Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I reiterate that the term "complete decarbonisation" is clearer. The definition of I have offered in this regard recognises that anthropogenic biogenic methane emissions cannot be fully removed and need to be counterbalanced. I am concerned that this legislation is our landmark in terms of the big picture. I am not happy to leave it to the fates to see how things work out in terms of how much is removals and how much is emissions reductions and for the reasons I outlined in our debate on the first amendment. We know there are huge issues with double counting, with emissions reduced being recounted as emissions sequestered. We know that is fact, with the same trees appearing on different spreadsheets in the context of different work. That is an issue.

I am also concerned about the international implications. I will be frank. I was extremely concerned when I heard the Minister suggest something like an emissions trading scheme in regard to removals, especially if it relates to removals relating to our carbon budgets. When we talk about emissions trading, we are basically talking about passing the problem along. We are talking about some countries using other countries to move their emissions off their balance sheets. There are elaborate ways of doing that. We have only to look to the financial services district not too far from this centre to know how good people are at moving money around so that it never lands tax systems anywhere. I become very concerned when we talk about emissions moving around on different spreadsheets and never landing anywhere or never really being fully accounted for. The planet is going to heat up. It does not care how good our spreadsheets are or how clever the accounting is. We need to put in this Bill as hard a measure as possible to make it as clear as possible that we are talking genuinely about reducing emissions and that we are not allowing eggs to be put in the future baskets of removals, emissions trading or any kind economic or financial instrument that might emerge.

I am signalling to the Minister that it is not good enough to simply say that we do not know the numbers and that it probably will not be 50%. The Minister needs to put a ceiling on how much is allowed in terms of removals or new forms of offsetting through trading. We need to provide a clear brake on that, which was discussed by the committee as well. We need a brake in regard to how much of the national climate objective is being made up by genuine emission reductions and how is being made up by other measures. We need to have a clear, hard brake in that regard. I signal that this an area on which I will bring forth amendments on Report Stage. I urge the Minister to give guidance on that as well because leaving our national climate objective, which is our statement as a nation, wide open in terms of how it may be achieved is leaving too much of a hostage to fortune.