Paul Daly (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will ask the Leader to initiate a debate. As seems to often be the case with me, I do not know which Minister I am looking for. This is an agricultural issue but it may fall under the remit of the Minister for the environment. An article in last week's edition of the Irish Farmers' Journal, ran under the headline, "Farm emissions estimates cut by 7%." This is massive news in the context of the climate and the targets that have been set for the agriculture sector. The article states that a refinement of the greenhouse gas emission inventory of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has made better use of Ireland-specific data and has resulted in a downward revision of farming's emissions estimates for every year since 1994. The biggest revision was a 7% reduction in 2022. That statement alone suggests that the EPA has been using worldwide or international standard modelling. Now that it has eventually got around to using Ireland-specific modelling, we can see that there have been massive reductions. The reduction in 2022 amounts to 1.56 million metric tonnes of CO₂.

The EPA has also stated that the agriculture sector is not going to meet the targets set for it by 2025 and 2030. On what figures is it basing that argument? What modelling does the EPA use to predict we are not going to meet the target for reductions? On the opposite side of the equation are carbon capture and sequestration, which the agriculture sector has the land and forestry to do. Was the EPA using Ireland-specific modelling for the figures quoted for our carbon capture and sequestration? Are hedgerows included? There has been an ongoing argument from those in the agriculture sector in this regard.We need a debate, possibly with both the Minister for agriculture and the Minister for the environment, to get a full explanation as to what went wrong here. Can we trust the new figures and the new modelling? There are life-changing things happening out there for farmers and the agriculture sector, based on what have been proven by the EPA to be false modelling and false figures. We need that debate as a matter of urgency.