Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the report, which is most interesting. I am very struck by Ms Finegan's point that you cannot derive the savings while you are also in an expansion phase. There is an element of that in terms of agriculture but also, perhaps, in energy production. We have talked about the share of energy that is renewable. A concern is arising, however, in respect of data centres, whereby we might be looking at expanded energy demand, even as we try to transition. I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' thoughts on that.

In terms of emissions, I note that in respect of the 2020 targets, there is talk of Ireland having to use credits and purchase annual emission allocations from other countries. That would not be ideal in terms of the global picture, because it is effectively something that could be a pure reduction in another place being added to our reduction. It is replacement.

On the 2030 targets, the EPA has stated that Ireland needs to use flexibilities to achieve the current 2030 targets. However, those 2030 targets are approximately half of what we are likely to have in a couple of weeks' time when the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill is passed. The EPA had projected a 20% reduction in emissions, but we will be looking for the 51% reduction. I ask the witnesses to comment on the care that needs to be taken in the use of flexibilities. What is an appropriate way of delimiting the use of flexibilities? When we consider the escalation that will be needed in the context of the new targets, it will involve a jump from 20% to 51%.

Ms Sharon Finegan: In relation to the lifecycle impact of EVs, I will turn to Mr. Treacy on the issue. I do not know, off the top of my head, but I heard Mr. Treacy mention a lifecycle analysis in relation to EVs at another event we attended last wee

Looking to the UN and the EU, there are new laws coming through from the EU. Is there potential that the 51% target, as a point of ambition, is likely to rise? In terms of what is required under the common but differentiated responsibilities from the UN level or our fair share within the EU model do the witnesses believe that is likely? I would welcome a comment on the potential direction of travel, which makes the case for the front-loading of action in the next five years in case our ten-year target ends up rising further.

On front-loading, the witnesses have provided detailed information already but I would welcome a comment on nitrogen and methane, particularly on nitrogen in terms of fertiliser, which is one aspect on which the report focuses. The witnesses will be aware that the nitrates directive has been a subject of discussion at this committee. In terms of methane, as I understand it from Dr. McGovern and others, it is not a matter of the long-term, the concern is the impact methane has in this 12-year period when we need to be doing everything we can to lower emissions. This is our bridging period - the period within which we have to act. I would welcome a comment on the importance of action in that period. While the long-term impact may be lesser, the short-term impact of methane seems to be higher. Is that part of the logic of why action needs to be front-loaded in that regard?