Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not a member of this committee and, therefore, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute. I listened to the speakers from Mullingar so some of my questions will relate to the issues raised earlier. Professor McMullin said that temperature limit is the overriding goal but this is not exactly what is being measured. Why does he think that the European Commission is not actively looking towards the most accurate and up-to-date scientifically based warming measurements? I suppose I am asking him a political question in this sense. Ireland's grass-based system is quite different from that of many other European countries. My instinct is that if this was the system in France or Poland, the Commission would be much quicker to look at the more up-to-date science for measuring. Professor McMullin does not have to answer that but if he could, I would appreciate it.

Professor Thorne made a really important point. He said that he despairs that agriculture is being disproportionately blamed. I listened earlier to the colleague from California who said that most of the methane produced here is entering.

That gives us good opportunities to minimise and reduce methane emissions, much more so than they have done in California. In California, they have managed to reduce emissions by 30%. Dr. Mitloehner said that feed additives, etc., make a huge difference. What struck me most about his comments was that he said the state engages with farmers. It works with farmers to find market solutions. We do not seem to be doing that here. There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing but no engagement with farmers to look at the situation and see how we can improve it.

I have listened carefully to the points made on the two types of methane, biogenic and fossil. The witnesses can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the timeframe is what is crucial here. We have behaved very badly up to now. The methane that we are producing now, because of the level we are at, is in a way much more dangerous because it will take 24 years for the half life to begin to convert into CO2. I ask the witnesses to comment on that. It is said that if we cut CH4 emissions by 3% per decade, there would be no additional warming impact. I ask the witnesses to estimate the reduction in global temperatures that would result if we were to cut CH4 emissions by the 30% that they have managed to achieve in California with its dairy herd, and the timeframe required to achieve that.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of carbon leakage. I disagree with Professor McMullin on a point he made. He said that our ability to influence bigger countries depends on our good behaviour. I spent 15 years in the European Parliament, and watched and participated in some of the debates on trade deals. The only thing that matters is proper scientific measurement, rules and regulations that can be enforced. Good behaviour counts for virtually nothing. That is my view.