Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 14 May 2024

Draft National Energy and Climate Plan: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

I have received apologies from Deputy Paul Murphy. The purpose of the meeting today is to discuss the finalisation of the draft national energy and climate action plan, NECP, and national long-term strategy, NLTS. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the following stakeholders to the meeting: Mr. Oisín Coghlan of the Environmental Pillar, Ms Sadhbh O'Neill of Friends of the Earth and Dr. Ciara Brennan of Environmental Justice Network Ireland, EJNI, who are attending in person in Leinster House. Joining us remotely are Ms Catherine Devitt of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition and Dr. Alison Hough and Dr. Orla Kelleher of Environmental Justice Network Ireland. Thank you all for coming in this morning and thank you for reaching out and proposing that we have this session. As members were very supportive of us having this session, thank you for making the suggestion to us.

Before we begin, I will read the note on privilege to remind our guests of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a ways to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If a witness's statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct the witness to discontinue his or her remarks and it is imperative that he or she complies with any such direction. Members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practices to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the houses or an official either by name or in such a way to make him or her identifiable. I remind members they are only allowed to participate in the meeting if they are physically located on the Leinster House complex. I ask that those members joining us online, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, confirm that they are indeed on the grounds of Leinster House. I call Mr. Coghlan to make his opening statement or rather, he is beginning the statement and is sharing it with the other guests.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for meeting us today. It is really important for this committee to have an opportunity to think about and scrutinise these two important policy documents that form part of the European governance of climate and energy policy. The NLTS has a role in the Irish national policy directly under the climate law itself. We are sorry for creating more work for this committee because we are conscious that it has done tremendous work over the course of this Oireachtas on the evolution and reform of climate governance in Ireland. To some degree, the fact that these documents have not had as much scrutiny as they deserve is a reflection of how the national processes are now so dominant and robust. We would argue that what used to be the only processes, which were the European ones, have been slightly neglected by the Department, the Government and equally then by Parliament and by stakeholders like ourselves. The Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, the Environmental Pillar and EJNI, however, have been working away in the background trying to understand how these processes should work, how they should align with all the other documents and policies that the committee is aware of, particularly the process that is supposed to happen around public participation. Ireland is currently lacking in all of these, not just by Irish standards, but in the context of the European Union. We are not making the most of these documents or of the opportunity to meet the requirements that exist for us to do what is necessary, particularly around the NLTS. The NECP is somewhat analogous, although it has other aspects, to the climate action plan. It has the same time horizon. It has some things that are really important as well, in that it explicitly asks us to look at other dimensions like just transition and energy poverty, which could be made more of. As with all of these things, of course, because it is done to a similar format across Europe, when it is done well it gives us a consistent way of benchmarking and comparing ourselves with our peers.

The LTS has another function, which I would say is in a sense a bigger missed opportunity, although others might disagree, which is that it has the 30-year time horizon. We have obviously been very focused on the need to get going on meeting the targets the Oireachtas has set for 2025 and 2030, but we have to think beyond that. The LTS is where we should be having the big debates about what cement, agriculture or car-based transport look like in 2050, or indeed 2040 if we are talking about decarbonising electricity at pace. We have missed a trick in not having those debates between stakeholders and parliamentarians and, ideally, with the public before we submit our LTS. We wrote asking the committee to bring the Minister in to look at how this can be done better, but we are very happy to be here today to share our thoughts on that. I am going to hand over now to Dr. Brennan, who is going to talk about the process side in particular.

Dr. Ciara Brennan

I thank the committee for hearing our evidence session today. To add a little more context to what Mr. Coghlan has introduced, it is important to note what these climate plans are. As members are aware, Ireland has got climate planning obligations under both domestic and EU law. To ensure our commitments that we have made internationally and domestically to address the climate crisis and make progress towards net zero are met, the NECP and the national long-term strategy are essential, EU-mandated climate plans designed to set out in detail how we are going to meet our national and international commitments. These are not tick-box exercises. Both these strategies are really important for setting out what we are going to do to get to net zero, when we are going to do it and how exactly we are going to do it. This is so important and it fills in any gaps in domestic climate planning. It is important to flag that these are mandatory requirements of the EU's governance regulation. Again, they are not optional opt-in choices; they are mandatory requirements.

Where are we with these planning processes? They are part of a rolling process which happen every few years. With the NECP, the first one was submitted in 2019. All member states must submit a final updated or revised NECP to the European Commission by the end of June this year. Over the past year, there has been an ongoing process of updating our final NECP in line with the EU's updated targets. That is the NECP side of things and must be finalised by the end of June.

Regarding the national long-term strategy, the first was published in April 2023 and it is worth flagging that it was more than three years late. Most of the other member states had published their national long-term strategies and we were three years late publishing ours. The final long-term strategy is due to be published this year and it is due to be updated before January 2025. These are two processes that are interlinked and it is important to remember that the two must be consistent with each other. The sequencing of the publication of these plans is very important as well and that is something we need to flag.

In terms of how we are doing so far with these two processes, our analysis indicates that Ireland's approach to these two critical planning processes has been very problematic. I am going to flag three common themes, but we would be happy to take questions on any of the substantive or procedural issues in the questions and answers after this. The first of the three things we have noticed is delay. Compliance with the mandatory timelines which the EU has set has been very challenging. We have been consistently late across all of these processes. Other member states have been late as well but not as late as us. The quality of the plans and draft plans, when they have been produced, has also been quite problematic. The issue with the delays is that they have frustrated public participation in the decision-making processes. They have undermined the whole EU-wide process because the Commission reports on these plans as a whole. Ireland is causing a problem for the EU as a whole and its monitoring the progress towards meeting our climate neutrality targets. What has happened is that the extreme delay with the national long-term strategy, which is the ultimate point we want to meet, has led to piecemeal, incomplete and outdated plans. It has wasted an opportunity to provide clarity on the types of policy choices we need to make in Ireland to meet these targets.

The second issue is alignment. As I have said, the governance regulation requires consistency between these plans but the current drafts do not have the level of detail we need to be able to assess whether it is going to be consistent.

How are we going to meet the targets? It is not possible to say that at the minute, as we cannot assess it. There is not enough detail. There is also a big problem caused by a lack of alignment or sequencing between domestic and EU climate planning processes. That is annoying, apart from anything else, because it creates duplication of effort. It makes it really difficult for stakeholders to engage in these processes because there are so many process ongoing at different times and they relate to different periods. It also causes confusion between stakeholders. Responding to these processes is difficult.

