Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to respond to the Minister's remarks earlier and to the questions raised by my colleagues. I acknowledge the comments made by my two successors as Minister in this area, namely, Deputies Eamon Ryan and Bruton. They have both recognised the validity of the point I am making concerning the need for biogenic methane to be treated differently. The only point of disagreement between the three of us is how that aspect should be reflected in the Bill and that is why I submitted this amendment. I will return to that point shortly.

Moving on to answer some of the questions raised by colleagues, I made it clear at the start of my contribution this morning, as I did while I was the Minister and I will do so again, that agriculture cannot get a free pass when it comes to climate change. Therefore, I am not stating that agriculture should not be touched, but that it must be accounted for separately and that there is a good reason for doing that. Agriculture has a key role to play regarding the issue of land use. Substantial progress can be made in agriculture. However, with a deadline set for 234 weeks' time, the only thing that can be done in that short time that will have a real impact is herd reduction. The difficulty with herd reduction is that it undermines the type of farming that the Minister has expressly said that he wants to support, namely, family farms and pastoral grazing. That in itself is not good for biodiversity or overall climate emissions.

Physical constraints exist regarding the retrofitting of homes and in rolling out electric vehicles. I set up those plans and targets and they were to be in full operation now, but that is not happening. Even greater pressure is therefore being put on what I believe is the soft option of cattle numbers, instead of land use management. Some environmental zealots are trying to claim that methane from fossil fuels and methane from agriculture are the same, but they are not. They try to shut down any discussion of this issue. There is a big difference between the two forms of methane. Methane from fossil fuels comes from carbon which has been locked away in our planet for hundreds of millions of years. Methane from agriculture comes from carbon dioxide that was in our atmosphere a few hours ago, a few days ago or a few weeks ago. It is being converted into protein for humans to consume. It is part of an overall carbon cycle.

In fairness, that aspect was acknowledged by the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the former Minister, Deputy Bruton. It has also been acknowledged by the Climate Change Advisory Council, the Government of the United Kingdom, the European Union and New Zealand. However, it is not yet part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, accounting framework. Having said that, though, I fully accept that CH, methane, in our atmosphere, regardless of the source, has the exact same warming potential and that is why agriculture has a key role to play in combating climate change. My issue concerns how this element is accounted for in domestic legislation and international climate rules. Internationally, this aspect should be accounted for through the consumption of food, which accurately reflects the impact that methane has on our atmosphere, and not where that food is produced. Taking the latter approach leads to perverse situations, such as the consumption of meat from the Amazon basis being incentivised.