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

I am interested in the years involved. Professor Sweeney is right that there is a climate justice piece, particularly if the high-emitting countries which are using that methane space and which have the capability and tools that allow them to act are not acting on their relative responsibilities and capabilities and are using up the potential space that might be needed for increases in emissions for countries that are literally trying to stabilise their infrastructure. The Paris Agreement was struck in 2015. Surely, when we signed the agreement, that was the last possible date on which you could say that you did not recognise your responsibilities - common and differentiated responsibilities that were literally acknowledged then. However, there is also maybe an argument for using Rio in 1992 in this regard because it was then that the science became available. The science was clear from the nineties. Political agreement as to responsibility dates from 2015. Do the witnesses think one of those two years or somewhere in between would be a better reference year than 2020?

Am I right in saying that 2050 is viewed as the estimated date for the peak of global warming? Is it the case that Ireland, when deciding how much of the global warming in 2050 we are contributing to, we are going to look at how much we will be doing in 2100? It seems completely wild to say that in order to identify what we will be doing in 2050, we will use a figure from 2100 and give ourselves an extra 50 years to fudge matters. That is very illogical. Is there any logic that would justify this disjointed approach?