There is also no obvious alignment between a rake of other plans, including the territorial just transition plan, the national energy poverty action plan and the national energy efficiency of buildings plan. Alignment and sequencing are really problematic.

Finally, the public participation and political engagement in these critical EU processes has been really problematic. As we do not have up-to-date data and detailed scenarios in the plans, it is impossible for stakeholders to effectively undertake meaningful analysis of whether the strategies put Ireland on a credible pathway to climate neutrality and meeting the mandatory targets. This process has been particularly problematic with the NECP because there were no public participation processes ongoing while the draft was being prepared. The public consultation exercise was quite late and did not allow for early and effective engagement.

Another thing worth flagging here is that there has been no transboundary consultation, despite the significant impact of the plans on the North. As the committee can tell from my Belfast accent, this is of particular concern to me because these are plans of strategic importance. Obviously, there are legal obligations to consult with the competent authorities but citizens should also have a say in these plans. They are going to impact the whole island. The fact there has been no meaningful attempt to encourage proper public participation in these critical plans undermines the whole process of climate planning and potentially creates confusion and backlash against the climate targets and objectives.

That is an overview of the themes we have seen in the preparation of these plans to date. We need to make sure going forward that the recommendations of the commission, which align very closely with our own analysis and were made at the start of May in respect of the draft plans, are addressed in the final document. We need to have more detailed data and proper pathways set out in these plans in order that we can assess whether they are consistent. That is what needs to happen now. There is another consultation exercise happening at the end of May and we will be looking very carefully at the final plan. Ireland really needs to step up its game in terms of these critical processes. That is everything I have to say. My colleagues, on screen and in the room, and I would be very happy to take any questions members may have on these issues. I thank the committee.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Brennan for her opening statement. I will shortly invite colleagues to ask questions. The committee is very happy to hear the witnesses' opening statements and, if necessary, to put the points raised to the Department and the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, to ensure that we are doing as much as we can as a state within Europe.

I want to raise the issue of a prospective future generations commission. This has come up several times at this committee in the past few years and seems very relevant to this discussion. It may be that there is a gap that can be filled. It seems we are not having that national conversation about what we want this country to look like in two, three or four decades time. That is a real problem for politics. Whether we like it or not, we are in a game where we have to renew our mandate on quite a short-term basis, every five years at local or European level and less than that at parliamentary level.

It pulls from the airtime, I suppose, for critical and important conversations about the long term. It seems to me that a simple public consultation where a Department advertises that it is submitting a document to Europe concerning what Ireland is going to do in agriculture, heating and transport over three and four decades is not really going to cut it and perhaps we need something like a future generations commission. Is this something the witnesses have considered in their analysis of the challenge we have in the public participation context and the public conversation that must happen?

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

No, not this collection of organisations, either collectively, specifically or explicitly. Many of us, however, are members of Coalition 2030, the very broad Irish civil society network working on the sustainable development goals, SDGs, which includes trade unions as well as overseas aid agencies, domestic poverty and inequality agencies and environmental NGOs. This coalition has made the idea of a future generations commissioner central to its top ask now in respect of thinking beyond 2030 and the immediate horizon of the SDGs to capture the spirit of that longer-term planning and inclusivity. As everyone here will know, Ireland was central to the negotiation of the SDGs. This coalition has extensively examined the model already being pursued. A future generations commission has already been institutionalised in Wales, so we think the idea has a lot of merit.

I had not thought of it specifically in the context of these EU plans, but I totally agree with the Cathaoirleach's general point that it helps us to lift our eyes, certainly with regard to NECP, from the nitty-gritty of complex EU formats and to think about the actual issues at stake when we have a time horizon of ten, 20 or 30 years on such big issues as climate and everything it touches. Certainly, a future generations commissioner could make a real contribution to that endeavour and channel the voices of those who are not going to be attracted by an email address on a Departmental website, however well meaning it is.

An Cathaoirleach

I see several hands have gone up. I will bring everyone in. I am interested in hearing whether the witnesses have considered how something like a future generations commission would get off the ground and we could make it happen like the Welsh have done. I think Finland and New Zealand are looking at this as well. I do not see any reason why Ireland cannot and should not be doing it too. A few hands have gone up from our guests joining us remotely. I call Dr. Kelleher.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

The idea of having a future generations commissioner is certainly a very positive one in this context. I will highlight two other very practical aspects in the context of future generations. The first is that some member states are already exploring, organising and doing research on consulting young people on these European processes and having accessible public consultations on the long-term strategy and the NECP. I am sure we could direct the committee, if it were interested, to parallel processes happening in other member states where they are trying to involve young people in these extremely important plans. A related point we have looked at in this context, and something particularly relevant to young people, is this idea of overreliance on negative emissions technologies at this point. I am talking about this idea of kicking the can down the road, potentially, by, in the context of these plans, implicitly relying on the availability of significant negative emissions technologies in the future to allow us to delay substantial and immediate emissions reductions in the very short term.

Something we have looked at and recommended before in our work is that this issue be looked at in detail and there be transparency about how much of an impact from negative emissions technologies the Government is assuming in its plans and developing strategies in this context. Additionally, in parallel, there would be an examination of imposing minimum emissions reduction targets to ensure a certain amount has to come from emissions reductions rather than a reliance on negative emissions technologies. The long-term strategy of the Netherlands is a really good example of this approach. Its long-term strategy stipulates that the country will reduce emissions by at least 95% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. A certain amount must come from emissions reduction so that we are not pushing the burden of negative emissions technologies onto future generations.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Kelleher. Did I hear correctly that she said the draft that is there is overly reliant on future negative emissions technology?

Dr. Orla Kelleher

Within the current draft, there is mention of developing a strategy about negative emissions technologies in carbon capture and storage. However, it does not give any sort of timeline as to when that is going to be developed and when we can expect it. That makes the process of engaging very difficult because we do not have a sense of how much we will rely on these technologies. That has a big intergenerational injustice.

An Cathaoirleach

Some constraints should be applied.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

That would certainly be my recommendation.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Kelleher.

