Mr. Bill Callanan:

I will ask Mr. Crammond to talk a little about methane. The Deputy is dead right; it is important. Methane has a much higher impact, but it is internationally recognised that it does not need to get to zero with regard to reducing its climate impact. As a result, we must differentiate between methane that is biogenic, which comes from livestock, versus that which comes from fugitive fossil fuels and waste. In the context of its strategy on methane, the EU has identified a need to halve emissions in this regard. That is predominantly around fugitive gas emissions from natural gas, etc., and the waste sector. There is a commitment in its impact assessment document to reduce biogenic methane emissions. It is identified on page 112 of that document that a 10% reduction at European level is expected in the context of non-CO2 agricultural emissions. That is what the EU is looking at. We must look at methane, but we also have to disaggregate the sources of methane. Their impact on the environment is no different; I want to be clear on that, Certainly, the focus of the significant reductions must be understood. In terms of the trajectory, the EPA recently identified that even to get to the lower end of the range, we are looking at a 30% reduction in methane emissions within agriculture in order to achieve that number. We all agree on the trajectory in terms of methane emissions reductions. The quantum is a different issue.