Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I apologise, as I was not here at the start of the meeting. I was in the Chamber. I apologise in advance if I ask questions that have already been asked. What was the rationale for removing the word "achieve" from the Bill? It changed from "pursue and achieve" to "pursue".

I would also like to hear the rationale for the balance between climate scientists and other interests on the advisory committee. Let us compare it to the likes of NPHET where one has very great expertise in public health. It provides the advice and then the Minister, the Government and the Oireachtas decide to balance that out with other concerns, whereas this body seems to contain a balance of views within it. Is there a hierarchy for the climate scientists, who are the experts, and can we choose to look at their advice? I wonder how the balance is going to be achieved.

Equally, I have concerns about how we will do the auditing of the reductions in emissions versus how much will be reliant on sequestration and technologies, including bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS. How will we do the accounting process given that much of the technology is uncertain?

I have concerns also on why the Bill relies heavily on the UK Climate Change Act 2008, given that the ground has moved extensively since then. Why did we not take more from our neighbours in Scotland or even from the New Zealand Act? The Department chose to take the 1% borrowing, which is very much part of the UK Climate Change Act, but it did not choose to add all of the references to accountability and the objects of duty that come with the borrowing from that Act. Perhaps Mr. Carroll could explain those choices.