Ms Marie Donnelly:

We spent a considerable time looking at the timing and the balance of the budgets that we have come out with. I should highlight how supportive was the analysis and research done by MaREI in University College Cork, UCC, the University of Limerick and Teagasc. University College Dublin, UCD, Trinity College Dublin, TCD, and Maynooth University also assisted us on the analysis side and the modelling of scenarios that we looked at as part of this process without which we would not have been able to come up with the numbers. I underline how important that was.

A model is a machine with information in and information out. The model was constrained on the energy side to limit the expenditure to no more than €2,000 per tonne for the removal of CO2 after which the model basically crashed. Our graph shows that by front-loading expenditure on the energy side at an early stage, we would exceed €2,000 per tonne because it would mean we would need to spend very large amounts of funding now to try to achieve that, some of which would not be feasible.

I mentioned one at the beginning. Offshore wind will deliver a very substantial reduction in emissions in our electricity system. We are still in the process of adopting the legislation that will allow the construction of offshore wind farms. It is not even a question of money or will; we cannot advance that faster than the legislation, the processes coming from the legislation, the actual purchase of the materials, the ships, the people, the skills and the actual construction of the wind turbines in the offshore sites. When all of that is added up there is a certain period of time below which it is not possible to compress all those steps. When we looked at that, we determined that it would not be feasible to get emission reductions from offshore wind in the first budget. They come with quite a big bang. We missed that in the first period and as a consequence we needed to take account of the fact that we would not be able to get it.

The same applies to some of the other numbers and policies. For example, electrification of vehicles in the passenger fleet is a gradual process, which is accelerating. We are now finding that the purchase of electric vehicles is doubling every year, albeit from a very low base. Short of actually taking fossil fuel cars off the road and funding at a very expensive rate the purchase of electric vehicles across the board, it would be hard to accelerate that.

We went through each of the areas to see what was achievable in not necessarily a cost-effective way but a realistic way in the period. Having done that we found that we would be setting an impossible and unachievable target if we had gone for a higher rate of reduction in the first five-year period. It becomes a disincentive if people cannot meet the targets and they end up throwing their hands up in the air saying that it is not achievable. The council debated this matter at great length. We looked at many models and scenarios, permutations and combinations of what could be done to bring forward some of the emission reductions. That led us to the proposal we have made, including the timing and balance of the two budget periods.

In agriculture we looked at all the research initiatives that Teagasc has prepared. It has done the calculations as we have shown in our technical report. If we want to go further faster, we need to directly relate the emission reductions to reductions in activity levels. That is a nice way of saying reducing the amount of methane emitted, which means reducing the number of bovine animals in the country. That is an area that potentially might need to be dealt with. It may well need to be a Government policy in due course. Certainly, as a first step we need to prevent increasing our emissions of methane; that is for sure. The rate at which we ultimately address the management of methane emissions will be a key issue for Government policy, agricultural policy, food policy and ultimately just transition. We are talking about people's livelihoods and their incomes. Decisions of that nature cannot be made at the stroke of a pen.

The 30% methane reduction that Ireland signed up to as part of COP is a global target. I looked at the US paper supporting its signing of that. The word "cow" does not appear in that paper. It is perhaps in a slightly different position from Ireland in that, of course, it has considerable fossil fuel extraction. It is looking at mitigating methane release from the exploration and extraction of fossil fuels as a primary targeted area for action. It also has a much poorer performance on waste, for example, than we would have here or in many parts of Europe. The United States has not actually considered animal numbers as its contribution to that. It is something we will need to look at but it is part of an overarching policy that will need to be developed.

The sectoral ranges the Senator mentioned are decisions that the Government will make. We, the council, do not determine the sectoral targets or the sectoral ceilings. Those are for the Government to determine. Of course, once the Government has determined what they are, we have a role in monitoring the achievement of those sectoral targets on an annual basis. We will do that as part of our annual review starting from next year and we hope these ceilings are in place by then.

We looked at forward-counting, which is a suggestion and not something that must be followed. It is a way of trying to encourage people to get the kind of planting in place that is essential. Our policy in this space needs to be revisited. It has not worked in recent years and we need to revisit the policy to ensure that it will work and be effective.

The Senator is right about investment. Perhaps the most important message coming from the budgets is that we must front-load investment. It is expensive but we need to do it. She is right in saying that we need to use the European Green Deal funds coming from Europe. We need to use the possibilities that are available today using our own resources and potentially even borrowing if we can get it at a very attractive rate. We need infrastructure investment in electricity generation. We need infrastructure investment in transport both for demand reduction and to support the charging points for electric vehicles. We need considerable investment in our buildings. We will need investment in agriculture. On heating, the infrastructure investment in district heating is urgent and needed now to get the benefit in the second period. The real message we are trying to get across alongside the balance of the budget is the investment needs to take place now. The balance of investment should be high in the first part and a bit lower in the second part. The emission reductions will be lower in the first part but will be higher in the second part if we get the investment made in the first period.