Dr. Alison Hough

There is a lot to be said for the establishment of a new mechanism such as a commissioner for future generations or something like that to coalesce the conversation around the issues of children's rights in a concrete way and focus public debate in important ways on the fact that children are one of groups that are really affected by climate change. We can see from the recent European Court of Human Rights decisions that children and the elderly, the two extremes on the age spectrum, are the most impacted by the harms of climate change. There is some interesting UN data on the global impact on children in countries where temperatures are exceeding norms. Children's schooling is being impacted because schools have to close because of the excessive heat. Children's health is impacted more because they are smaller and cannot cope with excessive heat and all those things.

There is also the issue of intergenerational equity, aside from the immediate practicalities of the impact of climate change. There is also a danger of reinventing the wheel for the sake of it. It can become a sort of buzzword to declare we are going to do something about the children who are affected by climate change and set up a new commission when, in fact, a lot of work is being done under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which hears children's voices and takes into account their input. One of the big developments has been the children's ombudsman. We can use those existing mechanisms and broadening the remit may be another option when we consider ways in which we can take on those perspectives.

A lot of good work is being done in the national climate dialogues on hearing the voice of the youth. A youth climate assembly set up for teenagers, those from 12 to 18, was tasked with solving various climate problems and participants gave their perspectives. It was encouraging to see the Minister's direct engagement with the youth in those forums. The problem, of course, was that there was no joining up of the circuit when it came to the outputs from that assembly because they did not inform the national energy and climate plan, NECP, in the slightest. The assembly did not discuss the NECP even though that process would have been running in parallel. That is quite strange and concerning. In that sense, much relates to the boring work of joining the dots on existing processes that are there and using existing mechanisms.

When it comes to public participation in general, it is not some new and radical thing to try to figure out how we communicate complex messages and issues and get feedback from Joe Public on them. The just transition commissioner went into communities and talked with peat workers in Bord na Móna and businesses affected by the peat transition. He talked to affected community groups and there is a public participation network of community groups there, and there is The Wheel. There are many ways in which all these organisations are already patched in and it is possible to patch into those networks that already exist.

There are lots of effective public participation professionals who would be more than willing to help. There is a lot of already established research on how to do good public participation. There are lots of good examples, even though public participation has been the weak point of all NECPs across Europe. There are many good examples if we look through other countries' NECPs. We are working on pulling together some best practice examples from those. There is a lot out there and it is about drawing together the existing data and talking to groups such as ours and other socially interested groups. That is why all the groups involved in the Stop Climate Chaos coalition and the groups with which Environmental Justice Network Ireland, EJNI, works with are working on social justice and intersectional issues across the spectrum. The climate affects everybody and it is important that there is genuine public participation because there has not been, and that just fuels the conspiracy that the Government is making important decisions about our future without our consent.

Unfortunately, that is true in the case of the NECP, and that automatically leads to an implementation problem when you do not have public support or public buy-in. We have seen with the peat situation and the ban on turf cutting what happens when you do not have those communities that are affected behind the measures being imposed and when you do not have that sense of consent and consensus. It has a really damaging effect on the ability to actually implement those measures. These plans will therefore just be paper if they are not consulted on in a thorough, top-to-bottom, social way.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you for that, Dr. Hough.

Ms Catherine Devitt

I will echo and pick up on some of what Dr. Hough has mentioned. She mentioned not reinventing the wheel. It is worth pointing out that the European Commission, as part of the governance regulation, provides quite detailed guidance to member states on what needs to be in their NECPs. One particular holistic aspect about that guidance and about the NECPs is the need for member states to view the NECP and the ancillary planning process in an integrated way so it is not just about emissions but also about the social implications in terms of benefits, costs and so on. When it comes to the just transition aspect, there is an emphasis on considering issues such as the human rights implications and the social equality implications. There is already a lot in the NECP planning process to consider the kinds of issues a future commissioner might also need to consider.

Dr. Brennan mentioned the feedback from the Commission on Ireland's draft updated NECP. It outlined in that feedback that there is quite a lot missing on the holistic just transition aspect. There is a lot of potential there not just to view the just transition in terms of employment or regional impact but to broaden the concept and consider it in terms of social equality, human rights, children's rights and the rights of older members of our population. That is missing and needs to be in that final plan.

An Cathaoirleach

When did that feedback come in, and do we expect that it will be addressed? I presume it has to be addressed in the final submission.

Ms Catherine Devitt

Yes. The Commission provides feedback on draft NECPs to all member states. Because Ireland was five months late in submitting its draft plan, the Commission had only a limited time to analyse Ireland's submission. The feedback was provided in, I think, February of this year. Ireland, along with every other member state, is required to incorporate that feedback into its final plan that it will submit in June and outline the reasons it may not incorporate particular aspects of the feedback and the recommendations from the Commission.

It is worth adding that the process of dialogue between the Commission and member states is quite helpful to member states in this planning process. The feedback is quite detailed. It usually outlines what needs to be in the final plan as well. There is a lot there for the Government to use in that feedback from the Commission across all aspects of the NECP.

An Cathaoirleach

The witnesses probably know we hope to have the Minister before the committee in a few weeks to give us a sense of where the submission is going and, I hope, to respond to the points they are making this morning.

I will go to colleagues. Deputy O'Rourke is next.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. Maybe this is not a question for them but I want to ask about the delay. Have they any sense of what it relates to? Is it capacity or other priorities or focuses? There is obviously a lot going on within the Department. Is there an efficiency in the preparation of these two submissions or documents? The witnesses may have insights on that. It is something we can raise with the Minister as well.

As regards my main question, I refer to what we hear back from the Government. I have the comfort of being in opposition, where we look for pathways, plans and supports.

They will point to the lack of information, particularly with regard to, for example, the land-use strategy or the unallocated savings in the climate action plan and the carbon budgets. Is that reasonable from Government? Is there more it can do in the meantime? What is the witnesses’ sense of that landscape, if you like?

