Mr. David Healy:

Low carbon is mentioned in the Bill, but we would like it defined. This would be useful for creating the 2050 target. The heads of the Bill call for a transition to a low-carbon environment and climate resilient economy as early as possible. A reduction of 80% to 95%, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, figure and the existing European commitment for 2050, could be inserted as the definition of low carbon.

Ireland brings the issue of agriculture to EU and international discussions. We agree with the warnings from Trócaire and Stop Climate Chaos about confusing the distinct issues of food security and Irish agricultural production. There is a case for including agriculture in the emissions trading system, ETS, but Ireland has not made it. When asked about Irish agriculture, Mr. Jos Delbeke, the administrative civil service head of the Directorate-General for Climate Action, or DG CLIMA, stated that the Irish Government had not made proposals when raising the issue. It is possible to include agriculture in an ETS, just as New Zealand did. Climate change has been included in New Zealand's climate change Act and is ready to be kicked off when a wider international agreement is reached.

When we look ahead, we need to consider more than just agriculture. There are two aspects. First, agriculture and transport are the reasons that we are not on track to meet our 2020 obligations. Second, from 2020 onwards, the plan is for an international global agreement. The IFA and Teagasc's remarks today on carbon leakage are valid in the current context, but they would not be if an agreement was reached in 2015. We will need to develop an approach to climate change in agricultural policy that will remain valid until 2050 and will not simply consist of asking to be excluded, which seems to have been the message today. That would not be an acceptable approach, as it would land all of the obligation for the global target on the rest of society and the economy.