Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

With regard to the carbon credit, the opening statement cited the famous 37.5% of emissions for which agriculture is accountable. I understand the answer that was given to the Chair regarding how the agricultural sector will get some credit. Before I say any more, I will state that I am pro anaerobic digestion. I just want to tease out a few issues. If all the credit goes to the transport and energy sectors, our 37.5% will not change and more pressure will be put on the sector to reduce production in other areas. Mr. Caslin stated the figure that will be credited to the agriculture sector is calculated through the reduction of chemical fertilisers and also livestock and cattle displacement because of land use change.

I am playing devil's advocate here. Where in this debate do we meet the line of food security if we have the target of 5.7 TWh and our forestry targets? As the Chairman correctly said, we are not making any more land. When and where are we are going to come to the line where the debate has to be about food security? If our solutions always seem to be a reduction or a change of land use, which is to non-food producing and reduction in numbers and output, that debate cannot be too far away. From the witnesses' perspective, how far away is that or how do we square the circle and achieve both goals of being food secure and meeting our energy targets?

I have a final question for Mr. Caslin on digestate. Excuse my ignorance but I always imagined that product as being in dry, granular form.

Mr. Caslin said it is 90% water and needs to be injected back into the land. Is there any other use for that other than going back into the land? Would it be difficult to dry and process it so that it could go out in granular form? Is that even a runner?