Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In 800,000 years. I saw another frightening figure last week: the move from 400 parts per million to 410 parts per million had occurred in just five years, whereas the move from 390 parts per million to 400 parts per million took six years and the move from 380 parts per million to 390 parts per million took seven years. In other words, there is an accelerating concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, and that is there for thousands of years, no matter what we do. It is scary that, as I think John Gibbons said yesterday, the clock is ticking more loudly every day when one looks at the effects of this that we are already seeing on the natural world. I mention this just as a backdrop. The work the witnesses are all doing in Trócaire, Friends of the Earth, the Irish Environmental Network, the International Energy Agency, IEA, and others is really important in raising this issue in the public discourse. There is an urgency to this.

In respect of some of the comments that have been made, I will briefly ask specific questions concerning the recommendations, starting with Mr. Joseph Curtin. The main recommendation in his presentation is for a carbon tax, not, as he says, as the silver bullet, but as a key measure. I would not rule that out, but would Mr. Curtin not agree that the scale of change required, given what Professor McMullin has said we want, is complete system change rather than marginal change? It is interesting that the Department was before the committee two weeks ago pretty much advocating carbon taxes as one of the main tools it is now considering. However, the difficulty is that carbon taxes give marginal change rather than system change. For example, I do not think the issue as to whether we move to electric vehicles and so on will be determined that much by whether 13 cent is put on the price of diesel. Thirteen cent has been put on the price of petrol in the past two years with no effect, it seems to me, in terms of system change in our transport system.

The switch to a low-carbon transport system and all the benefits that would come from it require State decisions around investment in the charging network. It is a regulatory issue. If the State is saying that from 2030 we will have no more new combustion engines, let us regulate that. I do not disagree that it is one of the components but I fear that the over-reliance on carbon tax allows the State to step back from the decision to say, "we do not have to do anything, we can just put on a carbon tax and, hey shazzam, the market will deliver". This is just one fear I wanted to raise.

With regard to Trócaire - and I pick this one example from a whole range of points that have been made here today - I very much agree that one of the things we should start with is an acknowledgement that our current level of ambition is not sufficient. It has a fatal flaw. By stating there will be an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, it allows every sector off the hook because each sector is saying that it will be the 20%, it will be the sector that does not have to act and it will then point the finger at every other sector. This is happening in our system. Has the Institute of International and European Affairs, IIEA, done any assessment of this, or can it refer an assessment to the committee? If Ireland is to abide by, and ratchet up to, its commitments to the Paris Agreement when it kicks in, what is the scientific analysis of what our targets should be? Does the IIEA have a figure in mind of what the Paris Agreement is likely to mean, given that talks on the agreement are ongoing?

I agree with Mr. O'Carroll that the narrative that renewable energy will cost us is fatally flawed. I also agree that the scale of our ambitions should be to treble rates of renewable energy. If we look at 2030, as opposed to 2050, does Renewable Energy Consumers and Producers, RECAP, have an outline of what this would mean in each of the main renewable energy categories such as offshore wind, onshore wind, rooftop solar, field solar, geothermal and so on? Does RECAP have a recommended figure for 2030 on how many megawatts or gigawatts of each would be needed?

Professor McMullin spoke about the need to reduce our rates of CO2 emissions. In his brief comment, the professor concentrated on CO2 and did not look at methane, nitrous oxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. I am concerned about the proposal, as set out here, on the quantitative fair share of global carbon budget. How is land use included in that proposal? What is being done on land use climate related emissions?

Mr. Oisín Coghlan's analysis is absolutely correct - as are others I have heard here - regarding the new national climate and energy plan. I understand that this plan will be the new plan because it will automatically trigger an amendment to the national mitigation plan. The national climate and energy plan will become the new plan, it will be accepted as the national plan and the national mitigation plan will, effectively, be redundant. Perhaps the witnesses will let us know if they have a different view on this. I understand that this plan covers not just energy; it is about land use and other areas. As the Vice Chairman said, this committee's responsibility is to respond to the Citizens' Assembly report and to use the review in a very productive way to influence how the new national climate and energy plan is framed in the next six months.

I will finish on a slightly frightening note about the acceleration of climate greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The real fear is that it comes at a time when actual emissions are not rising. They are rising because of global growth but it appears that the natural system's capability to absorb what we put in must be starting to break down. This accounts for the faster rise in concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere than is being admitted. The ability of land and sea banks to store the carbon now seems to have reached a frightening point where the natural systems that have so far protected us from the effects are gone. This is why the challenge and the sense of urgency are all the more real.