Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In the context of discussing supporting or not supporting the carbon budgets, let us be clear that, in fact, the debate is in respect of whether these are the right carbon budgets. Of course, if they are not approved today - I have no doubt they will be approved - the consequence would be that they would be revised.

There are problems with the carbon budgets as currently presented. Reference has been made to the need for urgent, intensive and robust action. The carbon budgets as now presented are not robust enough. They fall short. Even NGOs that have reluctantly supported them acknowledge they are not aligned with the Paris Agreement or doing our fair share. Why is it acceptable for Ireland to not do its fair share? We are not the worst-hit country in the world right now, at a time of multiple crises. Why should it be acceptable that we do not do our fair share? The average is 7.6% but, in fact, we should be doing more than that. Not only that, all of the Government parties agreed in the programme for Government to a 7% average per annum reduction but these carbon budgets provide for a 5.7% reduction. The climate crisis has become more urgent in the past two years, so it is hard to see why the level of ambition has been allowed to slip. Let us be clear that it is an inadequate level of reduction.

Some people may be concerned about whether we can meet the targets and how we are going to organise. It does take radical change. This needs to be treated as an emergency.I refer to one of the witnesses who appeared before a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. I work very constructively with members of that committee. We debate very well the hows, the details, the sectoral emissions and specific policies, and I have no doubt we will continue to do so. However, what we are talking about now is the frame in terms of our ambition up until 2035. That is what is in the report that is being pushed forward, tying the hands of the next couple of Governments, by the way, in their level of ambition. That is what is being put forward.

Frankly, I always enjoy my engagement with the Minister of State, but the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, should be here to tell us how he has considered these matters because it is not visible how he has taken on board, for example, suggestions from the climate committee that there should be a requirement that there is no carry forward beyond 2030 and, indeed, the public consultation. We quote the average punter and the vast majority of the population. Let us not use their names in vain. The public, who care about this issue and are in many ways ahead of the Government and of politics in general on it, made submissions, but those submissions were not published. The report was not published. Unfortunately, when I contacted the Department I was first told that it did not have to publish it and then that it might publish it later. We should know what the public are saying because they can see the crisis. If they are honestly engaged with, they will respond in the same ways.

We have a situation, as the witness said, where we do not have the luxury of a single crisis. We are dealing with famine, an energy crisis and the horrific acts of war and war crimes taking place in Ukraine. The climate crisis is there at the same time. There is the same urgency to cut off Russian oil and gas as there is, from the IPCC report, to cut off all gas and all oil for the future. It is clear that we need to be finding our way out of fossil fuels and the same urgency is needed, but I do not see it in what is put forward.

How has the public consultation influenced the decisions here? Will there be plans for review-----