Professor John Sweeney:

We have heard a great deal of noble aspirations here today but time has moved on. Aspirations no longer cut the mustard, in terms of our international obligations.

As members can see, the first diagram in my presentation that is displayed on screen shows the way in which Ireland's position on transitioning to a low carbon economy has lost international credibility. This is the second of two reports. The first report places Ireland at the lowest level, in terms of its performance in achieving its climate objectives. The second report, which is more recent, ranked Ireland 28th out of 29 countries in Europe and just one place ahead of Poland. These reports are important because it is quite clear that these criteria are an indication of our failure to meet the obligations that we freely entered into in 2008. As members can see from reading what is written below the second diagram, Ireland received overwhelming support from all of the political parties represented in the European Parliament when the obligations were made.

The Bill can help restore Ireland's credentials as well as make a significant contribution to the next hurdle, which is a very detailed national energy and climate plan. The plan must be submitted to the Commission in draft form by the end of this year. It is important that we consider the way in which Ireland's international reputation is at stake. This is a litmus test. If we want support from our European colleagues for other areas like Brexit, like a seat on the United Nations Security Council and even future relief from climate catastrophes then we must consider whether we are pulling our own weight.

The Bill makes a positive contribution to national and international climate obligations, some of which we have undertaken off our own bat and not at the behest of anybody else. The national policy position is to have an aggregate reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 of at least 80% compared with 1990 levels. That is our national target and is one which must guide our policy.

Ireland's position is guided by our international obligations under the Paris Agreement. The agreement has the status of an international treaty and we are obliged to conform with the objectives of the Paris obligations such as to keep warming below 2° centigrade. The diagram on the next page shows that we must have 50% global decarbonisation by the 2030s and we must move to 100% decarbonisation around the middle of this century. Of course the Bill will not in itself achieve these goals. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill will encourage energy security based on renewable energy technologies. I do not buy the arguments that we are moving into more energy and security than we had in the 1970s. In fact, I believe that we have sufficient energy security from our existing gas field and also from the secure sources that we have in the three pipelines that connect us to the North Sea European Gas Transmission Network.

The Corrib gas field has a lifetiime of between 15 and 20 years. We will still be producing Corrib gas in the early 2030s and, possibly, in the late 2030s. It is worth pointing out that North Sea oil and gas production, which we thought was depleting very quickly, has increased for the past three years. There is a history of oil fields and gas fields having a much longer life when it comes to the crunch. New fossil gas is incompatible with the plans to decarbonise the energy sector in Ireland. However, it inhibits the development of new wind and solar energy. For a while last Saturday, the UK generated the highest amount of its electricity demand from solar energy. That is where we should be going energy wise rather than trying to return to the past. Claims that gas supports renewable energy development are also not vindicated. The cheapest gas generation technology is for baseload operation and not for intermittent peaking.

The Bill will position Ireland as an early mover in this area. That stance is very important internationally for our credibility and reputation. Ireland is no longer the fourth country after France, Belize and Costa Rica and is now the fifth because New Zealand has now joined that list of countries.

It is quite clear that coal and gas fields currently in production, without any new exploration or development, are enough to exceed our climate goals. Therefore, we do not need to worry about new gas and oil if we want to stay below 2° centigrade. As members can see from perusing the next diagram, burning the reserves currently in operation, in terms of operating oil and gas fields alone, even without further coal combustion, will warm the world above the 1.5° centigrade threshold that we are obliged to make efforts to remain below, under the Paris treaty organisation.

The exploration cycle has been mentioned here. The Corrib gas field was discovered in 1996 or 22 years ago. Therefore, we have a long cycle of exploration, development and production. We are tying ourselves in to a very long period of continued fossil fuel extraction should we not pass this particular Bill. There is a list of phases starting with exploration, appraisal, development, production and, finally, an abandonment phase. Do we really think we can lock ourselves into these until the middle of the present century?

The global imperative of tackling climate change means that continued investment in fossil fuel runs the risk of creating stranded assets. Investors are increasingly nervous about companies, in terms of how they will evolve to tackle the warming limit of 2° centigrade for their business. Financial regulators have endorsed the importance of the scenarios analysis for assessing climate risk. I wish to draw the attention of members to a statement.

Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stated that a carbon budget consistent with a 2° Celsius target would render the vast majority of reserves stranded, meaning oil, gas and coal will be literally unburnable without expensive carbon capture technology. We have no feasible carbon capture technology at the moment and we have had no demonstrable successes in that area. We have very limited choices. If we continue building fossil fuel extraction and have some success in limiting emissions, around which the noose will tighten fairly quickly, we will have only two ways out, that is, with stranded assets or climate chaos. I would argue that managed decline is the best option in that regard.

The Bill will further accelerate trends which are emerging in society at a very fast rate in terms of divestment in fossil fuels, on which topic a Bill is going through these Houses. The trend encompasses universities and foundations, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, faith-based groups, pension funds, governmental organisations and NGOs. It will mushroom in the next few years and we can be caught on the wrong side of history if we do not acknowledge it now. In my submission, members will also see a statement from Bishop Tutu in which he talks about the urgent need to tackle this climate emergency.

Ireland spends €386 million each year on fossil fuel subsidies, and this money could be much better spent on renewable technologies. The Danish Parliament voted recently to go for 100% renewable power by 2030 and it is trying to export renewable energy. That is very ambitious but Denmark is, in many respects, comparable to Ireland. I will not have time to go into the details of clean air or safety, although members will see pictures of some of the problems oil and gas exploration has created in the past. I urge the committee to seriously consider not just talking the talk but walking the walk towards a low-carbon society, as that will be the litmus test.