Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Carthy for coming to the committee and asking his question. He is right when he suggests that the job of cutting emissions and deciding where the emission cuts go is not just a matter of finding where the cheapest areas are or what is easiest or handiest. It must take into account all the wider impacts and that is why the Bill provides for that. If we look into that, we will see that section 9, which contains the carbon budgets and sets out how they are created, specifically states that the CCAC must take account of the different factors, including the effect on employment and the competitiveness of the economy.

Deputy Carthy made a point about on carbon leakage. I am not sure if he used that phrase. I refer to the idea that if we stop producing beef here, it will be produced somewhere else where it causes more harm. This is a genuine concern and it must be addressed. Deputy Carthy is right when he contends that there is no point in cutting emissions in one place if that leads to worse emissions elsewhere. That is why, in this Bill, when the Government makes its climate action plan, it must take carbon leakage effects into account. The same applies when it does the sectoral emissions ceilings. When it decides what the maximum emissions in a particular sector are, it must consider carbon leakage. It will be required to do that by the Act. It is not the case that those things can be ignored and a simple view can be taken. It is a complex area which requires much consultation with the public and expert input. It requires cross-party co-operation because it is such a difficult problem facing us all. I want to put the Deputy's mind at rest. The Bill does not ignore carbon leakage and it does not ignore things like employment factors.

Specifically, this amendment, which I am opposing, ties the hands of the CCAC and introduces restrictions on what it can and cannot recommend.

It could limit its independence and effectiveness. Also, I do not think it is needed, because the advice of the Climate Change Advisory Council has to be considered by Government. It is a matter for the Government to determine and set climate policy. The Climate Change Advisory Council does not set the policy. It comes back to the comparison with NPHET. The council is an advisory body, not a decision-making body.

On the question of sustainable farming and so on, we are not choosing between climate action and sustainable farming. They are very much one and the same thing. It is not an either-or approach. The two things support each other. As we move towards sustainable farming, we will reduce emissions. We do not do that by pushing them off into another country. For those reasons, I am requesting that the amendment be withdrawn.