Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to follow up on some of the concerns raised by the experts who have been spoken about: Professor McMullin, Professor Sweeney and Dr. Jackson. I am also raising a couple of concerns I would have highlighted to the Minister back when we were setting the carbon budgets. I am worried we are seeing dilution and further dilution in ambition at each point.

The Minister mentioned following the UN process and following the programme for Government. The UN Environment Programme had said that an average of 7.6% would be needed to stay within 1.5°C or to achieve our targets, those ultimate objectives that are meant to underpin our legislation.

It had indicated 7.6% whereas the programme for Government had indicated 7% per annum. Again, the latter was already less than what the UN had sought. We know from the analysis of the carbon budgets that it amounts to a reduction of 6% per annum. Therefore, the reduction in the carbon budgets is already less than that in the programme for Government. In that context, we need to look to the legislation and ask whether, even within the limited measures, we are fulfilling the obligations in the legislation. Concerns were raised that the Minister seems to have addressed. I hope the table on sectoral emissions ceilings in tonnage that has been given to the committee will be publicly available. Will the Minister confirm the EPA will be reporting in terms of the tonnages? As the sectoral ceilings become legally binding, will there be a review to ensure the EPA’s analysis captures and accurately measures all forms of emissions in terms of tonnage?

We are now into this discussion on tonnages. On tonnages, we have two problems. On the period 2021 to 2025, LULUCF is down as undetermined, but the space within the budget is just 20 megatonnes. Will the Minister confirm whether 20 megatonnes is the ceiling in terms of LULUCF? In that context, even though we may get excellent information from the land use review, we know that many of the things that need to be done will take one, two or three years, meaning some of them need to be started now. For example, peatlands rewetting may deliver some dividends within a three-year period. It would need to start now to make any contribution by 2025. We know that planting trees will result in carbon storage after 2030 and will therefore not be relevant to either of the two budgets in question. In that context, there is a concern.

With regard to the 2026-2030 window, there is a serious problem. It looks like there will not be compliance with the legislation whereby we have plans for 213 megatonnes of emissions even though the budget relates to 200 megatonnes. The idea of unallocated savings is not consistent. The sectoral emissions must be within the carbon budgets. That is very clear in the text of the legislation. Those sectoral omissions need to be revised.

The Minister mentioned Brexit, Covid and the war in Ukraine. The reality is we will face unexpected challenges consistently. Surely, therefore, we should be aiming to have the sectoral emissions allowed for by the legislation come in lower than those related to the carbon budgets so we have a space that allows us to address unforeseen circumstances that may require an increase in emissions temporarily. We should be looking towards that rather than towards exceeding the budget figure and saying we will figure out how to make the saving later.

The 7.6% we mentioned, the figure of the UN Environment Programme, related entirely to emissions reductions the UN was looking for. It would be much higher if savings or potential technologies were included. Therefore, there is no scope for including these technologies downstream in these budgets. Will the Minister address those specific concerns?