Professor Kevin Anderson:

I would completely turn that statement on its head. We must start with some self-reflection, which often is quite challenging for us. I am not blaming anybody here more than myself but we are where we are because of 30 years of collective lies and delusion. It is 31 years since the first IPCC report and 29 years since the UNFCCC. We have a choice. We can make that 32 years since the first IPCC report, or 33 years, and carry on with lies and delusion, or we can start to say that we should look at the challenge we are actually facing. That concerns the impact of climate change; it is not about temperatures or reduction rates. We are interested in impact because that is what will hurt us. We can be honest about that. We can say it is fine to have the other budgets and aim for an increases of 3°C to 5°C. We can tell our children that and explain to them at breakfast that it is what we are doing because it is the best we can achieve politically. That is an honest position and it has integrity.

We would have to live by that, however, and cannot pretend we are delivering a target of an increase of 1.5°C or 2°C when the budgets are more aligned with increases of 3°C to 5°C. Let us have integrity on the matter and say we cannot deliver if that is the case, and people will have to live with increases of 3°C to 5°C. It is an honest position and I have no problem with that as long as you do it honestly.

I disagree about rationing, as we are already rationing. I do not know Ireland so well and obviously it is much wealthier than the UK. I am thinking of the UK experience. People in the UK are rationed by salary. There are 20% of homes in the UK in fuel poverty. They are not in fuel poverty because people are not bothered by buying more fossil fuels; they are rationed by their access to fossil fuels. We all live in a rationed system.

Unpicking the "we", there is no "we" in society. There are very different groups. It may be different in Ireland but it does not appear so from some of my experience. The Deputy spoke about how to deal with this politically. If we are serious about our commitments, we should consider what this looks like. There is a massive jobs agenda and there is a possibility to secure long-term and quality jobs rather than short-term zero-hour contract jobs like we have in the United Kingdom. That would mean we would not have fuel poverty.

We eliminate fuel poverty because people can afford to heat their homes. We improve air quality in our cities so people's kids can cycle around without having to breathe in low-quality air. It also means that the streets are much safer for people. There is a whole suite of real win-wins. Although those win-wins are for the majority, sadly the majority are not the people who shape the debate. The people who shape the debate are us, the high emitters. It is we, the high emitters, who will have to make profound changes to our lifestyles. Rationing is better for most people but not for the professors, policymakers, entrepreneurs, business people or for those of us who shape the policy realm. We have been shaping the policy realm in the way that we like it for too long but it is not a universal "we". If we separate out the "we", most people do a lot better under climate change, not least of course, poor people who are dying today. The fact is that Ireland produces 8.5 tonnes per person and the UK produces 7 tonnes per person. We generate high emissions per person, as an average. The problem is not about the future but, as someone said in Glasgow, about the present. It is not just a question of thinking about the future. In communities in Mozambique and Madagascar, people are dying today from the climate change we have knowingly imposed upon them. I would turn all of that around and say that we must have more political integrity and reflection on why we are where we are. Then we must put our shoulders back and get on with the job. We can paint this as a much more positive political story and narrative if we split the "we" into those of us responsible for the lion's share of emissions and those who will benefit from the changes.