Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank both speakers for their presentations. As we have limited time, I will indicate a few issues on which I would appreciate comments in writing. I had hoped to ask about biodiversity, which is an area of Dr. Jackson's expertise, and with respect to Professor Sweeney, the implications for energy trade and how energy is dealt with. They might make comments in writing on those given I will speak specifically to the legislative detail.

Reference was made to the environmentally sustainable economy. I was interested in the comment on carbon leakage. It is quite an ambiguous and potentially misleading phrase. Would the reinclusion of phrases such as "the environmentally sustainable economy", which speaks to the economic but also the targets which had been in the 2015 Bill, be a better way of capturing economic issues and providing a reference to the question of non-territorial emissions? I am concerned about the issue of non-territorial emissions. A comment was made on how to ensure we do not have a disproportionate use, for example, of either offsetting on the one side or of effectively importing the damage done within the Bill, even where Departments might purchase allocations. I presume we do not want them to purchase all of those in an offsetting mechanism.

The issue of methane is very clear. It suggests it might be important to put that measurement technique or reporting mechanism, to which we are committed, in the Bill even if we may need to measure methane specifically in the next period of time. This comes back to the question of interim targets. I ask both witnesses to comment on how robust the Bill is in ensuring we make the major change we need in the next ten years with respect to all gases, including methane, to be able to achieve the 1.5oC target down the line.

Might interim targets be best phrased as five-year and ten-year interim minimum targets as we must allow space that the science might ask us to move further? Would that be linked to, for example, the EU 55% target? I know it will have to be stand-alone, but the EU 55% target has been discussed. Government policy was mentioned and that it can be vague and moveable. Would it be better in fulfilling that commitment to embed that 7% in the Bill? Would that be the most robust way to do that?