Dr. Brian Motherway:

Yes. That can be a core emotional issue, in terms of how we help people and engage them. Much of this is about the language used. We would never go to people and tell them they would get an internal rate of return of 7% by investing. We tend to suggest they can make their home a nicer place to be in by insulating it and so on.

Another dimension is the community dimension. It is more of a peer-to-peer dimension. In the past couple of years we have supported a couple of hundred communities in undertaking upgrades of their homes, community halls, health centres, etc. If I had the power, I would bring every other community to visit these communities to show them what could be done. It is about critical mass and spreading the word on the ground. I would love the committee to visit several of these communities. It would be a very pleasant day because they would meet people who would say they got together and organised themselves into a community, hired contractors and local people and worked together on what they wanted to do and got the kids involved. They would say they felt a greater pride in their community, their homes were warmer, the church hall was warmer and the local health care centre's bills had reduced and it was, therefore, more affordable. A visit such as this is very uplifting and the most powerful way to spread the message.

On bio-fuels and the electrification of rail transport, I do not have many figures. For me, both of these issues represent the main purpose of the Bill and what will come after it. This means that we bring the experts together, do a detailed roadmap and compile the research we, Teagasc and others have already conducted. We compare everything in a transparent way and consider the outcomes. For example, we look to see that if we were to electrify rail transport, it would cost so much, but it would also bring so much in benefits. Then we look to see what would happen if we were to do something else with that money. I do not mean to say that everything is compared economically. Agriculture and bio-fuels are the classic examples of where we need to think of far more than the cost benefits per se. However, in so far as possible, we try to get everything on the table and compare it.

That is the core challenge of governance in dealing with climate change. Now, as far as possible, we must get together in one room and compare interventions in agriculture with those in transport, retrofitting and whatever else. This is not an easy task, but it is the broad goal of analysis through road mapping forums. This is then brought back to the Government and the Oireachtas to say that on the basis of what is agreed in that forum, we should assign and resource our priorities. Then, if we feel the need to spend more money on retrofitting, we should do so, but if we believe we need to spend more money on the electrification of rail transport, we should do it. Having a transparent process is key.