Professor John Sweeney:

I thank the Deputy. There are a few key issues that we should have regard to. They relate to the science and our international obligations. I would whittle them down to two, namely, requirements under the UNFCCC, and the annual IPCC assessment reports. They are the two gold standards that affect us. We could almost eliminate the rest as serious considerations, although I would obviously expect the Bill to make some reference to climate justice, just transition etc. as well.

Regarding concrete actions, the Bill could certainly make a statement on the necessity not to build new infrastructure or engage in other activities which might work against the Bill's end goal of carbon neutrality. That would certainly strengthen the Bill considerably and address some of the issues the Deputy has raised. It might give the Government some grounds for acting wisely in this way.

Regarding carbon leakage, we only measure emissions which take place on the island of Ireland. In the case of live cattle, only the emissions which take place on the island of Ireland are measured. I do not believe we measure the emissions of cattle in lairage or once they leave the island. They are certainly not measured on board any cattle transporters because shipping is not yet subject to the Paris Agreement's quota requirements.

There are countries with stricter climate laws. I was particularly thinking of the Netherlands, where as a result of litigation the Government has had to undertake quite serious reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, almost on an emergency basis. This has led to changes in agriculture being imposed there. Cheese manufacturers, for example, have been unable to expand in the Netherlands and have sought other countries in which to build cheese factories. If a firm is looking for a country with a ready supply of milk on which its environmental burden can be imposed without the same legislative requirements, I am afraid Ireland comes to mind. Leakage cuts both ways.