Ms Marie Donnelly:

On feasibility, one of the things I will point to is that, as Ms Gallagher has pointed out, the modelling exercise included more than 1,000 scenarios. We reduced these to 15 in the end. Some of the provisions we applied related to temperature and feasibility. To achieve some of the scenarios would have meant a very great burden on forestry, agriculture or energy. This is where elements of feasibility and cost came into consideration, allowing us to narrow down the scenarios that would deliver the temperature outcome. One of the points included in that, which is very important to point out here, was fairness. We are delivering a pathway that allows Ireland to no longer contribute to global warming. This will require an emissions reduction of approximately 67% by 2040. The Senator has already pointed to the fact that we are not on track for that. We will need a considerable increase in effort, time and investment to bring us back on track for the 2030 and 2040 targets if we are to deliver a 67% reduction in emissions by that time. As to why CB3 was changed, I will ask Ms Gallagher to give us the technical reason for that. The US exit had been discussed but not yet decided upon by the time we signed off on our recommendation. Our recommendation was signed off around about the time the election took place in the United States. There was a likelihood the US would pull out but it was not yet certain. Perhaps Ms Gallagher will explain why CB3 changed.