Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chair. I am glad that Ms O'Neill came back in relation to the science because I was quite concerned. In fact, I was reminded of when Exxon Mobil, a fuel company, took out an advertisement in 2000 in The New York Timestitled, "Unsettled Science", in relation to climate, in terms of calling for us to delay action and that it was soon to act while there were doubts on the science, when we know there were not doubts on the science. It is quite dangerous to be trying to suggest that science is massageable or changing. We have new science coming through all the time but every piece of evolution in the science is pointing to a greater urgency to act. Any suggestion that there is not clarity around the need to act on the rewetting of peatlands is not accurate, does not match the science and is, in fact, dangerous, and I wanted to say that. I am glad that it was said, perhaps more eloquently, by Ms O'Neill. It is important.

It is not solely about science in Ireland, because Ireland does not exist in a bubble. It is also the science that is feeding into the discussions at European level on land use and it is also the science we know internationally. Internationally, peatlands are particular because they are both a danger and a benefit. Drained peatlands amount to 5% of greenhouse gas emissions internationally even though it is only 0.3% of the land, whereas wetted or natural peatlands are a store. One has something which is potentially a benefit and when it is degraded, is a really active danger in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

I will ask my questions in two sections: one around carbon and the other around biodiversity. On the question of carbon, the latest IPCC report, that includes all the science and the science review that goes into that, has highlighted the immediate benefits of conservation of peatlands and wetlands as compared to, for example, afforestation which takes a much longer time to deliver measurable results or, indeed, improvements to degraded soils. In terms of the time urgency, how important is it that we front-load action in relation to peatlands because they are something that deliver much earlier results in terms of our carbon reduction?

As for the questions on trust that were asked earlier, I wanted to contribute on them because to be honest, certain things damage trust when we have cherry-picking. An example I had was when we were being told about the 40,000 tonnes of horticultural peat imported into Ireland, whereas the 1.5 million tonnes that were exported in 18 months previously were not being mentioned. That is an example of previous selectivity that damages trust in engagement.

There is also a trust that the State needs and that we need as legislators, which is that if we develop packages of funding supports that they will work. Yet I heard some of the spokespeople saying there is no guarantee they would support it and in fact, that some may wish to complain if neighbours choose to rewet. I support the idea that we need to get a funding package right but in relation to the voluntarism piece, do we need laws if we want to be sure that we will meet our targets? To be clear, by 2025, there is only 20 megatonnes of space for carbon emissions. Even though the emission reductions have not been set, the space that is left within the carbon budget is 20 megatonnes.

Staying within that, it seems like peatland is something we need to be moving on early and law is needed on that. In terms of the retrofitting example, it is clear that landlords will be required to have energy rates eventually on their properties. That is something that is likely to come down the line. Every sector, for example, construction, will be regulated. That is our job as regulators. Separately, there is the piece around supporting the social and economic transition that accompanies that. To be clear, laws are not an arbitrary voluntary piece. They are something we need to bring in and then we look to ensuring the right financial packets.