Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Some of my questions have been touched on but I will clarify Senator Daly's point. Teagasc has had a look at various technologies and actions by farmers that could reduce emissions. It has shown what they cost and whether they have a positive benefit for farmers - in other words, whether they are a net gain for the farm, whether they are more efficient and whether everything is better - versus ones that have a positive cost. Am I to take it from Senator Daly's question that Teagasc or some similar research agency has not done a similar exercise, which means we do not know where this one stacks in the Teagasc marginal abatement cost, MAC, curve of the more efficient carbon abatement measures? Do we know where it stacks?

My second question is allied to that. What is the justification for the taxpayer paying more for this? If it is eligible under TAMS, why should the taxpayer step in to pay more rather than the sector, be it consumers of the product, producers, processors or whoever, because it is generating shorter cycles, better quality and all the rest of it? Those are two aspects. Any subsidy that will be given out for carbon efficiency will have to show that it washes its face in being one of the most effective ways of abating emissions.