Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am afraid I cannot accept amendment No. 11. The wording as provided is simpler in many ways but I believe this provides better clarity, whereby greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 are balanced or exceeded, which is important, by the removal of greenhouse gases.On the exact number, we will not know. That will be an evolving issue on which the Climate Change Advisory Council will be able to assist. It is hard to predict out to 2050 how much will constitute removals, but I do not imagine it will be anything near 50%. I do not see that being a physical reality or a physical possibility. As we discussed earlier, it will provide a contribution in certain areas, particularly in the context of land use and in farming. We will be not able to completely remove anthropogenic biogenic methane. The wording as set out provides a clearer, stronger and more concise definition, and I propose to stick with it.

On the wider issue, I agree on the need for ecology first followed by society and the economy as a subset within that but, again, I think the recognition in this definition that it is both social and economic is appropriate. The Bill is framed on an understanding that protecting our ecological systems is the key imperative of our time and it sufficiently addresses the hierarchy of order of importance.