Professor John Sweeney:

I think there is a risk here that we are mixing up efficiency with emissions. There is a great deal of emphasis on efficiency in agriculture, and while I welcome that and think it is a very important thing to progress, the atmosphere does not recognise efficiency in any way. What matters is the absolute emissions. Yes, we can tinker around with 50,000 tonnes a year here and there, but agricultural emissions are 19 million tonnes per year, so something more radical is required than some of the schemes we have been hearing about. It is the disruption of the existing agricultural model that is required ultimately. That is where I think we have to face facts here. We are not going to solve this problem by tinkering with it. We have 1 million extra cattle on the land in the past three years. That is 1 million extra mouths to feed. No wonder we have a fodder crisis.

To go back to Deputy Dooley's comments, no one is talking about culling the herd by half. We are talking about a sustainable agricultural system where emissions are brought down. At the moment, Teagasc is estimating that agricultural emissions will rise to at least 2025 and beyond. That will put the burden on the taxpayer. That will put the burden not just on the rural community but on the general taxpayer. We should not mix up the agricultural community with the whole community because the Citizens' Assembly was representative of the whole community and its outcome was 89% in favour of there being a tax on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. There is no way that we should allow a sector to have a free pass. We should reward those farmers who take the initiative and try to prepare themselves for the future in terms of land use change. I am very supportive of farmers. We have the best farmers in Europe but we cannot allow one sector simply to derail the whole national economy for the future in terms of this vital strategic interest.