Mr. Jerry Mac Evilly:

I thought Professor Sweeney was going quite well. I will just go through a few questions. Senator Daly made the point that oil needed to stay in the ground. Obviously, it does. We need to see more from the companies involved, but ultimately the obligations that are there are on states. As such, the question is how we move beyond that. States need to examine their own investments in fossil fuel companies. This issue of subsidies for fossil fuels also needs to be addressed and we need more incentives for renewable energies. Similarly, fossil fuel companies will have less opportunity to operate where choices for renewable energy are made. It links back in with some of the recommendations Cara made.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, is another big concern for Trócaire. There is a concern that fracking of gas in the United States in combination with the TTIP agreement could lead to an increase in gas exports to the EU and, similarly, to an increase in fossil fuel use. The two other main concerns in regard to the TTIP, without getting too technical, involve first, a dispute mechanism to arbitrate decisions under the TTIP which explicitly excludes states and national judicial systems. There is an element of disenfranchisement there in that states would not have a role in arbitrating on those agreements. Similarly, the TTIP will also impact on the ability of countries to incentivise their own indigenous industries. That is of particular concern in regard to renewables.

I was also asked about the potential for forestry to be used to offset some of our emissions. I know there are already plans to significantly increase forestry in Ireland. It is important to clarify that although such an approach would be worthwhile, it would not be a silver bullet. It would not entirely offset the increases that are going on at the moment. Reductions in emissions across all sectors, including energy, transport, agriculture and housing, would still be required. Reductions would need to take place even with an increase in forestry. Such an increase would be worthwhile nonetheless.

Deputy Eric Byrne asked about the impact on human rights and on food security. Obviously, in the national context we are concerned about Irish exports. We would make the point that Irish meat and dairy products are not providing food security in the developing world because they are aimed at middle-class customers. Regarding the human rights impacts of climate change, I will explain in a little detail why we would see the effects of climate as only being human in nature. Some 2.8 million people in Malawi are currently in need of food. One of the main effects of climate change in the developing world is a reduction in crop yields. This is where the whole food security issue comes into play. We need to consider how we can support small-scale farmers to produce food in a more resilient fashion. I noted quite a long list of human rights protections in the agreement. I will explain why they are important by taking the issue of gender as an example. It is widely shown that women are more likely to bear the brunt of the effects of climate change. It affects their efforts to grow and produce food, for example. Intergenerational equity is also an issue. The point is well made in the encyclical that future generations will bear the brunt of this to a greater extent than current generations.

I will conclude by responding to a couple of other points. I would say the commitment to pursue efforts to limit global temperature increases to 1.5° is the most significant thing in the agreement. It means that the analysis being done by the advisory committee, and the policies coming out of the mitigation plan in the Bill, must be directed towards meeting the goal set out in the Paris agreement. We could point out a variety of shortcomings within the agreement, but we would say it provides a start. I fully support Deputy O'Sullivan's point about the need for some sort of climate gathering to be broadened out throughout the country. The only way to get more buy-in is to ensure communities become more engaged. We would make the same point with regard to the election. While it can be difficult for citizens and candidates to raise the issue of climate change, they can express support for sustainable policies and policies that have co-benefits, such as the retrofitting of houses, which was mentioned by Dr. Augustenborg.