Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I thank Ms Donnelly for that answer in respect of data centres. Examples of where we may need them in certain instances were mentioned. It struck me that the managed roll-out is quite different to what we are seeing at the moment in terms of policy. That is a very significant increase. We have gone to 21% consumption. It does seem the current roll-out strategy is outpacing the renewable energy. Ms Donnelly mentioned data centres having their own corporate supply. In terms of managing the roll-out, is it not also around ensuring we stabilise the supply of renewable energy for us as a State and for the other functions and purposes we need? Part of managing that is getting to a point where we have renewable energy coming on stream sufficiently for the grid and for the many other purposes, rather than solely asking can they get enough because they are the biggest customers. They will often be able to access in ways others cannot. Is managing part of that?

This relates a little bit to renewables. What about the role of the State as an actor in this space? We know, for example, other countries have state-owned and run data centres. So, we would not have questions like whether a commercial data centre might have Garda Síochána information on it. I am quite concerned by that for different reasons. That does allow data that is crucial for the functions of the State to be stabilised and to ensure we know where it is stored so it is not lost in the space of commercial actors. The witnesses talked a lot about incentivising investment in the renewable area and in offshore. Is there a role for State-led renewable energy initiatives, rather than simply incentivising commercial investment because we know that is what other countries have done and it can deliver.

Regarding land use, 7% of the land is owned by the State and Coillte. We talk a lot about those targets. Would it be strategic, out of the box, proper thinking to use that 7% of the land we own not all for forestry, because much of it is peat land and not appropriate, and for the State to lead by ensuring it is all delivering for either our climate targets or our nature restoration obligations? Maybe that would be an early action that could be taken.

We did not quite go into peat land rewetting. I note the witnesses stated that in all land-use scenarios they are assuming ambitious levels of rewetting, nature restoration and improved management of soils. Unfortunately, I do not know that all of the policy scenarios we are seeing from Government deliver that. So, could they clarify how crucial rewetting and the restoration of peat land is? It is in all of their scenarios. Otherwise, we would be in a worse situation.

On climate justice, which is crucial, I am concerned and not just around the Paris test. In the report the council says if it had considered the moral considerations of what would be a fair and just contribution from Ireland to global emission reductions, with regard to national carbon budgets, that would have led to more stringent carbon budgets. Surely we should be doing that. That is what is consistent with the Paris Agreement. It is not about focusing just on where we will be in 2050. It is what happens in all the years before that, in our collective, global space that is available in terms of emissions. I am wondering why not have a component of fair-share. Maybe we could get copies of what it would look like if we were morally delivering our targets. That is crucial and it seems to be something that was a choice to leave that out and focus on that single end point on where are we in 2050 and whether we have achieved temperature neutrality. Can I ask if the US, and its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, was factored in, including relating to LNG which may be coming from the US and which may not be measured?