Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have some questions based on what has come before. I only find one thing more confusing than scientists talking about science and that is lawyers talking about law. In that comparative context, I am coming at this matter purely from the perspective of someone who is a farmer and who represents farmers. It is the livelihoods of farmers that we are talking about, ultimately, regardless of the language we are using. What needs to be done here is to get to a solution that can maintain the livelihoods of farmers while addressing this issue. I am not a denier of climate change. We must get to the bottom of this issue in layman's terms for those out there who are watching with bated breath because this topic concerns their livelihoods. This is what we are, ultimately, talking about.

I will ask my questions and then the witnesses can answer. Time is limited. I will start with Dr. Mitloehner. Based on his experience of what he has seen in Ireland, how comparable is our situation with what has been done in California? Is it comparable? Would that approach be workable here? Are some of those solutions perhaps dependent on geography or based on the local climate? If he was starting with a blank page in Ireland as opposed to where he is, what would he recommend and how would he see this process working? I ask this because the reductions he spoke about are massive and this is the way to go. In his answer, he might again refer to some more of the emerging technologies that may not have hit these shores yet, that might become available to us or that might even turn out to be more advantageous in an Irish context than where Dr. Mitloehner is based and in other parts of the world.

I ask all the witnesses to comment on something I read some time ago. It was a statement by Professor Alice Stanton. We are talking here about the knee-jerk reaction and the narrative is herd reduction. We are talking about reducing meat and dairy production. We are all aware of the extraordinary health benefits of those products. I refer to protein, iron, zinc and the B vitamins, especially B12. Professor Stanton said that if we were to sit down and to do an analysis of the substitutes and alternatives being proposed for these high-quality food products, it would be found that the carbon footprint for the nutrient-equivalent amount of food would be higher. Has anybody done this research? Based on that perspective, will we be explaining to our children, grandchildren and future generations who look back to where we are now and are wondering about the fact that while we were in an alarming situation and did our best possible to address it, that we did everything wrong and left those future generations in a worse situation through diet, health and the lack of the desired impact when it came to global warming? Based on what I heard this morning about the natural cycle, as it was explained and as best I could comprehend it, is there potential to do, or has anybody already undertaken, a mathematical or scientific experiment concerning global warming and temperature control and what would be the carbon footprint of the alternatives if we were to go with the knee-jerk reaction of reducing the herd?