Professor Brian Ó Gallachóir:

I thank the Senator. They are great questions. The first one is close to my heart. The need for integration generally of science and policy and the policy system is a fundamental one. We have seen the benefits of that over the past 18 months with the Covid response but it applies equally to responding to the climate emergency. The committee itself, and how it is structured and being able to invite ourselves and others in, is part of that process but it can go much deeper. Certainly, in what we do for the climate action team in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, we provide a modelling service to inform the Department's need. As part of that, we also have a specific branch of that work focusing on what we call building absorptive capacity in the policy system, that is, working with Departments to try to help them understand the outcomes of the models and what they mean. It is that bridge between, as the Senator said, the science and the policy decision. Our expertise is in the science around this, while that of the committee, the Departments and the Civil Service is in the policy system but that bridging is hugely important.

Increasingly, with our researchers we introduce more and more training in the communication of the research. That is another part of it. There is an obligation here on the research side of the house to communicate better, to be more open and to engage more with the policy system.

One of the challenges we found on the policy system side is that they tend to be stretched in terms of the time and capacity they have to engage with the research community. That is a requirement there. Another mechanism by which this can be done is through secondments. For example, we have one member of a Department who works with us two days a week. We have a great deal of experience of students and researchers spending a day a week in industry in different companies but, equally, we could make that available as an option to Departments as well. Another example would be a car stock model that Dr. Daly developed some years ago where we handed it over to the Department of Transport and that helped the Department to inform decisions on policy considerations for it on electric vehicle roll-out. There are many examples on bridging this gap. The Covid experience has shown us the value of it. What we need is the mechanisms to put in place.

In terms of the health consequences, the Senator talked about the economic aspect but there is also a just transition aspect to this. If you consider where, particularly in concentrated urban areas, much solid fuel residential heating takes place, some of that is happening because the people cannot afford the investment required to change their heating system and you have this consequential health impact.

Approximately 1,300 people a year die from air pollution from residential solid fuel burning and, therefore, there are linkages between health and the energy system. Equally, as for the responses as we decarbonise and remove other emissions, that has positive health and just transition implications as part of the economic consequences the Senator mentioned.

As for the circular economy, we did not have too much time, as she correctly said, to focus on that topic. Clearly, however, within the principles of the circular economy and the development of circular economy approaches there are efficiencies, demand reduction and consumption reduction, which are huge potential benefits in respect of emissions reductions. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that sometimes, while there can be a lot of co-benefits, there can also be trade-offs between some of these different goals.

I am not sure if any of the other members wish to come in on those points. I see Dr. Hanrahan's hand up.