Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

It looks like we are into the additional-measures space in terms of the carbon budgets. The ultimate objective, our key goal, is to keep the global average temperature rise below 1.5°C or 2°C. We know the world is very close to a rise of 1.5°C, 0.5°C of which is attributable to methane. Why is methane significant? It has a shorter lifespan but a quicker impact. However, this means that if we really want to keep global temperatures from reaching the tipping point, we should note that earlier action has an earlier impact. Some of what we are doing to lower what is responsible for the rest of the rise will take decades to take effect. With methane, and thinking of it as an acknowledged climate forcer, we are constantly renewing the 0.5°C push.

Given the increase in dairy, and beyond the previous modellings and the various pilots schemes, examples and rewetting, what are the big-ticket measures that could be adopted to reduce methane? The peatlands are as significant here as other elements. It is not solely about dairy and cattle farming. When we see the world teetering at 1.5°C and going towards 2°C, what can be done?

My next point relates very much to Teagasc and those who play a role on the climate council. I am referring to the common but differentiated responsibilities. This matter is key. Reference was made to opportunities for profit, but the whole point is that countries that have profited for a long time have done so at the expense of other countries. Small farmers in the global south are seeing failing crops year after year and livestock dead on the ground. We are already seeing the most blunt impacts of climate change destroying livelihoods of small farmers across the world. Does the common but differentiated responsibility aspect kick in especially in this sector?