Professor Michael Morris:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the invitation to contribute to this important discussion. I am the director of the AMBER research centre, which focuses on material science. I will not stress that further, given the fulsome introduction. As well as being the academic lead for the centre, much of my work centres on sustainability and the circular economy, and measurement in particular. I work with the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, and the European Committee for Standardization, CEN, which are the global and European standards agencies, through the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, in developing standards in the fields of circular economy and sustainability. I also work with the European advanced materials 2030 initiative on the role of materials in developing net zero.

The background to the proposal does not give us much to do other that tacitly agree with the tenets of the proposal, if not its detail. A stark fact is that energy emissions in Ireland increased by 17.6% in 2022 compared with the previous year, largely due to an increase in coal use and a decrease in renewable energy for direct electricity generation. There are distinct issues with the current proposal that have to be addressed. The first is the focus on manufacturing, which becomes somewhat diluted and unclear as the proposal develops across multiple issues. Many of the challenges of the core technologies are underestimated. We believe the specific challenges should be prioritised in terms of the readiness of manufacturing and the material shortages that might evolve. The quickest and most extensive contribution to emissions and reductions does not seem to be accounted for and the proposal lacks detail in respect of the development of industry opportunities around material components and product manufacturers. An independent assessment of the technologies should be seen as an important parallel activity.

Pillars 1 and 2 of the Act kind of focus on carbon dioxide and emissions storage, which is devolved somewhat from the rest of the focus of the Act in terms of renewable energy production. We recognise that CO2 sequestration and storage is important across a range of industries and the proposal calls them out. It is a vital consideration for climate change but it is a very different field. It is immature and expensive and the barriers so significant that it should be addressed separate from the Act. In the near term, it does not offer the solution to direct energy emissions and is unlikely to make fossil fuel and other technologies unsustainable.

As regards pillar 4 and the need for an enhanced workforce, we welcome the recognition that a new highly trained and educated workforce is needed but have reservations in respect of the required education and training being carried out through the as yet poorly detailed net zero academy. A focus on delivering training from current suppliers should be prioritised. Pillar 5 is of direct relevance to research providers such as ourselves in Ireland and Europe. Many of the proposed technologies are very early stage low technology readiness level, TRL, and practical solutions at demonstration and even laboratory levels are lacking. How might research priorities be identified and how might they interface with the net zero academies? We need much closer links to innovation actions, policies and funding in this space.

There are barriers to this policy. Many of the critical raw materials are from outside the EU and there are supply chain challenges in terms of existing channels for integrated circuits and materials including plastics, adhesives, rare earth and other metals, as well as the various components and products. We also foresee issues arising because the downstream effects of those solutions have not been considered within the proposal, particularly in the context of their circularity.

Finally, we welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s discussion, which we hope will be the first of many interactions between the scientific community and legislators, not just on this Act but on policy going forward.