Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Will both groups elaborate? I will play devil's advocate. If all their asks could be delivered, we would live on a better island, but, realistically, that cannot happen. In a concerted, genuine effort all round to achieve what we need to achieve and what the witnesses' requests are, they have very little reference to science. A problem I have with climate change is that we keep referencing science and scientific changes, be it for the administration of slurry, anaerobic digesters or the improvement of the breed of animal or cattle. Can much or any of what the groups are requesting be achieved by science? Would the science proposed to meet the solution be an issue for some of the species BirdWatch Ireland have mentioned?

I ask the Environmental Pillar, in particular, to reference the issues they have raised in a global context and, in particular, issue of carbon leakage. The prediction is the population of the world will have essentially doubled by 2050. We have to be cognisant of ensuring food security. If we were to meet all the Environmental Pillar's requests, would we end up in a situation in which we would have to import food from Brazil, which is the example that is always used? It is taking out the rainforests, known as the earth's lungs, to produce meat. Looking at this globally, can the witnesses give me a perspective on how we can balance it on an all-round basis and ensure food security as we go along with that?

I recall growing up, when we were cutting the meadow, being sent out ahead of the tractor and the finger-bar mower to run the pheasants, especially their chicks, away. Machinery has probably played as much a part as farming practices and modern technology. Farming practice and the world being what they are, we will not reverse the advances we have made in machinery. How can BirdWatch Ireland propose a solution for that?

The witnesses have made a CAP submission. I do not want to sound like I am opposed to anything they said. However, the CAP as we know it is a cheap, traceable food policy and all their requests are environmentally related. When and where do they see the purpose that CAP was initially introduced for changing? At what point do they think the public will be prepared, through additional costs on their food, to subsidise much of what they have been requesting? It is a roundabout way of asking the question.