Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is too far in the distance for them. We have moved on from focusing on the 2020 targets. I sense there was a better buy-in a year ago, even though our economic circumstances were worse then than they are now. As a member of a minor party, I am aware that we have always paid a penalty for being ahead of public opinion on various issues. My party is the bit party of the two and a bit party system. We have fought for people to have the right to remarry and for the legislation that went through today. I was struck, particularly because the group was large, by the lack of buy-in on this issue; even though the problem could be related to climate change, they just wanted to have it fixed. If we can get the foundations or model right in this Bill on which we can build, are we tying ourselves in a knot by focusing on the 2050 target and using specific language in terms of whether it should be a legal duty or a compelling action? These are the words used in the Dr. Doran's submission, while the Minister has used the words "low carbon" and "zero emissions" in respect of a different head of the Bill, but essentially they are talking about the same issue.

A specific consideration in the heads of the Bill relates to the transfer of an international agreement into the Bill when it is finished, which will include enforceability because penalties, be they fines or otherwise, will apply if the international targets set are not reached. We are living inside a bubble to a great extent and in the past four days of hearings we have spoken about a target in the case of every submission, for which some delegates were for and some were against. It is the be all and end all to have an emissions reduction target of 80% by 2050, if that is what it should be. It would be better for us at this stage to make sure we put in what is needed for the foundations. There is a sense of urgency about this, but we need to introduce the Bill, put it in the Statute Book and then build on it. Is there an over-emphasis on setting a target? It probably is more important to get the expert group right than to insert a target for 2050 because we will get it through the international agreement. We need to get the review periods right because they will all build up to the final equation. I would be interested to hear Dr. Doran's opinion on this aspect.