Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Some people call for consumption-based emissions. If that was the basis then Ireland would be 6.4% higher in our emissions if we were to move to a consumption-based emissions. We must, therefore, be careful what we wish for.

The speakers referred a great deal to ongoing and long-term research, but what are the short-term reductions envisaged in agricultural emissions in response to the five-year carbon budget programme and sectoral carbon budgets proposed in the new climate Bill? They will be over five years, so it is a very short timeframe. Teagasc acknowledges on page 22 of its marginal abatement cost curve, MACC, document that increased efficiencies do not necessarily lead to reduced emissions and can, in fact, lead to an increase in emissions. What does Teagasc intend to do to address that, which is probably the Jevons paradox?

In terms of feed additives and their potential to increase efficiency, is it not true that additives are added to feed indoors? If we are to rely on additives for reducing our emissions, what does that mean for our reputation of having a pasture-fed beef and dairy herd?

Another topic is not climate-related but relates to ammonia. I hear that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has recalculated its figures for ammonia upwards. I am not sure if those figures have been reported lately, but they are significantly higher than was estimated. Teagasc has mentioned a move to protected urea from calcium ammonium nitrate, CAN, in a bid to reduce nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas. What are the implications of moving to protected urea for ammonia emissions? How does Teagasc foresee us being able to reduce both nitrous oxide and ammonia, given the health implications of ammonia emissions?