Mr. Peter Brennan:

Mr. Joe Curtin and myself are privileged to be here. We represent the research committee of the Institute of International and European Affairs. We have been working on climate change since 2007 within the institute. I should add that I was an adviser to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security regarding its drafting of the previous climate change Bill and that will be reflected in some of the comments we have to make.

The first comment we would like to make is on the urgency of the situation, which has been reflected by a number of stakeholders. This Bill is long overdue and the sooner it is adopted, the better, and the sooner the implementation measures that are envisaged under the Bill are put into place in a practical way, the better. The International Energy Agency, among many other organisations, has illustrated that we cannot afford to lose any more time and therefore we would encourage the committee to get this Bill back to the Minister and into the Oireachtas as quickly as possible.

There are many positive measures in the Bill and we have a generally positive attitude towards it. It may be somewhat minimalistic compared to the previous drafts but it is a very good working document and we will generally be positive in our approach.

We will address four key issues, the first of which is targets. Everyone seems to be talking about targets. I heard the Minister say the targets are set at European level and that we only have European targets. The burden-sharing directive that applies to Ireland requires Ireland to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions year by year by some 8 million tonnes, from 45 million tonnes to 37 million tonnes. Whether that is a target or an emissions allocation does not really matter but it is part of a directive that is legally binding on Ireland. The big issue, as the NESC identified it, is the way it will be implemented.

While there may not be a need, strictly speaking, to set a target in the legislation we would argue that it is very important that the national plan would set targets. The national plan will be for five or seven years, depending on the counterpart EU proposal to which we are trying to match it. It would be very important for clarity, regulatory certainty and to drive investment that the national plan, and the sectoral plans, set targets. We would argue that the carbon Bill should state that the national plan, and the sectoral plans, should set targets. I do not believe it is necessary for the Bill itself to set a particular target, apart from what our ambition might be to 2050.

The second point is that there are significant issues around energy, and energy is the silent partner in this particular equation. Energy and climate change are opposite sides of the same coin. Climate change cannot happen without actions happening in energy. There is nothing in this Bill that fuses what we need to do in energy. It is all to do with climate change. There are minimal references to what should happen regarding energy in this Bill and I would hope in the next draft due account will be taken of, among other things, the way energy efficiency and renewables will contribute to Ireland becoming carbon-neutral by 2050.

The reality is that this is a major business opportunity. Somewhere in the region of €80 billion to €90 billion could be spent on the green economy in the next ten to 20 years if we have a price for carbon and if we know where Ireland will be, and there are Ireland-specific targets that need to be determined.

The NESC has also argued, which we support strongly, that we should move beyond just a compliance approach. The Bill should put in place structures that will enable the implementation of all the actions that have to be taken and the supervision by this House of those actions on a regular basis.

The European Union directives - one on emissions trading, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and the other on burden-sharing - require that Ireland report to the Commission every year on its achievement of these allocations or the breaches or rolling over of them. Quite a degree of accountability will be required at European level, and we would like to see that reflected in the Bill.

The strategy, as we would see it, is that we must formulate what we call a co-ordinated strategy in line with our best interests, and it is important to add that co-ordination includes climate change and energy. The Bill should also stress the implementation of these measures, which it does not do as it currently stands. There are mutually enforcing climate change and energy policy objectives and they must be addressed.

The language about the primacy of the national roadmap is ambiguous. The national roadmap should be driving everything. It should not be supported by sectoral strategies; it should be the other way around. The Bill does not state that and we hope the next draft will do so. The first action that should be taken is that the national plan should be prepared. It is long overdue. The burden-sharing directive kicked into effect on 1 January last and therefore we are already six months into the period during which we should be doing something. Also, the sectoral strategy should support and be fully consistent with the national strategy.

The expert advisory group is also a key issue for the institute, and many of the people are stakeholders. The expert advisory board must, not "may", be consulted. It must have a proactive role, be able to initiate reports and have the task of submitting the first national roadmap. One could argue that the expert group should be set up immediately and not wait until next year or the end of the year, if that is to be its role, even on an interim basis. We would argue that the export board should publish automatically all its advices and that the export board might have a role in creating awareness of climate change. Those are my introductory remarks and Mr. Curtin and myself will do our best to answer members' questions in the time available to us.