Dr. Ciara Brennan

I can take the first question, which is a question we have also been asking. What is the reason for the delay? On one level, there has been a whole raft of new EU regulations. There was the review of the effort sharing regulation and a whole array of updates to EU’s climate policy in general, and that is difficult for member states to get to grips with. I understand that is an administratively heavy burden for Departments to manage. Regarding the NECP, we were five months late, but regarding the long-term strategy, we were three years late. That begs the question of whether it is just a delay in the administration in terms of preparing the report or whether the delay is because we do not have those answers yet. Is it because conversations about those policy choices have not been had to the degree that should have happened by now? It speaks to the question about the potential for a commission on future generations as well. We are struggling to deal with the question of what the future will look like. What is the long-term strategy? What do we envisage that looking like and how to get there? The questions about the long-term issue and the delay are profound and speak to the need to have a national conversation about this in a much more robust way.

With the NECP, I understand there is a need to implement all of the new EU regulations, the updates and the whole body of work that needs to be done, but all the other member states managed to get theirs in on time. The NECPs that have been submitted are of different qualities but the fact that ours was very late and very weak is telling.

With regard to what needs to happen, there is probably a capacity issue. Regarding the issue of synchronising the domestic climate planning processes and the EU ones, there is much rationalisation that could occur that would make that much more straightforward. It would make it easier for everybody and it would make it easier for us to respond to it. We had, for example, consultations on the domestic processes happening at the same time as the EU processes. I do not know any organisation that has enough capacity to respond to public participation exercises when they occur but, equally, it is the Department as well. Imagine how much work that takes. It is just about counting things in different ways over different periods of time. If there was a rationalisation or a better alignment of those, that would simplify the whole process.

An Cathaoirleach

I am mindful of the witnesses’ time as much as the committee’s. I think some people need to be gone by 12.30 p.m., and colleagues wish to ask questions. Therefore, I ask witnesses to be reasonably succinct and to the point in their answers.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

On the reason for the delay, one elephant in the room is that what we have in the plans is the target and our likelihood of achieving the target based on existing measures. However, there is a gaping emissions gap between the policies we have planned so far and whether they are enough to meet the target. The big question is a political one. We need more climate action measures to concretely reduce emissions. Again, we have not seen a detailed fossil fuel phase-out plan that is mindful of a just transition or any sort of fossil fuel subsidies phase-out plan in any of these plans so far. What is severely lacking in these plans is quantified emission reduction measures where we can see that the numbers add up. Until now, we have not seen that. I think it requires some big political choices as to what additional measures we will take to close the emissions gap.

I will come back to the point my colleague, Dr. Alison Hough, made a moment ago about the recent climate rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

The court has been quite clear that, while member states have some discretion in choosing the measures they want to adopt to meet their targets, they have much less discretion in actually meeting those targets. The targets are a requirement of our human rights obligations.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I will just add a couple of points. Under the Irish climate law, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications has quite a considerable set of new responsibilities and commitments. It is possible that there may be a degree of overstretch. Looking at our experience over recent years and looking ahead - and again, at the end of the day, these will be political decisions - there may be some questions to ask about the potential need for a dedicated Minister or Minister of State for renewable energy. There may also be a case to be made for taking the communications brief out of the Department. There are a number of ways in which the Department's capacity could be expanded through putting in place a different structure.

On the gaps the Deputy has identified in the climate action plan, Friends of the Earth made a submission on the draft 2024 climate action plan. I will send that to the Deputy because it addresses the gaps he identified in respect of LULUCF and unallocated emissions. The chapter of the draft plan that addresses that is chapter 5, which sets out the Department's thinking. Our conclusion is that the proposed measures, which are quite sketchy because these are unallocated emissions and the Department has not yet determined how to allocate them, are radically insufficient and do not seem feasible for 2030 as they rely on, for example, sustainable aviation fuels and negative-emission technologies that are not available at scale. That includes some feed additives in the agricultural sector. There is still a reluctance to zero in on what we know to be the main drivers of emissions in the LULUCF and agricultural sectors and to address the demand management challenges that exist on the energy and transport side.

The kind of crisis we are facing in reaching our 2030 targets is only going to be magnified when we look at the long-term strategy process. If we cannot manage a debate about the targets we have in front of us today, we are going to be in a poorer place when we come to debate what is required for 2024 and for reaching our climate neutrality target under law.

Dr. Alison Hough

We cannot know the internal workings of the Department but, from an outside perspective, there is a marked contrast between the approach to developing the 2024 climate action plan and the approach to the national energy and climate plan. There seems to have been a lack of seriousness, if that is the best way to put it, in the approach to the NECP as opposed to the 2024 climate action plan. It seems like all of the energy went into that document. They are not the same thing. One is not interchangeable with the other. NECPs cover a very different range of dimensions to the energy and climate union, Ireland's place within that union and how Ireland is to do its part, as a member state, to help the European Union face the climate challenge. Those dimensions are not captured within the 2024 climate action plan. It is very important to remember that, no matter how well we prepare our climate action plan under the domestic legislation, it is not a substitute. The legislation could be amended to make the plan line up with the requirements of an NECP. I do not know whether that is desirable. I do not think it has been explored sufficiently but, as things stand, two very heavyweight plans were produced in a short period of time and one was done better than the other.

An Cathaoirleach

That is interesting to hear.

Deputy Richard Bruton

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I would like to explore that last point. As Mr. Coghlan noted in his opening remarks, we have been doing a lot of work regarding climate budgets, the various ministerial presentations, the annual plans and the Climate Change Advisory Council's commentary on those plans. I get the sense that it is now all about delivery.

Is it to ask to go back and start consulting again? I acknowledge that they are different processes. If there is a lack of decision-making capability, I just wonder where it would be best deployed. Is it in sorting out why we do not yet have a just transition commission in the legislation presented? Why are we still struggling to get planning permission for onshore wind, renewables and so on? I would like to explore how we can align these two processes and not have separate consultation and separate attempts to mobilise the public.

The concentration now politically has to be on getting people to buy into the need to change the habits of a lifetime, not going back to consult about things that might be seen as rather arcane EU requirements on the way we present what we are trying to do. I admit that the long-term perspective is one we need to understand with regard to the direction of travel. It seems that we need to rationalise these issues. I urge that there be no structural changes because if the structure changes in Departments, that will put it back for another period because the deck chairs will need to be rearranged and nothing will happen until they are in their new positions. We need the witnesses to identify for us a few changes that could align these processes in order that when we do make the big annual effort, they will also be pushing the boat along with these other elements. That is my sense of the matter. As Mr. Coghlan half acknowledged earlier, we have limited resources in the Department, in the Climate Change Advisory Council and in the Departments that are mobilising change. We really have to deploy the resources as best we can.

