Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. I have three questions, one each for Dr. Rogelj and Professor Thorne and one general question. I am aware that Dr. Rogelj contributed to a session of Climate Change Advisory Council technical budgets committee. A couple of things jumped out at me when I read the committee's report and I ask him to comment on them in light of our scenario. It was stated in the final report that global emissions pathways of greenhouse gases should not be simply used as national emissions pathways. It also stated that climate science cannot tell us how to distribute the efforts among emitters and that this depended entirely on value judgments about what is considered fair and feasible. That would suggest Ireland could target more aggressive cuts in carbon dioxide and more modest cuts in methane and still make an equitable contribution to the Paris targets. Does Dr. Rogelj believe this is an option the Government should have taken?

The EU methane strategy and the global methane pledge are targeting fossil methane for ambitious cuts by 2030, with the agricultural reductions far more modest in nature. However, the director general of the EPA recently announced that for agriculture to achieve even a 22% reduction in total emissions, methane emissions would need to be reduced by 30% by 2030. This seems to be a very significant contribution, particularly given what we have heard from Professor Allen. I ask Professor Thorne to comment on that.

Commentators are driving many sectors and many people against agriculture in this whole debate. It is an unhelpful approach. One is being pitted against the other. Given what the committee has heard today, in particular, that very small reductions in methane can ensure no additional warming results, would we have been better to have set separate legislative targets for methane? This which would have avoided the sector versus sector debate we currently find ourselves in.