Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 12 January 2022

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Action

Carbon Budgets: Discussion (Resumed)

Professor Barry McMullin:

The Senator raised a number of questions, and I do not want to respond at length. In terms of the Paris test that the council formulated, I sympathise with the council. It was operating in a difficult timeframe. The mix of gases of emissions in Ireland is unusual globally, so the nature of the scientific question in Ireland is quite special. It is not easy to copy examples from other countries and apply them directly. The concept of a temperature-based test downscaled to a national level is relatively new in the literature. I am basically saying that I sympathise with the council. What it has presented at this point should be regarded as a work in progress. There is certainly scope for, and I expect we will see, significant improvements in the scientific basis of that particular test. Some of the work we are doing in DCU will hopefully contribute to that.

However, I refer members to the written submission from Dr. Jackson on the legal implications of the Act and the role of Paris consistency. While the council to an extent excused certain things on the basis that it felt that it was being invited to make value judgments that it was not appropriate for it to make, Dr. Jackson's legal analysis suggests that it was an obligation on the council. There is a difference of opinion, or at least there is a difference of legal opinion, on what the obligations of the council are in that respect if one takes those value judgments into account. I highlighted historical responsibility. The Senator has queried whether 2018 might make more sense in the context of the Act, but 2018 plays a very special role in the Act. It is not to do with historical responsibility. I would not conflate those at all. The choice of an appropriate reference year for historical responsibility should not be tied to 2018 in the Act at all. In fact, now that the council has made the recommendations, that section in the Act is moot and has no effect. It should be set aside so we can have a proper discussion about what the appropriate criteria are for historical responsibility. My opinion, and I refer members to the publications relating to this, is that 2015 marks the very latest defensible reference year for that. As the council did not elaborate on its reasoning, I do not know where the discrepancy between its reasoning and my reasoning-----

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.