Dr. Ronan Glynn:

I was not trying to add to the Climate Change Advisory Council's woes. The point in my submission to the committee is really asking for clarity around some of the language that is being used. To some readers, it might look as if it is clear what each of those statements means but, from a scientific perspective, some of them are quite ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. Like Professor Buckley, I think some guiding principles might temper some of the difficulties for the Climate Change Advisory Council. I think, equally, that if the text is not explicit enough, it leaves too much room and things will not be achieved. Ultimately, we are trying to start to bend the decarbonisation curve.

If some of the critical targets are numerically, scientifically or legally ambiguous, I understand that has political benefits but, speaking scientifically, it makes it difficult to measure if we are meeting our targets. The point in my submission is seeking clarity over the things we already have.