Mr. Owen Wilson:

I might first address the question of whether the agricultural sector should be part of the ETS. The Deputy is correct when she says that agriculture is a major issue, in particular for Ireland, but nobody will solve it unless Ireland as a body moves to address it at a European level. One of the key driving factors in including sectors within the ETS is the potential for emissions reduction. It is well recognised that there is limited scope within agriculture for emissions reductions; therefore, including it on that basis alone would not be of particular benefit. The best solution for agriculture would be for it to be established separate from the rest of the economy in a scheme perhaps similar to the ETS but where the agriculture sector on a European-wide basis can address emissions. In that context the scale of the problem facing Ireland could be assimilated within the broader European Union food production processes.

In terms of the 85% to 95% targets in the United Kingdom climate Act, in the first instance there is a difficulty at an EU level in terms of the ETS sectors in the UK addressing this target as it imposes an additional burden on those sectors for no environmental benefit. As the Deputy is aware, the ETS sets a cap that eventually reduces to zero some time around 2065, and the sectors within that progress along that pathway. In the UK, the Government has determined, on a nationalistic rather than a communitarian basis, that the sector should achieve reductions at a faster pace than is provided for under EU legislation. They can do that, and there is a cost associated with doing that, but ultimately all emissions fall within the ETS and where the UK moves ahead and increases its emissions reductions, it relieves pressure on all other member states. Essentially, UK consumers are paying on behalf of the rest of European consumers within the ETS sectors. My colleague, Mr. Manning, might like to address that also.