Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The witnesses' testimonies and debate have been really powerful. On loss and damage, it is important that we do not have a situation in which we are choosing between supporting a loss and damage facility and leading the way. Will the witnesses confirm that by taking the lead, as Denmark has done in taking an individual position and recognising that historic responsibility and committing, we would be supporting debate on a loss and damage facility and helping to push the EU position in a positive way? It is important both to support a loss and damage facility in the negotiations and to take an individual stance.

I was very struck by what Ms Wathuti said about what is happening, which was very powerful. It is a good reality check. We hear a lot about the costs and difficulties associated with climate action and what it does to different business models, about how we have done things and about how difficult it is to change but we have now heard about how the cost of inaction and slow action on climate is far more severe. It is not simply a matter of businesses failing, but of death, loss of life, farming and food security around the world. That is really important. Will the witnesses elaborate on what slowing or delaying climate action means for food security worldwide?

On that loss and damage facility, the loss of lives and livelihoods is understandably at centre stage. However, will the witnesses comment on the cultural and biodiversity loss that is also part of the loss for many countries and on the importance of that being recognised?

There is also the question of trust. How fundamental is emerging with a loss and damage facility to the trust of the more than 100 countries across the world that have been calling for this and that were frustrated at the last Conference of the Parties?

On the question of climate financing, I am struck by the issues of quality and quantity. With regard to quality, what should or could Ireland do to press the EU on the quality of climate financing? I am particularly struck by the idea that we could be asking countries to go into debt for damage we have done, a point that was beautifully made by Deputy Cronin. An approach to some of these issues that is based on debt or loans is wrong. Also mentioned was the danger of public money being used solely to underwrite or incentivise private commercial investment when there is a great public need that is not profitable to meet but that must be met to ensure the maintenance of life and social cohesion across the world. I refer to the importance of public money going to those worst affected through loss and damage and other climate grant financing rather than simply being used to underwrite private investment. In relation to-----