Dr. Laura Devaney:

I almost wrote another full opening statement on my reaction to the climate action plan, although I will not bore the committee with it. Echoing what Dr. Moore stated, I welcome the plan. It is timely and necessary for the climate to receive such political attention. Getting the top-down governance right has been an important part of the plan and is welcome in respect of the direction, the carbon budgets, the emphasis on just transition and citizen engagement, all of which are elements the authors got right.

On transport, I reiterate that mine is a personal reflection based on my experience from research of various forms of environmental governance and our research did not focus on the climate action plan. I worry about the overemphasis on the "I" part of the avoid, shift, improve framework that we mention in our research. The "I" is about improving efficiencies and, as the Deputy correctly noted, the overemphasis on EVs as being capable of solving everything. There is a nod to other aspects, such as avoiding journeys by work-from-home models and more compact growth, and there is a bit on the shift to public transport and the establishment of a cycling office. Unfortunately, however, the predominant focus is on EVs. I do not agree with that from a progress or transformative perspective. EVs are part of the solution, however, and they will be important in rural areas that do not public transport or where people cannot cycle to certain places. In such sprawled settlements, they will have a low-carbon benefit, albeit only if the energy source is decarbonised. If we move from a low-carbon framing to one for sustainable mobility, EVs have contradictions, such as not addressing issues of congestion or the costs, stress or health implications associated with that, not reducing accidents and not promoting active transport. There are also social sustainability concerns, even in respect of the sourcing of materials for EVs, as we mention in our report. There have been cases of increases in child labour, such as in Democratic Republic of the Congo, where cobalt is sourced for EV batteries due to increasing demand. We must be careful, therefore, to understand the life-cycle analysis aspect of EVs. That is my reflection on the wider focus of the transport chapter.

I have similar questions about the focus on compressed natural gas, CNG, given that it is a fossil fuel, even if it is the only option, such as for freight. I would be worried about being locked into another fossil fuel in that regard. Research done in Europe has shown that while there may be carbon savings from CNG, there is a potential for methane leakage, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas emission. The emissions benefit, therefore, might not be what we expect.

Similar sourcing conflicts in the case of biofuels affect food and feed. The sustainable production of the virgin material is essential. If using used cooking oil or waste, we should ask whether it is being imported from abroad, what the emissions profile is and whether we are achieving the desired objectives of the plan.

I was struck by the neglect of aviation. Obviously, it is part of a different regulatory scheme. It can be part of the emissions trading scheme and there are other international regulations relating to it. However, it is remiss to ignore aviation, particularly as there has been discussion about establishing and investing in Waterford Airport or, potentially, a third terminal for Dublin Airport. There is no mention of the environmental impact of such decisions relating to infrastructure. For more cohesive, transformative policy-making, we need to consider aviation with the climate action plan. In a nutshell, there has been too much focus on technology, EVs or CNG solving everything, whereas there are not many tangible ideas for public transport, such as Deputy Coppinger's suggestion of free public transport. There was a note on the sharing economy but there has been no progress in respect of, for example, developing sharing schemes for bicycles, electric scooters or cars, which would have a much more positive, sustainable impact on emissions and the necessary social aspect.

There is an over-reliance on tax to change behaviour. From my experience of working in sustainable consumption fields, I know that we need to use tax as the motivation for behaviour change. I refer to a social practice approach, as Dr. Moore referred to and our report outlines. As the Deputy Coppinger noted, we should consider the charging network and incentives to buy EVs - both timely issues - but we must also examine the position regarding education and information awareness promotion. There could be positive incentives if we moved away from punitive measures.

I acknowledge that it is just a plan and that the next step is to implement it and create policy. Nevertheless, it is important to get the plan right in the first place. There should be a greater focus on avoiding journeys in the first instance, while shifting to public transport options and alternatives to CNG for freight are essential.