Mr. Eoin Moran:

I completely agree with what has been said here. I note that this is in line with the approach of the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. It is about a bottom-up approach. This national dialogue on climate action is meant to engage at a local, regional and community level to ensure that the kind of transformation agenda that will be essential over the coming decades is implemented in a very effective way. That is a key thing.

I want to very quickly touch on a few questions that have been raised. Focus groups are an excellent idea. This is at the heart of the impact-based decision-making approach. Although it may not be visible, we have a serious number of seminars and various conferences with the public on an ongoing basis. During these conferences and seminars we consciously bring in a diverse set of experts from the policy area, the political area and the scientific area. We end up having discussions very similar to the discussion we are having today. Our key communication goal is for the public and for those who are attending to have a real understanding of the weather that can achieve a personal attachment to how climate is changing and how it is expected to change. That is a very powerful message and a very powerful communication goal to achieve. That is the contribution we make. It is a negative way to put it but the line stops at climate information. We have a very significant role to play there. This is part of a structured national climate change communications strategy. It has to be part of that approach.

It is co-ordinated very ably by the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. On the question that Senator Grace O'Sullivan had on the scientific approach we take, that can be described as providing the very best explanation out of the set of all competing explanations. In a loose way, that is a description of how the science of meteorology and climatology works. Largely speaking, it focuses on the consilience of evidence to arrive at the most reasonable explanation, the best competing explanation possible. Broadly speaking, I would not see this as a precautionary principle. It is identifying the most plausible and best explanation. I hope that answers that question.

On communication, again I am repeating myself a little bit. It is analogous to the way that we provide weather forecasts. We do that by having an authoritative voice and a trusted familiar source, and that is greatly enabled by our colleagues in RTÉ. We then provide timely, accurate, actionable information that is understandable so that people can take actions. We do not tell people what actions they should take but we design the information so that it will actually provoke the action and then lead to the best societal outcomes. That is analogous to how we are moving towards communicating climate change. We are working on providing the most relevant, salient, understandable climate information to support the wider climate action agenda. That is again, quite rightly and ably, being co-ordinated and driven by the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. I hope that I have answered all of those questions.