Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 21 points to the fact that the 51% is only there as a proposal of the Climate Change Advisory Council. While the Government is obligated by the national climate objectives, this is not in fact language that clearly states this 51% will be approved by the Government and that carbon budgets that reach this particular target will be approved. It simply states in the Bill that they will be proposed. It would be appropriate and strong and a better reflection of the political commitment to put such a commitment onto the political actors involved, namely, the Government, in order that it is politically and legally obliged to follow through. That is why it should say: "and approved by the Government" when we talk about the 51% of emission reductions in 2030.

The other amendment, amendment No. 22, inserting the phrase, "at least", is the idea that 51% should be the floor of our ambition and not its ceiling. The inclusion of "at least" is a signal in respect of that 51% figure. This may well be what emerges from the carbon budgets and is certainly likely what will be approved by the Government because that is what the political agreement is there for. There would be scope, however, for the Climate Change Advisory Council to actually follow through on what it is being told to do in all of the other parts of the Bill, which is to make proposals that are consistent with the science, to look to the UN and all of those things that we are telling the advisory council that it needs to consider. We already have told the council the exact and specific outcome it needs to come up with, however. We are not setting a minimum but in fact we are being very specific about that 51% in just that year, 2030. It is a pity that we do not put in "at least", which would then indicate that 51% was a minimum target. The Climate Change Advisory Council would be able to demonstrate its independence by making a recommendation which could go above that, if drawn on to do so by the science and others, and the Government could then politically follow through and deliver on the 51% if that is all it could be politically agreed and achieved.

It would be a much clearer line between the independent functions of the Climate Change Advisory Council, which we want to play a key role in the architecture of dealing with climate change in the State, rather than tying it to what is essentially a politically negotiated commitment point. The political negotiation should be coming after the independent advice, rather than the independent advice being required to deliver the politically negotiated outcome.

That is why it should be a minimum target which would allow both the assurance of the delivery but also the approval by the Government. I hope that the Minister may accept either of those amendments.