That is my tuppence ha'penny worth. It is not to diminish these processes, but I ask the witnesses to give us a route to aligning them in a more simple way.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I have just one observation. The climate Act gives this committee powers of scrutiny. The committee has exercised that function very well, but it will be possible to perhaps align some of that scrutiny around the calendar and the policy cycle. For example we know that the Climate Change Advisory Council is now going to publish it annual review in stages. The first of these reports came out yesterday. The next one is due later this month. There will then be a further few reports, with five or so coming out up to October. If the committee is in a position to align the scrutiny of those reports in a timely fashion, it can contribute to the policy planning cycle in a timely fashion as well. That will include the work on the NECPs. The Deputy made a point about public consultation. It can easily become a bit of a tick-box exercise, but, nonetheless, as Dr. Brennan mentioned - and as the Deputy said earlier - the Department received more than 40 submissions on the draft NECP, which we were critical of. There is considerable interest in the public sphere in these documents. As we go along I imagine there would be even more scrutiny and more attention paid to them. It would be beneficial from our point of view - I am speaking for myself but I am sure my colleagues would agree - if there were fewer consultations and more attention given to the actual submissions made, and more dialogue with stakeholders. If it were possible to align this in a way that does not in any way compromise our legal responsibilities it would be to the benefit of everybody. The main thing is that there is a process set out in the climate Act. If it is followed it opens up many opportunities for this committee and for our other stakeholders to engage constructively in the policy planning process as we go along.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

The Deputy is correct that I have some sympathy with the complexity and quantity of these processes now. Dr. Brennan and the Deputy referred to alignment. There is some misalignment even on the EU's part between the complexity of the documents it wants every member state to fill out, on the one hand, and its desire for public participation, on the other. There is a bit of a mismatch there because the NECP is not the most consultation-friendly format for members of the public, whereas the climate action plan and the processes the Department does spend some time on are better.

There is better alignment. We need to see if we can try to use them both the same. The NECP one only happens every five years. Work needs to be done. Whatever can be done in the next few months is limited. The work needs to align those public participation processes for the future.

I have less sympathy and am more baffled about why the background work on the NECP seems to not be up to scratch. That does not require public participation. In fact, it is a prerequisite for public participation. I am surprised, given all the other work we and the system have been doing, that we do not have a better data set and information for the NECP. To put it bluntly, why can we not fill out the EU form more easily than we seem to be able to, given all the work that has been going on?

The Deputy alluded to another matter. I would make the distinction between the NECP process and the long-term strategy, LTS. One bit of alignment that has happened, although there has been some confusion about this, is that there are technically two LTSs. There is one that we are due to do under the European Union process and there is an LTS in the climate law architecture too. I think it is everyone's understanding that they are supposed to be one and the same. Therefore, we as a State and an Oireachtas decided to have a long-term strategy as well as the climate action plan. It is a doubly missed trick that we will have the first LTS with minimal participation and debate at any level of Parliament, media or society. That is a problem.

Lastly, because the Deputy mentioned it, I agree about the need to balance delivery versus planning. He used just transition as an example. I have some experience in that one. Since it started moving, it has moved well. The task force the Government set up last October, on which I was a representative of the environmental pillar, with other social dialogue partners and senior civil servants, delivered its report in February. We were shocked we managed to do it in four or five months. As the Deputy knows, the Minister brought that memo to the Government recently. It has now made decisions about advancing the just transition commission and its role. It took a long time to get going after the previous efforts with Kieran Mulvey, but now that it has happened, I am hopeful that that process, which is a different kind of thing and is vital, can move fast. Hopefully a commission will be in place before the summer recess, on an administrative level, not statutory, which is the ultimate goal.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

To pick up on the point that Mr. Coghlan was making just now, to clarify the landscape, it speaks to the confusion of having the EU picture and the domestic picture. As Mr. Coghlan just mentioned, the long-term strategy is a requirement both of the governance regulations and of the domestic climate Act. It is called something slightly different to the long-term climate action strategy under the domestic legislation, but nevertheless the requirement is there. The big point is that we are currently missing a key piece of the infrastructure, not only under EU law but also under domestic law. Ideally, the sequencing should have, at the top of the pyramid, the national climate objective. Below that is the long-term strategy. Sitting below that are the carbon budgets. Finally, there is the annually updated climate action plan. That is the sequence. Absent the long-term strategy, we are missing a key ingredient, not just of our EU climate governance picture, but also the domestic piece. Getting that right is so important.

A very innovative thing that this Parliament did with the climate Act was the introduction of section 3(3), which is the requirement for long-term strategies to be consistent not just with Article 2 of the UNFCCC, but also Articles 2 and 4.1 of the Paris Agreement. That is significant because it gives us an opportunity and in fact creates a requirement for the long-term strategy to be consistent with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. We need to demonstrate that in our long-term strategy. Our climate Act did something innovative. A requirement is producing this long-term strategy. We need to see the long-term strategy provide this road map to make some kind of fair share contribution to the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

Dr. Ciara Brennan

On practical steps to align or streamline these processes, it would be good to do a discrete study to map out when exactly the requirements are to report on progress or to make these plans and when the consultations will happen.

It would need to be cross-departmental because there are elements of consultations being run by other Departments, not just the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. It would be important and useful to map that out to look at where it could be streamlined. It would be useful for the civil servants or departmental officials to be able to manage their workload. I am sure they have ones for their own Departments. It would also be incredibly useful for stakeholders to know at what times it is anticipated there will be consultations. We know the EU timeline now. We know it in advance. We know when these plans will be produced, when they have to be produced and therefore when the consultations are likely to occur. A straightforward piece of work would be to map that out and look at where streamlining or alignment could happen.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

That would be really useful. I do not know whether the climate task force in the Taoiseach's office might be able to manage that. It is quite confusing to see what slots into what. If we are confused, the public will be confused. Even the fact there are different domestic and EU targets and they account for different emissions makes it more complex.

In the assessment the EU did on the draft it said that Ireland will only achieve one quarter of the emissions cuts it is required to make under EU law. I hope the final document that goes in will make up that figure. Is there potential for some of the work being done for the climate action plan to slot in to update those figures? Will it be possible, with the work Dr. Brennan is aware of, for Ireland to be able to meet those targets in the final NECP?

