Dr. Orla Kelleher:

To pick up on that point about whether, as Ms O'Neill was mentioning, one could slot the measures from Climate Action Plan 2024 into the NECP, even if one were to model not only existing measures but additional measures, we would still have a big emissions gap to achieve our targets.

We need additional measures that are quantifiable and that close the emissions gap. The elephant in the room with our climate plans is that we still do not have enough quantified measures for the numbers to add up to meeting the target.

To clarify from an EU law perspective, within the NECP and the long-term strategy, it is necessary to show in the NECP how the effort-sharing regulation target will be met, for example. Ireland's target is a 42% reduction by 2030 based on 2005 levels, but that is a minimum target. There is absolutely nothing to stop Ireland from setting a more ambitious target. In fact, Ireland may need to set a more ambitious target if it is not complying with its carbon budget as required. It is likely that we will be carrying forward some of that deficit and our targets will become more onerous. That target will have to be reflected. For example, to clarify, Article 193 of the TFEU allows member states to go further and set more ambitious climate targets or environmental protection measures. The requirement is simply to notify them to the Commission and that they are not inconsistent with the treaties. Ireland can and should be using both the NECP and the long-term strategy to set more ambitious targets. That lined-up thinking is important. Litigation is a risk, certainly, if there is non-compliance, but if we get to that point we have kind of already failed. The opportunity to get it right is now, not after the Government is taken to court.