Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

In terms of the further adjustment to the budgetary allocations, every sector could potentially play a part in that. However, it does require us to complete the land-use review because that will give us a better idea of the quantum in that particular sector and then we will have a better idea of what is potentially required elsewhere. The approach we have taken is better. Rather than just pretending we have the answer for that and allocating on a non-scientific basis, it was appropriate to follow the science and to complete the land-use review to discern what will be required.

In terms of other measures, the process whereby the climate action plan is reviewed and amended each year is appropriate, as this summer shows. Even since the agreement on the sectoral ceilings we have seen what has happened, with energy prices on the European markets, particularly gas, going up by some 50% in the last week of July and first two or three weeks of August. Prices then dropped but went back up again. That will have very significant implications for emissions in the energy sector, to take one example. It is likely to accelerate some of the measures that we had already considered. Therefore, it is better to have this iterative planning process.

In no sector is there an easy option that is being held back in reserve. To be honest, the ceilings are appropriate for each sector but they are testing the limit of what each sector can do in a practical way. There is not any easy allocation, or certainly not without an incredibly challenging political commitment to further change. It is a really challenging approach that we must follow in order to meet these targets but they are achievable. They require political commitment as much as anything else, particularly focusing on real delivery.

On land use, I remember this committee in the previous Oireachtas had analysis done on the potential for land-use emissions reductions. It was very interesting to note the variation in what was deemed possible, particularly with the re-wetting of bogs and the management of wetlands. The variation was somewhere between 5 million and 10 million tonnes. We had a presentation which showed that we could get up to 11 million tonnes from re-wetting of bogs, stopping the ongoing release of carbon from that source. That is why the land-use review is key, to give real certainty on the potential in that area. What we have learned since that time regarding the implementation of measures on wetlands will give us a much more scientific assessment of how the first tranche of re-wetting of bogs and drained land went and whether it is working. That scientific review will tell us what is possible.

Regarding the EU system, Deputy Bruton is right to say the EU approach is also changing. It is very important to remember in the context of our sectoral emissions ceilings and the whole climate action plan system that we are doing it separate from the European accounting system. Ours is based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. It very much mirrors the scale of ambition. We are doing it on the basis of the programme for Government commitment to a 7% per annum reduction, roughly. That is now akin to what we will be required to do under the European Fit for 55 package. They are doing it on a European accounting system that has certain differences vis-à-visthe UN accounting system that we will apply, although even that system continues to evolve. For example, the Emissions Trading System, ETS, is now likely to incorporate transport and the built environment within the trading sectors. It will be a slightly separate emissions trading scheme but it will be carried out in a similar way.

Our work on our sectoral emissions ceilings helps us in the development of our next national energy climate action plan which is due the year after next, in 2024.

Much of what we are doing here will, in effect, make up the presentation of that plan to the European Union. That European plan has to add up to what Europe is committing to in the UNFCCC process. We are still connected to the UN in both strands but the European one is on an effort-sharing basis where all the elements add up. I do not think anything we are doing contradicts what European legislation will require us to do but our approach is based on a 2018 baseline, due to the new Government in 2020 and those 2018 figures being the most recent, and on the UNFCCC accounting system and climate law, which is separate and apart from the European Fit for 55 legislation. One does not contradict or hinder the other in any way.

With regard to the circular economy, I absolutely agree with the Deputy on the key political point that we will not achieve the objectives if this a blame game and is about finger-pointing. It has to be part of moving towards a better system. In the context of this recent wartime emergency, we can see the effect of a reliance not just on gas but also on other fossil fuels and fertilisers - the use of AdBlue in our haulage industry for example - in so many different sectors. Even in respect of animal feed, we can see the risks this country is under because of an over-reliance on imported raw materials. The more we move towards a sense of a positive agenda, and reduce that import dependency and financial risk, the better. The circular economy is a perfect example of that because at its core it is promoting efficiency. Designing systems so they are less wasteful is not just good for the environment; it means a better economy. It is where the world and new technological innovation is going and where we will benefit from reduced pollution as well as reduced emissions.

We do not have a specific sectoral allocation for the circular economy because, as the Deputy said, it tends to be across so many different areas. What we can look at, however, and will consider based on what the Deputy said, is the provision of a chapter within the climate action plan to incorporate what we are doing in the circular economy because it has a big influence and, potentially, a very significant impact. We should include it in our climate action plan and not ignore it, but it will not be contained within the particular sectoral emissions ceilings we are setting out here.