If Ireland's plan goes in and we do not meet those targets, what will the penalties be?

Dr. Ciara Brennan

I am happy to take this one. We have had some good engagement with the Department. Officials have been willing to meet us as stakeholders in the process. We met them yesterday and they gave us an update on the timeline. They told us that there will be more data. There was a lot of missing data the last time, which made it quite difficult to assess what the gap would be or where the gaps would lie. The Commission also highlighted that. It critiqued the absence of scenarios, assumptions and pathway data. It was difficult for anyone to tell what the plan was, within the plan. Officials have indicated that some of those gaps will be filled in the final document, such as with additional measures, WAM, and without existing measures, WEM. Those WEM and WAM issues will be more thoroughly exposed in the updated or final version. The Department indicated, however, that there will still be a gap. That will not be filled by the production of a good plan. It has to be filled by the policy cycle and by implementing all the aspects of the plan and the additional measures that are required. There will definitely be a gap. The benefit of the NECP process is that it is designed to show transparently where we are, what progress we have made and in which areas we need to make more progress.

If we do not meet the requirements there are a number of potential consequences. There are the consequences of having a weak NECP both substantively and procedurally. There are issues. We have legal obligations we are simply not meeting at this stage so we have potential infraction fines. It also opens up the risk of litigation because, as stakeholders, for example, we see that the deficits in public participation are in breach of the Aarhus Convention and a whole array of other legal obligations we have internationally and domestically. The consequences could range from EU imposed infraction fines, which we may see - we know many member states have struggled with the NECP and long-term strategy processes; that is certainly one issue - and potential litigation by citizens or organisations.

An Cathaoirleach

I will go to Dr. Hough. She indicated for the last question but I did not notice until I had moved on to Deputy Whitmore. She should feel free to come in now and address the last question.

Dr. Alison Hough

It is a general point in response to Deputy Bruton's point about resourcing. In a country that is returning an annual surplus of €8 billion, it is hard to swallow the answer that we cannot do good plans or good public consultation because we do not have the resources. We are a very wealthy country. If we cannot do it, how are countries that are in more economically stringent conditions than us-----

Deputy Richard Bruton

The point is not money. My sense is that, when one looks at An Bord Pleanála, for example, it has struggled to get the people who can process offshore. The MARA has had to set up and develop a whole new capability from scratch. Demapping has had to occur. They are competing in a highly competitive international field for scarce enough capability. It is not a money issue. It is getting people who have the knowledge and capability of designing these plans, implementing and delivery. We would be going down the wrong track if we started talking about budget surpluses.

Dr. Alison Hough

Essentially, it comes down to whether the Government is willing to put its money where its mouth is in terms of climate change. It needs to be willing to hire in the expertise to be able to do the modelling and the correct planning, and willing to commit to genuine public engagement, which takes resources. The just transition makes a really good counterpoint to our climate planning. Just transition is about climate but it has not faced the same levels of opposition because it has been done in a much more consultative and participatory way. If we treated the public's views on our climate plans with the same degree of respect as we treated the views of midlands counties, where I am from, on the move away from peat, then we would be able to make much faster and better progress, Genuine and broad public engagement would bring to the table some of that expertise and some of those solutions that are being offered for free by members of the public and by NGOs which have made excellent submissions and analysis already of the NECPs and suggestions for improvements.

It is a circular thing to not give the space for public participation. I am very concerned about this because the deadline is 30 June for the final NECP. It is now 14 May. We do not have a draft. As the Deputy, Mr. Coghlan and everyone else has said, this is a really complicated document. I would struggle to read it. How are we to communicate it, break it down into chunks and communicate the different themes to the public and get genuine feedback on the final draft in time for its submission? We will not be able to do so. Either we will cut corners or we will be late.

An Cathaoirleach

I will cut across Dr. Hough. I am mindful of time. I will call Ms O'Neill and then Dr. Kelleher and Ms Devitt.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

To quickly answer Deputy Whitmore's question on the assessment that the Commission did, it only did an assessment, as I understand it, of the existing measures that were included in the 2023 climate action plan. It did not assess the other set of figures associated with additional measures. As we know from the EPA's work on the plan, it could not model all of the measures in the climate action plan. To be brief, it takes us to the point that many of the measures in the climate action plan are not quantifiable in terms of their emission reduction potential. The way that the measures are listed and categorised might be useful for the Department and from an administrative point of view but it is not necessarily useful in determining whether we will achieve our targets. There is something there to be done.

In addition, the oversight role of the Department of the Taoiseach is extremely limited. It is really just a monitoring exercise as opposed to a supervisory one. Perhaps that is something that could be addressed.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I suppose the issue is we can have all these targets and policies but it is also dependent on implementing them fully.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

Absolutely.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Where it gets difficult is in the implementation of them.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

That is not always immediately obvious in the way that the measures are written into the plan. It is very much written as an internal to-do list rather than a set of commitments that are modelled and measured with KPIs and particular targeted outcomes.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

Does Ms O'Neill think-----

An Cathaoirleach

I will bring the others in. If the Deputy wants to make another brief comment, I will go back to her. I am mindful of time. I will call Dr. Kelleher, then Ms Devitt and then back to Deputy Whitmore.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

To pick up on that point about whether, as Ms O'Neill was mentioning, one could slot the measures from Climate Action Plan 2024 into the NECP, even if one were to model not only existing measures but additional measures, we would still have a big emissions gap to achieve our targets.

We need additional measures that are quantifiable and that close the emissions gap. The elephant in the room with our climate plans is that we still do not have enough quantified measures for the numbers to add up to meeting the target.

To clarify from an EU law perspective, within the NECP and the long-term strategy, it is necessary to show in the NECP how the effort-sharing regulation target will be met, for example. Ireland's target is a 42% reduction by 2030 based on 2005 levels, but that is a minimum target. There is absolutely nothing to stop Ireland from setting a more ambitious target. In fact, Ireland may need to set a more ambitious target if it is not complying with its carbon budget as required. It is likely that we will be carrying forward some of that deficit and our targets will become more onerous. That target will have to be reflected. For example, to clarify, Article 193 of the TFEU allows member states to go further and set more ambitious climate targets or environmental protection measures. The requirement is simply to notify them to the Commission and that they are not inconsistent with the treaties. Ireland can and should be using both the NECP and the long-term strategy to set more ambitious targets. That lined-up thinking is important. Litigation is a risk, certainly, if there is non-compliance, but if we get to that point we have kind of already failed. The opportunity to get it right is now, not after the Government is taken to court.

