Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor FitzGerald. It is good to hear his voice. In his last comment, Professor FitzGerald raised the point about the distinction between biogenic methane and other greenhouse gases. The way in which the legislation has defined the 2050 target is a "climate neutral economy", meaning "a sustainable economy, where greenhouse gas emissions are balanced or exceeded by the removal of greenhouse gases." Is that a proper approach to this? It would appear to say we can have biogenic methane not at zero. One would, however, have to have negative emissions from the other sectors. When he talked of a split target, did Professor FitzGerald have a target in mind which would have positive biogenic emissions which are not balanced? I am aware the latter would be less onerous than the former but, perhaps, he could comment on this legislative framework we are creating.

Professor FitzGerald advocates the 2030 target should be spelled out in legislation. Currently, as he will be aware, the programme for Government indicates we should achieve a 51% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030. That is very much shared as a political objective. Unlike what Professor FitzGerald is talking about in terms of carbon budgeting, however, I do not believe any of us have been able to do the detailed assessments of its implications for Irish society and so forth, so we recognise the obligation.

Is it premature for us to enshrine in law something which is a determination to deliver, although we have not seen the sort of work that underpins it? Undoubtedly, the next two climate budgets will seek to achieve that. By enshrining it in law, however, do we create something that can open the State up to litigation? Is that a correct approach? I am aware this is a difficult issue. On one side, people will say if one makes it a legal obligation then that is important for the future of the world and it forces the Government. On the other side, we are politicians trying to bring people with us, as Professor FitzGerald rightly said, farmers, people in the motor industry and all these different groups. I am seeking Professor FitzGerald's advice on striking that balance between them when we have pretty imperfect knowledge as legislators.

I fully sympathise with Professor FitzGerald when he says 25 things is too many but, I suppose, politicians are always trying to balance all these things. I am sure that is where the figure of 25 came from. Does Professor FitzGerald suggest we should just make simpler the language to take into account the many economic, social, cultural and other implications when setting climate budgets? Would that be a better way to deal with this?

My final question is on climate justice. Professor FitzGerald rightly said this is a matter primarily for the Oireachtas. Should we, however, create some sort of a framework in this Bill which would, at least, be the framework Ministers forming budgets from year to year or whatever should consult. Would that be of value?