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

I have the highest regard for Professors McMullin and Sweeney and Mr. Jackson and, obviously, I have read any letter of concern that they have with real attention. We will respond this week. I hope we can allay some of their concerns though perhaps not all. They may form a different view. Certainly, we can allay one of their concerns as to where the budgets were set out for 2025, which in the initial press release could be read in a way that was not clear. It is clear we are allocating the first budgets to 2025 and that the allocation within each of the sectors is agreed.

I do not know whether Deputy Smith missed the opening question and answer session with Deputy Whitmore but, as I said, the reasoning was very much scientific in that we received new information in late spring or early summer that showed a significant deterioration in the emissions from the land-use sector projected to the end of the decade and a reassessment of what the baseline emissions from land use were back in 2018. That is primarily related, as I understand, to a reassessment of the emissions from upland, peaty soils where afforestation had led to a much higher source of emissions from that land. The life cycle and clear-felling characteristics of our forest stock were also some of the reasons for that deterioration.

Rather than allocating blind, as it were, with regard to land use or the balancing amount in other sectors, it was better to use the land-use review that we are carrying out to assess what can be done because it is designed to find out how we optimise storage of carbon in our soils and land and the direction we take in re-wetting of soils, new forestation systems, grassland management and so on. It is more accurate and appropriate to do that. We recognised that in the programme for Government and acknowledged that, such is the scale of the challenge, we might have to do it in a evolving way as science and technology evolve in the course of this decade.

We will write back to, I hope, answer their concerns. They may take a different view and that is their right, but the critical thing we need to do now is concentrate on the delivery where we have clear targets and a budget for this first half of the decade. One could get into a long-term row over the what scientific approach is to managing the uncertainty of higher emissions from land use and the implications for each sector, but my focus will be on how we deliver the immediate reductions we need in transport, agriculture, built environment, energy and so on.

That is also where our political focus should be because that is the biggest challenge. It is not easy. We are seeing when we look to change policy or implement new measures that involve emissions reductions that we do not necessarily have an easy path and, in many instances, there is considerable public opposition to some of the measures we might seek to make. My focus is on that. The legislation and the allocation of these sectoral ceilings give us a certain strength and ability to do that.

With my officials - I will put on my energy hat now - I regularly say that if we do not step up here, we will be exposed, because this legislation requires us to act. We know our sectoral emissions ceilings and they are justiciable. The existing legislation is in place and intact with the sectoral emissions ceilings in place. One could spend the whole time arguing on that scientific approach, or not, as some might argue on the LULUCF, and the unallocated savings, but our focus is on emissions reductions we have to do. The other issue will be worked out as we complete the land-use review and reallocate as soon as we can.