Mr. Paul Price:

On the issue of temperature neutrality and methane, Senator Higgins characterised it very well. Emissions of methane, particularly agricultural methane in Ireland, are sustaining our absolute impact on warming. We are already passing 1.5°C, but as Professor Daly said, if everyone aimed for temperature neutrality, we would end up staying over 1.5°C. Stabilising at that, if that is what temperature neutrality is, would be a problem. There is a confusion that I am afraid the CCAC has not helped. It has equated this idea of reaching climate neutrality by 2050 with temperature stabilisation as though its scenarios are doing that. Temperatures are reaching above this point and not going down again. In the CCAC's actual 15 short-listed scenarios, however, that is not what happens. All of its 15 scenarios peak and then return. It shaves off the peak, which requires the serious fossil fuel reductions to which Professor Daly referred. We have to do all of that, but we also have to cut agricultural methane, which is a huge lever. All of the CCAC's 15 scenarios cut methane by a serious amount - 28% - by 2040. That is not as fast as Professor Daly said was required. Rather, it should be faster. The CCAC's initial scenarios in 2021 were doing that, so in a way it has gone back from that. There is a disconnect between the CCAC equating climate neutrality by 2050 to temperature stabilisation when, in fact, that is not what its scenarios are doing. All of its scenarios are peak and return. That means they go over 1.5°C of fair share and they head down again. All of the scenarios are peak and return and that is a confusion that is not helped by the way the CCAC phrased things in the proposal.