An Cathaoirleach

May I jump in on that point, briefly? The targets are very important to get the system moving in the right direction. We should push targets as best we can but week in, week out we deal with the politics of implementation. It is really difficult. We all agree. Every member, from all parties and none, in this committee agrees what needs to be done but when we walk outside that door we do not get the same alignment. A critical conversation to be having is the politics of implementation and delivery.

I will not bring Dr. Kelleher back in. I know she might want to respond. If we have time, I will bring Dr. Kelleher back to respond. I just wanted to make that point. I call Ms Devitt.

Ms Catherine Devitt

I acknowledge Deputy Bruton's point about scaling up and ensuring that the necessary resources are there. It is worth pointing out that within the NECP process, for example, member states are required to provide detailed information on the level of investments, public and private, that are needed and the level of resources that are needed to scale up in particular sectors. The feedback from the Commission has highlighted that that level of detail on investments, measures and scalability is missing. In order to address some of the challenges that the Deputy raised, we need to start or the detail needs to be there on bringing it back to the modelling as to what is the level of resources that are needed, how do we scale up and what is the level of investments, finance and skills needed to address these gaps. That needs to be in the final NECP.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

This is a comment on the politics of it all. The message we are putting across, particularly outside Ireland, is that Ireland is a real leader when it comes to climate measures and climate action, but the reality is very different. What level of risk is there? My fear is that we will get to the end point and say we were not doing such a good job after all. People are not aware that we are not meeting our targets or will not be able to meet our European targets and national targets and that there is still a significant deficit because the message we sell is that we are really good at this. Is that a risk?

An Cathaoirleach

We have been good in the past few years but, historically, we have not been so good.

Deputy Jennifer Whitmore

I do not know. Transport is still going up.

An Cathaoirleach

I am interested to hear what Mr. Coghlan has to say on that.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

It is almost a whole other workshop or hearing. To be honest, my big worry is that the risk to climate action across Europe is so significant now as a result of a bunch of factors that it will not be noticed whether Ireland is quite as good or bad as it claims. Over the past five years, or going back to the citizens' assembly to and to Deputy Bruton's reference to the first climate action plan, that was the shifting point. It is my analysis but it is inclusive of all the parties and the work that was done in this room by the special Committee on Climate Action. They were all pivotal moments. There has been a great deal of progress on governance and processes. Indeed, while we must wait to see the EPA figures, it looks like there has also been some progress on emissions now. We do not know to what degree that is a once-off versus a trend, but we can try to make it a trend. I believe there has been - on an all-party basis - significant progress over the past five years since those school strikers were out in March 2019 and since the committee did its special citizens' assembly-based report.

We have to keep hope alive. I am really worried that politicians and the public will give up just as we are at the point of beginning to make a difference. I totally appreciate the politics of implementation, so I think it comes down to the stories we tell to the public about what this process is, where we are going and why we are doing it. I am aware that all the members do this on a daily basis, but the system as a whole may have some way to go on that. The Chair raised the point about public participation, and maybe Dr. Hough will also come in on this. If one does public participation well, both in advance and then in the just transition process, it can help. There is no silver bullet but it can help offset or allay some of the fears out there when it comes to implementation. There is a connection between good public participation and the easier politics of implementation. It is not straightforward but there is a link.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

I will come in briefly on the question of the politics. I certainly appreciate that there are major political questions to think about in setting higher ambitions, but we have to come back to the point we started with, which is that relating to intergenerational justice and taking into account the voices of young people and future generations. If we are serious about that and not just paying lip service to it, we will be required to think seriously about our level of ambition. Are we aligning ourselves with 1.5°C and are we doing our fair share? If we are not and we are just paying lip service to all of that then the danger of what we are doing is what Alec Steffen calls the politics of predatory delay, and we are just kicking the can down the road and foisting this onto younger generations.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a fair point. I now invite Ms Devitt and I ask that she be brief as I am aware some of our guests need to leave at 12.30 p.m. Senator O'Reilly wants to come in.

Ms Catherine Devitt

The Senator can fire ahead.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Devitt for that. I believe Ms O'Neill also indicated, apologies. I ask that she be brief.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

A few things have happened in the past few years and are continuing to happen. We are building institutions, and we are building a legal and regulatory framework to address climate action. There have been very significant policy changes in many areas. Those policies are now being implemented at a much faster pace. There is some good news, but the point on political risk is really critical. We can see at EU level that there will be pressure to water down some elements of the EU green deal. Already climate action has been demoted from its central position in the EU strategy post 2025. This is an extremely worrying matter not to mention the measures that have been taken in relation to agriculture land use and biodiversity in recent months. That is even before the European Parliament elections. There is a great danger of losing the public trust and losing key stakeholders.

In an Irish context, we can already see some pressure at a local level to water down renewable energy commitments in climate action plans and in county development plans, but at least in that case we have a planning regulator that can enforce some of these things.

My key advice as someone who has watched the politics of this for some years is not to waste time. We wasted so much time during the recession. If we had the political impetus then, we would not be in such a difficult place now of trying to catch up on all that wasted time. I would also suggest avoiding lock in. We should not build things that are going to drive up emissions through behaviour or through embodied emissions. I ask too that the fossil fuel phase-out issue be addressed. Even though we can see across Europe - Ireland is a case in point - that we will decarbonise the electricity system and separate out economic growth from emissions, that will not fundamentally get us to climate neutrality unless we phase out fossil fuels. This will require some really difficult decisions around home heating systems and new gas connections and gas infrastructure. Finally, we have to address the economic model issue. We have very high levels of resource use and energy use per capita but that is driven in many cases by large energy users and by a certain kind of lock-in decision making around our planning system and so on. All of these things can be addressed in the NECP and in the long-term strategies if we grasp the nettle.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms O'Neill for that. I also thank Deputy Whitmore.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. Sometimes when we see something down on paper we say "Why not just do this?" and "Why not just do more consultation and do it better?" or "Why not just put the resources into mapping how we get to X, Y or Z?" The answer in my experience is that it is almost always politics . We have done the political equivalent of pushing a boulder up a hill to get to this point. It is always really helpful to members when we have witnesses in who say, "Why not do X,Y and Z?" because then it pushes it back on those who are maybe not as supportive as the people in this room to give an answer to that. When it comes to climate and nature we are fighting for resources, almost always with people who do not prioritise this to the same extent we do.

