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

With regard to the new collective quantified goal, Ireland will have a key role in negotiating and representing the EU position in the discussions. To be clear, among the key obstacles in the EU's position is the unwillingness to declare a goal, although it is called the new collective quantified goal. Subgoals were mentioned. Is it correct there will be subgoals on loss and damage? The witnesses might go into the detail of what we need to have in the subgoals.

Will the witnesses speak about the amounts that will be publicly financed and grant based and speak about why this is very important? The NCQG is being negotiated and the witnesses might indicate where Ireland and Europe are on the idea of it being science based. This should be obvious. There should not solely be a political negotiation on what we can make people do. There should be some joining with the science of what is needed and the actions needed. Is there at least progress on the principle of it being science-based rather than being a purely accounting fantasy exercise? Will the witnesses give us a sense of the European position on these issues and what the witnesses think is needed from this? This is the part that we can try to influence.

I also have questions on some of the wider aspects. Perhaps the witnesses will also touch on how the new collective quantified goal and what we need to do in climate financing are separate from Article 2.1 on how we should reform the finance system in general. Where are Ireland and Europe on this? In many sectors of society big changes are needed, such as with regard to land use. As I understand it, Article 2.1 is about why the financial sector in general needs to change so as to be less damaging to our climate but this is separate from climate finance, which is how we fund what is needed.