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

A future government may examine the matter and set a baseline to help to guide the Climate Change Advisory Council, but that would be after the fact. There will not be any weakening or watering down. The overall objective is still the same - it has to be net zero by 2050. This measure will give future governments the ability, should they want to do so, to set further baseline targets in addressing those third, fourth, fifth and sixth five-year periods. That is the intention of the amendment.

I am afraid I cannot accept amendment No. 9. To answer directly the question on whether there should be a cap on removals, I do not believe there should not be. The reality is that for the 2050 period we will need significant removals to get to net zero while being able to cover the agricultural activities which will still be ongoing. Many of the benefits and realities of removals will come from nature-based solutions which have ancillary benefits and are going to help us to develop and protect ourselves from the biodiversity crisis we also face. This will also help us in terms of water quality, employment and balanced regional development.This is a solution which brings not just climate benefits but also other benefits. It will take time, it is not going to be immediate. It includes the prospect of making payments to farmers. That is something we want to optimise, not restrict.

There are also risks. We can focus on the removals but there are also climate risks. Our climate is changing. We have large areas of exposed bog in particular where we have seen and could see very large fires developing in drought conditions and that would lead to further massive releases of carbon into the atmosphere. There is nothing certain in forestry. Those involved in the development of forestry have seen it with ash dieback and major forest fires. In Europe, the biggest issue in terms of land use, land-use change and forestry is that our carbon sinks are shrinking. The ability of the natural world to absorb and retain carbon is in crisis because of climate change. The real issue and risk is how we stop the further release of emissions. There are benefits from forestry when we pursue a closer-to-nature model that is much more climate resilient. When we rewet soils and restore bogland, it helps in the context of climate adaptation as well as resilience. This is opening up solutions that deliver for us in a whole variety of different ways. Far from a cap, my real concern is that the natural world is increasingly unable to store carbon because of the climate change that we are already seeing. I cannot accept the amendment.