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

The Commission and the outgoing Parliament have done a good job on the whole green energy package, particularly in the governance mechanisms which have been put in place. It has dragged the Council forward and I commend the Commission on how it has done that. However, now we have to act.

The Irish plan, which we will see in June, is critical for us. This committee has looked at this matter in detail over the last year. We cannot be exact but we will have a gap of approximately 100 million tonnes from our 2030 target. The national development plan, which was approved last June, had no climate assessment done in respect of it at all.

The modelling done since shows that it might only bring us one third of the way in which we might need to go to meet our 2030 target, let alone a target of a net zero by 2050. It does not think that way. In transport, our emissions are projected to rise even if we get 500,000 electric vehicles, as has been expressed. Our transport policy goes completely against the one the Commission set out in point No. 3 of its seven points. We are continuing to follow a sprawled transport model. We have 51 major national roads and motorway programmes under construction and in planning. We do not have a single public transport project at the same stage. Our commuting distances are lengthening. The emissions projections from that do not relate to just the transport sector but the construction of services infrastructure to service this sprawled model that we are following. Similarly, with regard to heat, we have a target in our national development plan to have 45,000 houses a year retrofitted and upgraded to a building energy rating, BER, of B1 or higher. Last year, we did 1,000 houses at most. We are a minute fraction of the way towards achieving this. Even though the national development plan has projects that would give emissions reductions, the truth is that they are not being delivered in reality. The chances of that changing within two years at the starting point of this new strategy are minimal.

We have potential for carbon sequestration and storage in forestry. There is widespread public opposition to the nature of forestry in Ireland at present. The short rotation, single crop, monocultural forestry model has reached the end of the road with regard to public acceptance and we do not have an alternative forestry plan in place.

Also with regard to heat, we had an interesting session in this room yesterday where the key people working in the retrofitting industry acknowledged that we have no apprenticeships ready to do the work. The Department responsible for that is doing nothing about it. We cannot get the workers here today to start the energy efficiency work that we need to do. The entire range of things that we need to do are not happening. That 100 million tonne gap might be an optimistic forecast of where we are.

The Government and Civil Service are working diligently and there is greatly increased political interest in this subject, so we will try to do our best. What adjustment mechanisms does the Commission intend to plan if it sees a plan come to it in June which does not have realistic measures to close that gap? Ireland is committing to a 30% target as part of the EU's overall effort, which feeds into Europe's commitment in the Paris Agreement. If a country clearly is not closing that gap, especially in the non-emissions trading system sector, where our problems are most acute, what adjustment mechanisms does the Commission intend to apply? How will that work in the six months to the end of December, when one would expect this plan to be signed off on? Critically, in a country where we have a minority Government and the Parliament has real voting power, with this committee being a good example of how we can work well together as a Parliament, what access mechanisms will there be for members of this committee to the Commission with regard to this process? What I like about the governance mechanisms the Commission has written for this process is that it is not a centralised top-down approach but encourages consultation, transparency and involvement.

As committee members with a real interest in this issue and a certain expertise, having worked on this in detail for the last year, what is our involvement in the Commission's process with the Government? Will the Commission be open to engagement with parliamentary committees or parliamentarians in this process of checking, testing and revising? There is no doubt that it will not finish by December. It is a plan which will evolve as we learn. What is the Commission's capability to connect with parliamentary systems in this evolving process?

I have a technical question. I like that the Commission's approach has been trying to move away from everyone working individually but recognises that one has to look to one's neighbours to meet this challenge. We are required to ask what we could do to meet our needs by using interconnection rather than every country going alone. We have difficult circumstances in that regard because we do not know the position of the United Kingdom. It will have European Parliament elections next week and one does not know for how long those MEPs will sit. There are two critical aspects for us in this transition. We are ambitious to become one of the leading countries in running a renewable electricity system, with 70% of our electricity coming from variable power supply. As an isolated synchronous grid, that is quite a challenge. To meet it, we have to have a further integrated connection, not just with France but also with the United Kingdom. How do we write our plan with that uncertainty? My preference is that we continue to see the United Kingdom, in effect, as a member of the single electricity market and do not freeze it out of this process. It is in all of our interests, including the continental countries, to have the UK as a balancing partner.

With regard to gas security, we have one field, which will diminish over the lifetime of this plan. We will be completely dependent on the UK gas interconnection. I believe we should depend on that. I do not believe that we should introduce liquefied natural gas, since additional gas infrastructure would be a stranded asset. What assurances can the Commission give us, considering Brexit, with regard to gas security? What plans is the Commission making to ensure gas security in a difficult political world?

Mr. Petriccione rightly made the point that we are dealing with very complex systems with a more integrated response. We declared a climate emergency two weeks ago, which is a very important statement by this Parliament. It was also a declaration of a biodiversity emergency. It is vital that, whatever we do with regard to climate, we integrate the need to restore our natural systems in the responses that we make. I am interested to know how the Commission sees that working. I am concerned with some of the mention Mr. Petriccione made about the increase in biomass production. That may have significant consequences for biodiversity on our island. I say that because he mentioned marginal wetlands potentially being used for production of biomass. Those wetlands are vital as a carbon storage space and for the protection of biodiversity. We have seen in Northern Ireland, part of our island, that incentives for biomass production and anaerobic digestion have led to substantial expansion of pig and poultry production. There are significant knock-on consequences from some biomass solutions that may be turned to. How do the witnesses stitch biodiversity protection into climate action within a plan?