Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests. I am joining remotely. It has been an interesting discussion. I got a sense in the letter we received from our guests about how Ireland's targets and the need for it to achieve its goals fits into the wider picture. Concerns have been expressed about whether or not we are on track to achieve the emissions reductions required by our carbon budgets and under the Act, in particular section 4(6) of the Act, and in respect of our obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. There is a question of common and differentiated responsibilities and the fair share question. It seems there is a real concern. We know Ireland is not yet contributing its fair share of the funding under the sustainable development goals, SDGs, that we are meant to be giving to the countries impacted by climate change. More relevant to the energy and emissions piece is that there is a danger we are using up some of the last remaining space for emissions when much of the world is not at the same stage of development as us. We are giving a big arc of time to industry to allow it to turn when parts of the world do not have basic infrastructure. They need to be using whatever space is left to get their infrastructure to a basic point whereby they can have a sustainable society. I ask for a comment on the question of a fair share and where we fit in. That is important.

I was struck by what Dr. Hough said about public participation. Perhaps she could comment on the following. We sometimes listen to industry lobbyists a lot and yet the public participation space for things such as planning is seen as something that needs to be constrained. I am talking about just transition. As I understand it, just transition is the idea that we look to communities and to the public to discuss what a new future might look like. It seems instead to sometimes become a discussion around how sectors can retain their profitability. That conversation seems to be at the top and the conversation on climate action around planning and the things that involve individual members of the public seems to be the space that is getting squeezed. Some people are going to be unhappy, but we need to consider who is unhappy and who is squeezed. There is a difference there in terms of the choices we need to make.

I have a few other questions and I am sure some of them have been touched on. I have a concern on a European scale about where we fit in with military emissions. We are seeing a narrative about an escalation in militarisation. We know through figures from the Conflict and Environment Observatory and Scientists for Global Responsibility that the total military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions, or that was the case a couple of years ago. We are seeing a drive towards military emissions, which are not always counted or reflected in countries' strategies.

Especially at a European level, this military emissions aspect is one that may now give Ireland, as a country with a history of disarmament, environmental reasons to seek a pullback on some of this military drive as part of our responsibilities in Europe.

Lastly, I ask the witnesses to comment on an issue we have discussed a lot in this committee. I refer to data centres and things like this. These are things that are getting accepted as demand drivers and much of the focus is still around energy supply, with a little bit of focus on the public choices space. Regarding the major energy users, these demand drivers, in terms of losing time-----