Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I will come back in again because I am imagining what we can do as a committee and then the question of the budgets. We do have time. This is for 2020 to 2030 and it is important to get it right. Maybe as much as the peer review piece, there are certain key points that are emerging that also need to be reflected in our responsibility to the climate Act. Of course, the climate Act has the ultimate objective as regards the question of temperate and it has Article 2 in terms of the common but differentiated responsibilities. In a way, one of the issues I see with the temperature neutrality approach is that it is only addressing - perhaps in a way that is very unambiguous and I would say concerning and unpredictable - the temperature issue of 1.5°C, even though it does actually name that, just temperature stabilisation, but it is not really addressing the common but differentiated responsibility and the justice piece at all.

Also, when we talk about budgets, what we will be asked to sign off on is literally tonnages of emissions.

If we talk about like with like and the tonnages of emissions that are being proposed, the ultimate goal we are supposed to be thinking of is that we get to a point of net zero greenhouse gas emissions. That is an area where we can see the progress being made, rather than speculation as to what may be happening at an arbitrary point in the future, in terms of 2050 and what the effect might be, again with many unknowns, versus that goal. From the witnesses' perspective, is the consensus that at a minimum, net zero emissions by 2050 should be the point we are getting to and clearly moving towards?

The Danish approach is very interesting as it is net negative. Maybe it is philosophical to take another approach to that goal of a climate-neutral economy. Climate neutral could be zero in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Another way of thinking of neutral is that it is not doing damage and harm to others in an active way. It seems the Danish approach goes that bit further to net negative. It is fulfilling not just the temperature goal piece, but also aiming to deliver the element of the different responsibilities. I wish to be clear on whether it is a general consensus that such an approach on greenhouse gas, either net zero or net negative, would be more consistent and also more effective as a target.

I have two other questions. One is about the danger of things getting taken out of the balance sheet and that matters whether or not we are considering the impact on temperature or measuring whether we are at net zero in emissions, as well as the question of aviation being taken off the table. Military emissions is another area which we know internationally does not seem to be properly measured. Again, some countries will not share the figures at all. Can the witnesses comment on the danger of things that are having a real effect on the environment and warming but are not getting added to the balance sheet anywhere? I seek comments on the military piece and on that private piece that also ties in, that is, the privatisation of energy and the idea of the backup gas generators that many data centres, for example, have currently. The witnesses might comment on the idea of there being emissions separate to the grid and of certain areas of emission not getting captured in what is getting measured. I would appreciate comments on that.

I probably will not have time to ask about the 15 scenarios for which the witnesses have given really good feedback on what the measures should be. Are there also scenarios that should have been modelled that have not been? If we want to do this better and really get it right for 2030 to 2040, are there other scenarios that should be modelled? Maybe among them should be one where we factor in the reality of the United States having left the Paris Agreement and the fact that this might have to increase everybody's ambition?