Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the guests. Could the officials comment on the concerns that the budgets, as proposed, do not seem to align with the 7% per annum commitment to the programme of Government? We have been told that it would be a budget of 468 Mt for 7% per annum, whereas the proposed budgets are at 495 Mt, so an additional 27 Mt might be required.

I will put those questions to the Department of the Taoiseach, and of course the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications can answer this as well. I welcome the identification that this is ultimately about tonnes. It is a very hard and real measure. The witness mentioned risk analysis. Something we heard a lot about was the precautionary principle. What risk analysis has been done on the dangers of backloading, in terms of both variables? Scientifically, we know that there are risks, but, if targets are not met early, there are financial risks as well. We have access to finance now. Within the Department of the Taoiseach, is there the understanding that we have more flexibility in terms of access to finance at the moment than compared to the carbon budgets? Again, the risk context, what emergency measures are being considered in terms of the next 18 months to three years, if it looks like we are not on track? It is clear there is no scope for going any lower than the top of the sectoral targets. In fact, it seems that it would be prudent to have "reach targets" in each sector. Could Mr. Ó Raghallaigh comment on that? We almost have to aim higher so we do not fall lower.

I have a question for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on emergency measures. Forestry will only come in after 2030. Could Mr. Callanan comment on measures such as limiting artificial insemination in the short term? We know that the scientific measures are unproven and will only conflict.

Similarly, on housing, why are we looking at only retrofitting 40% by 2030 and not 80%? I know it cannot happen immediately, but certainly it would seem that by 2025 we should have that capacity. Lastly, on demolition, reference was made to putting embodied energy into new building. Would we look to a temporary stay or a higher bar for demolition, given that it also front-loads emissions in the period where we are most vulnerable, which is the next five years?