Mr. Greg Muttitt:

I thank Mr. Scheer for that clarification and the helpful data published by the SEAI.

Deputy Ryan referred to the IEA. I read the presentation to the committee two weeks ago by Mr. Gould from that agency and the transcript of the following discussion. Mr. Gould presented two scenarios to the committee. The "new policy" scenario is the main focus of the IEA. It is a form of business-as-usual scenario which would lead to warming of approximately 3° Celsius and is extremely dangerous in terms of climate change. The IEA has also published a sustainable development scenario, to which Mr. Gould referred.

Let us start there. The IEA argues that the natural decline rate for oil and gas fields, as pressures reduce and reserves become depleted, is between 4% and 7% per year and it varies according to the economics of the industry. A fortnight ago, Mr. Gould argued, and the IEA has argued previously, that that is a faster rate of change than they foresee in the energy system and hence we still need new investment to make up for the decline. The way the IEA argues that that is a faster rate of change is by reference to its sustainable development scenario that sees a 1% reduction in oil per year and an increase in gas consumption after 2040. I have a problem with that because its sustainable development scenario is not aligned with the goals stipulated in the Paris Agreement. The IEA's scenario is based on one it developed in 2009, following the Copenhagen Summit, and aimed for a 50% chance of staying below 2°C. That aim does not align with the Paris goals of staying well below 2°C and aiming for 1.5°C. The IEA still uses a Copenhagen-era climate scenario.