Professor Ray Bates:

First, I thank the Chairman for inviting me to appear before the committee. I am providing my testimony in my personal capacity as a climate scientist. I wish to declare at the outset that I have no conflict of interest of either a business or a political nature in the testimony I am providing. I am not in receipt of funding from any organisation or agency for my climate research work, nor am I an applicant for any such funding. I will go quickly through the submission I submitted in writing.

The main body of my submission is contained in a quite long and detailed PowerPoint presentation with evidence regarding the latest state of climate science, which is my specialty. I will take this as read. Of course, I could go on at length about that topic but I would be prepared to answer any questions that the committee may have in its regard.

I will briefly read out the scientific summary of the presentation which is in four points. Unfortunately, I have a slight touch of laryngitis and my voice is not in its normal condition. First, most of the global average temperature rise, which is 0.8°C, and sea level rise, 20 cm, of the past century are with a high degree of certainty due to human activities, mainly CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels. Sea level is now estimated to be rising at a rate of 3.2 mm per year. Second, climate models project that, if emissions continue unabated, these trends will continue. However, recent research suggests that the future rate of increase of global average temperature may not be quite as fast as previously feared. Third, locally, in our North Atlantic location, much of what may appear to be man-made climate change is actually natural climate variability. Fourth, if climate model projections turn out to be even approximately true, the Mediterranean countries will become so hot and dry in summer towards the end of the century that agricultural capacity there will be seriously affected, while Ireland's climate and agricultural capacity will be much less seriously affected. Those are my scientific conclusions.

I believe the following recommendations are consistent with the earlier mentioned scientific conclusions: Greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced to lower the risk of serious long-term climate change; EU emissions reduction targets, agreed and proposed, are already very ambitious and demanding; and in my opinion, the current state of climate science does not dictate that Ireland should make economic sacrifices to go beyond the agreed and proposed EU targets.

In the specific area of agricultural emissions, Ireland is in a difficult position. Agricultural emissions account for 30% of our total, or perhaps a little more, whereas the corresponding figure for the Union as a whole is 10% of the total. There is a very large difference between Ireland's position and that of the Union as a whole. If the proposed EU emissions reductions - 40% by 2030, and 80% to 95% by 2050 - were applied to Irish agriculture, it would amount to shock therapy for the sector. In view of the climate model projections for the latter part of the century, to which I referred, there is a strong argument in favour of the committee advising the Government to seek special consideration for Irish agriculture at EU level as a resource to be protected in the context of European food security.