Mr. James Nix:

I do not believe in a preferred treatment for a particular sector as it is a dangerous road to choose. I worked in property development from 2004 to 2007. That was effectively a preferred sector. Based on current projections, by 2020, transport and agriculture will account for 80% of non-ETS emissions. If agriculture were to be regarded as a preferred sector over transport, then very disproportionate and costly efforts would be required in transport. That does not make sense because Mr. Briain Ó Gallachóir's work shows that the cost increases. The cost to the economy as a whole increases because actions are being taken which are out of kilter and beyond the standardised cost scope. A very simple example is that agriculture is itself dependent upon transport movements for imports, exports and for added value. A situation could arise where very high levels of taxation are being imposed on transport fuel in an effort to reduce its use, but that does not make sense because agriculture needs to be able to move its produce in order to add value, to get to market and to circulate raw material. It might not even make sense for agriculture to be a preferred sector because of the severe knock-on implications for transport. Mr. Ó Gallachóir's work needs to be disseminated and shared much more. Ms Julia Lubbock has done a lot of detailed work on the cost curves, which are staggering.

Added value versus added volume is very important. I do not believe there is a farmer in Ireland who would volunteer to put in more hours and to have a higher volume of production and more cattle on his farm if there was no direct monetary return for so doing. Essentially, Mr. Nix is saying there is no benefit in this respect. Will he expand on that point? That is the point we are at and the question is why would farmers bother?