Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor Stott for his very interesting presentation. I have a number of questions which I will ask quickly.

What are attribution signs and how has the concept evolved in recent years? Does the growing confidence in attribution signs change the way climate change policies should be evaluated for costs and benefits? For example, if we know that increases in temperature will make weather events more likely and intense, how should we measure the potential cost of actions to reduce emissions against the likelihood of these risks?

Met Éireann does not communicate climate science or risk in its forecasting. Does best practice involve reporting climate risk through the meteorological service or what is the best way of doing it? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is drafting a summary for policymakers of its latest report on how to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The BBC has reported that the differences between 1.5 degrees Celsius and 2 degrees Celsius are quite stark. For example, 10 million fewer people would lose their homes and become refugees; 2 million sq. km of permafrost would be saved over centuries and there would be a 50% global reduction in the level of water scarcity. Does such an analysis and information make us demand more ambitious climate change mitigation policies or are we looking for enough already?

Climate Action Network Europe has published an infographic which estimates that in 2017 extreme weather events in Europe caused €14 billion worth of damage. It estimates that with an increase of 3 degrees Celsius this figure could increase to €190 billion. What would be the total cost of damage for Ireland in either scenario?