops and offices are the key areas of the energy portion of non-ETS emissions. Because Harvest 2020 has been agreed, the consequence is that if the energy system delivers the overall required reductions to achieve the 20% target, the marginal abatement cost is four times higher than it would have been if the targets had been allocated sectorally - that is, if everyone had to give a 20% reduction.

The Deputy said that the costs were on the low side vis-à-visGDP. We have produced marginal abatement costs. It is quite a crude calculation in terms of the cost of meeting a target. We have divided it by GDP. Our model is driven by GDP activity, which produces the requirement for energy. We do not currently have feedback when we start creating scenarios in which we impose climate targets on our energy system. It is a work in progress. We are working with ESRI to improve that. The costs are on the low side. In our scenarios we get in the order of 1% to 2% of GDP associated with our emissions reduction scenarios by 2050 but we need to do further work to improve those results.