Professor Hannah Daly:

I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to give evidence on the proposed second cycle of carbon budgets. I am speaking in my capacity as professor of sustainable energy at University College Cork, where I lead research on energy transitions and climate policy. I was also a member of the Climate Change Advisory Council's carbon budgets working group and led the energy system modelling scenarios that underpin the council's proposals.

The matters before the committee on the proposed carbon budgets are of great importance. Carbon budgets are the mechanism through which Ireland translates its international climate obligations into binding limits at home. They are our contribution to the Paris Agreement goal of holding global temperature rise to 1.5°C. We are now dangerously close to breaching that threshold, profoundly threatening our security and well-being. Climate safety depends on collective action. To protect ourselves, we need others to cut emissions deeply, and to do so we must show that we are willing to do the same.

Carbon budgets also matter for the sectors that need to transform. They should give clarity and direction to farmers, energy companies, industry and households about the scale, direction and pace of change required. If they are to succeed, they must be transparent, robust and subject to close public scrutiny. People need to see not only what the targets are but why they are set at this level and how they will be delivered in practice. This is the only way they can be understood, trusted and implemented.

First, I will give findings from the energy system scenarios. To support the council's task in preparing a second carbon budget programme, my team in UCC modelled multiple pathways for Ireland's energy system to 2050 under different carbon budgets. These scenarios present pathways for urgently ending our dependence on fossil fuels, which now supply more than 80% of our energy and leave us profoundly vulnerable. This dependence costs households, businesses and the State billions every year. During the recent energy crisis, fossil fuel imports drove inflation and energy poverty and required €1 billion in emergency energy credits just in 2024.

By contrast, the alternatives are available and are more affordable and viable than ever. The sustainable energy transition entails the following five actions. First are wind and solar - renewable electricity is the backbone of the transition - supported by electricity storage and a strengthened grid. Second is electrifying transport, ending sales of fossil cars, vans and trucks and accelerating EV adoption. We have no carbon budget left for new fossil-fuel cars. Third is reducing unnecessary car use through compact development, public transport and active travel. Fourth are retrofitting and clean heat by rolling out heat pumps and district heating. Fifth is decarbonising industry, shifting away from oil and gas to efficiency, electrification and, in some cases, biogas.

These solutions, driven by renewables, electrification and efficiency, are not speculative technologies for the future; they are proven, scalable and already being deployed around the world. The main barriers are political will, institutional capacity and time, not technology and not costs.

Our modelling confirms that moving faster on all of these fronts is less costly than sticking with current policies. Delayed action costs more. It means locking in fossil infrastructure, higher compliance costs, and greater reliance on risky carbon removals. Cutting fossil fuels now can reduce costs, strengthen energy security and bring major benefits for health, equity and prosperity.

I will move to the question of climate neutrality and methane. I wish to address the council’s choice to interpret Ireland’s statutory obligations to align carbon budgets with climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest and with our obligations under the Paris Agreement as “temperature neutrality”, meaning no additional warming by 2050. I supplement this statement with a detailed briefing report on the matter, led by my colleague Dr. Róisín Moriarty. “Temperature neutrality” diverges from international norms, including, crucially, the EU’s definition of climate neutrality as net-zero greenhouse gases by 2050. There are several problems with the approach. First, is scientific inadequacy. Under temperature neutrality, methane emissions could continue to remain at very high levels, continuing to cause substantial warming, and yet be treated as climate neutral. This ignores robust scientific evidence that shows that cutting methane emissions strongly is one of the strongest and most immediate levers we have for slowing temperature rise in the next decade or two. The Paris Agreement requires us to pursue the highest possible ambition, grounded in equity and fairness. That means methane emissions must decline sharply – at least 30% by 2030 in line with the global methane pledge - and more deeply thereafter.

Second, temperature neutrality can cause perverse outcomes, such as an apparent cooling from reducing methane, which is treated as equivalent to carbon dioxide removal, even though emissions remain high. Scholars have shown that this approach embeds grandfathering of emissions entitlements. This rewards high emitters, is deeply unfair, and runs against the principle of climate justice within the Paris Agreement. Recent analysis also warns that the method underpinning temperature neutrality is unstable and ill-suited for national carbon budgeting.

Third is setting a precedent. Ireland’s per capitamethane emissions are already among the highest in the world due to our large ruminant livestock sector. If we adopt a weaker definition of climate neutrality, we not only lock in an inequitable share of warming for ourselves but also set a precedent for others to follow, a dangerous signal at this critical juncture. Earlier this year I joined more than 20 climate scientists, including some of the world’s most eminent, in an open letter to New Zealand’s Prime Minister warning against a similar plan to adopt temperature neutrality for methane.

Moreover, even for CO2, temperature neutrality is insufficient. The world is now overshooting 1.5°C, but the Paris Agreement obliges us not to give up. In effect, adopting temperature neutrality means either giving up on the Paris Agreement’s central goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, or else requiring other countries to do more to compensate. For these reasons, I recommend the committee rejects temperature neutrality as a basis for carbon budgets and adopts budgets that are aligned not only with our obligations under the EU but also with those under the Paris Agreement and so on. I also urge the committee to recommend an immediate acceleration in action across energy, efficiency, land and agriculture. We cannot wait until the 2030s.