Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Mr. Coghlan's written presentation mentions we need to reduce emissions by 7% a year. Will he confirm that is the view of the Irish Environmental Network? It is important, of course, because the question is whether the budgets get us to 7% per year.

I was surprised by the idea of waiting to look at the fair share issue until 2030. Mr. Coghlan might comment on the climate debt being created between now and 2030 by the fact we do not have fair share principles embedded in the first two budgets. Mr. Coghlan also mentioned he would have preferred a different approach in terms of the backloading. Perhaps he could comment on that.

On the early action, we heard a strong scientific case for early action. Perhaps Social Justice Ireland and Chambers Ireland could comment on the economic case for early action, both in terms of redirecting fossil fuel subsidies and, of course, accessing the EU financing that is available now at very low cost as well as the funding Chambers Ireland mentioned around the European Green Deal and the sustainable development goals, SDGs, because it may not be available even in five years' time.

On agriculture, the witnesses mentioned that the scientific solutions will not deliver in the next decade. Obviously, we need to invest in them. That is most important. Given they will not deliver in the next decade, they mentioned that is an argument for later action, but in fact it is almost an argument for early action because we do not know if they will deliver. In that context, would the witnesses agree we need to look at early action, for example, that we maybe cannot afford the nitrates directive or herd expansion within the carbon budget for agriculture? In that context, what of other incentives, because we have that access to funding and we have more flexibility on funding than we have on carbon budgets?