Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Bruton for asking the question - it saves me the trouble of asking it - about the split targets. The understanding is that a zero-emission target effectively accommodates the fact that biomethane may not be zero but may come to a net zero. That was a useful clarification.

Professor FitzGerald mentioned the minimum target of 2030. I am a little concerned, however, that the council seems to be putting a great deal of its scientific input into that idea. As I see it, that is a political commitment that reflects the science. Through our hearings, the committee has an understanding that the new advisory council, which might be a little different from the previous one in this regard, will have a clear remit in respect of the science, and that the budgets will, as one of the primary goals, ensure that the temperature increase stays below 1.5°C and that we meet the emission reduction targets. One function, therefore, is the budget and how much we can afford while achieving those key goals.

The second aspect is the how. That is the policy-inputting that Professor FitzGerald described, which might relate to sectoral plans or, as he mentioned, plans at local authority level. Perhaps Professor FitzGerald will differentiate. Does he think there might be a benefit in having scientific expertise that inputs into the how, along with other, wider expertise? Perhaps some of those wider factors listed in the 25 criteria could also input into the policy, in regard to the how and the details of sectoral plans? I am concerned that Professor FitzGerald mentioned the criterion (e) in that regard. I do not believe that criterion (e), on cost effectiveness, could appropriately sit in that space of how much we-----