Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am certainly happy to say that I think carbon leakage is one that should just go if we are really trotting down our 25. I think that is the third or fourth different interpretation of what it might mean that we have heard. Again, that is not on Dr. Glynn. It is just an example. Around that issue, it might be referring to that question of non-territorial emissions so I was quite concerned with that idea of exporting carbon. When we are looking within planetary limits in the end and if Ireland has, as Dr. Glynn mentioned, effectively used or come close to using up its fair share, the question arises as to how we reflect and account for non-territorial emissions. For example, Japan is importing coal from Japanese-owned factories in Bangladesh. How do we ensure that we factor in non-territorial emissions? I believe that in both its aid and one of its other policies, Ireland has that common and differentiated responsibility.

We have a responsibility under the Paris Agreement to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. I would suggest that is not necessarily aid but that there is an obligation, for example, as to adaptation financing. Is it fair if we effectively owe a duty of support for mitigation and adaptation but we use that to offset against what we do ourselves? Should it not be the case that we are literally supporting mitigation and adaptation within the budgets of other countries? I am worried about an offsetting dynamic being used where very wealthy countries start using the development capacity of other countries as an offsetting mechanism and how we can avoid that.

This point also relates to the same issue because one of the other strands in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, as well as mitigation and adaptation, is that question of technology transfer. Our witness from the Marine and Renewable Energy Ireland, MaREI, which is at the cutting edge of technology that is happening, knows the technology transfer has been a blocking point in how we make those public-to-public partnerships. We are straying a little bit into this area but I realise this because one of the points pointed to looking at how Ireland fits into that wider picture. I would really appreciate if our witnesses commented on that point.

Can I ask for a comment on the long-lived and short-lived gases? Dr. Glynn mentioned that there might be a case for a real focus on some of these gases - presumably methane is an example and nitrogen might be another - in the five-year strategy. It is also important that we look at not just how long these last in the atmosphere, the intensity of particular gases and the higher impact they may have in the short term. While those specific gases may be gone in 100 years, if we have intensified output in the next five years, we may hit tipping points. We are seeing that right now, for example, on the ice sheets in the Arctic.