Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for agreeing to consider the matter. There might have been a slight presumption of it being unnecessary. First, I do not think that climate proofing is quite the same. We have defined the climate objective as "a climate resilient, biodiversity-rich, environmentally-sustainable and climate-neutral economy". To shrink that to emissions only would seem not to be in tune with the definition that has been set out in the Bill.

It also leaves these elements working in their own silos, whereas I think there is a feeling in the committee generally that biodiversity and the circular economy or supply chain should be more integrated so they are not looked at individually. They must be looked at in the sense that there can be trade-offs and those should be done openly. The other thing is we are setting up quite a strong framework for implementation with cross-Government capacity for delivery which is different from leaving items in their own silos. When we define the broad objective in this way the cross-Government framework should in some way seek also to encompass that.

My last point is that, unfortunately, some areas of sequestration that could be very useful in potentially creating income in the agricultural sphere are not currently counted in the inventory of emissions. Therefore looking more broadly at some of those elements of carbon sequestration through forestry, land management or whatever, if we leave them out of climate planning and the inventory they will inevitably get valued downward somewhat. I am not looking for the Minister of State to come back and have a long debate on that but just to consider it before Report Stage when he comes back to this.