I absolutely agree with the points regarding consultation and about doing consultation better, especially with young people. It cannot be a tick-box exercise because people are not fooled by that. They know when they are not being properly consulted. I agree with Mr. Coghlan. I do not believe one can get everybody to agree on the measures that need to be taken. There is no case of everybody being 100% on board because proper consultations were done. We would never get there but we still need to take the action. We need to make sure that people buy into the process and, at least, that they have had their say and what they have said has been taken on board.

Going back to Ms O'Neill's point, how fearful is she that politically we will start going backwards on a more global scale? The worry I have is not possibly over some of the processes but, rather, over the fact that the progress we have made could go backwards unless we are very careful.

An Cathaoirleach

That question is for Ms O'Neill.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

It is welcome to see the Minister, Deputy Ryan, leading the charge to revive the nature restoration law in Europe. Hopefully there will be enough political will gathered together to make it possible to pass that. It is absolutely urgent legislation. It probably relates more to the biodiversity aspects of this but will also have an impact on European-wide decarbonisation efforts and the loss of greenhouse gas emissions from degraded wetlands and so on. It is worth saying that some of the initiatives that have taken place in recent years, particularly around wetland restoration in Ireland, have been immediately successful. This is a place where one can spend money quite quickly to get emissions reductions and it should be prioritised. There are some good news stories and we have the means to act and we have the evidence. Certainly at a European level it is very worrying. It is absolutely vital that the Irish Government, no matter who is in government over the next few years, maintains its commitment to the Paris Agreement and to its effective implementation through EU processes.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

I will respond on the issue of the wider picture. I mentioned the importance of stories. There is a risk of politicians misreading the relationship between stories and evidence. There are stories about pushback and farmer protests at the European level, as a result of which the European People's Party, EPP, in particular, with the notable and honourable exception of Fine Gael and some others, is worried about smallish shifts that they want to outflank by doing X or Y. When you look at the public opinion data in this country and elsewhere, more people are concerned about the climate now than were concerned about it five years ago. At that time, the story was Greta Thunberg and the young people in the streets. We probably over-interpreted that sign. It was amazing, but did it represent the majority then? It did not. The numbers underneath are probably stronger now. New stories, issues and challenges are emerging but politicians have to hold their nerve and serve the majority, as well as the scientific evidence, of course. Even though the results of the European elections are likely to be complex and new parties and formations will emerge, it is likely that the centre will hold this time and the majority in the European Parliament will be people who have signed up to all of these progressive and important targets and strategies. We need not over-interpret minority voices and must get on with the monumental and existential challenge of ensuring climate safety for future generations because if we do not, in five years' time when Spain is burning for the fourth year running, different people will be in the streets and the politicians, the public and the media will be wondering why we did not do enough to contain climate change. We need to hold the line as strongly as possible in the next five years and beyond.

Dr. Alison Hough

I will respond to some of the comments that have been made about public participation. Public participation is not about making everybody happy or gaining 100% consensus for decisions. It is about asking people their opinions but is primarily about accountability for power exercised in order that we avoid bad decisions. If bad decisions are made that breach the law or people's fundamental human rights, we can call power to account. We do not need to look to Europe to see backsliding on those principles. With the general heads of the housing and planning and development Bill 2019 and the more recent Planning and Development Bill 2023, we have seen significant inroads on those rights that are recognised by the European Court of Human Rights as fundamental and human rights. There is still a tendency to treat public participation and access to justice as either nuisances or nice to have, and they are not. One message I would like to hammer home is that it is about accountability and giving people respect by asking their opinions. If you do not have those two things, you will have bad decisions and a bad plan that does not do what is supposed to do and will not work. That is the fundamental point of having a wide public debate.

Dr. Ciara Brennan

I will share a couple of things we have noticed. When we look at the trends and the big climate litigation cases we have seen recently, they filter into how we should be framing policy and talking to people. It is not just about the word "climate" and the term "climate change". It is about justice, clean water, health and energy poverty. Those are things on which there is no backsliding. People care about all of those things. It is about how we frame those and these plans are good ways to address them. Different parts of the plans, especially with respect to just transition, deal with justice, how we approach energy, heating and clean water, and people's rights to those things. A positive way to look at this is that there is never going to be backsliding on those issues. We should look at how that is filtering into the litigation and consider how we can use that to get political cover for progressive policies, including these climate plans. I thank the committee for having me today.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

I will come in briefly to pick up on a point made by Dr. Brennan. One of the most important things to prevent backsliding across Europe and in Ireland is the framework climate law, which is in existence and creates in law a long-term perspective. The long-term strategy does something similar because it puts in place a long-term policy for how we are going to achieve our 2050 targets.

Even if there is political change, the strategy creates that level of stability. If Ireland can get it right and takes the process seriously, it will give us political influence at EU level to push other member states to do similarly and to take the process as seriously.

Senator Pauline O'Reilly

I thank our guests and appreciate their contributions. All of us probably agree completely with everything our guests have said. I do not think anybody is disagreeing. It is a case of hearing our guests' expertise about how to implement change and deal with the challenges of trying to get some of those changes implemented. As I said, it is important to say it and to have these things on record because it is then harder for people to say "No".

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I thank our guests. I am joining remotely. It has been an interesting discussion. I got a sense in the letter we received from our guests about how Ireland's targets and the need for it to achieve its goals fits into the wider picture. Concerns have been expressed about whether or not we are on track to achieve the emissions reductions required by our carbon budgets and under the Act, in particular section 4(6) of the Act, and in respect of our obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. There is a question of common and differentiated responsibilities and the fair share question. It seems there is a real concern. We know Ireland is not yet contributing its fair share of the funding under the sustainable development goals, SDGs, that we are meant to be giving to the countries impacted by climate change. More relevant to the energy and emissions piece is that there is a danger we are using up some of the last remaining space for emissions when much of the world is not at the same stage of development as us. We are giving a big arc of time to industry to allow it to turn when parts of the world do not have basic infrastructure. They need to be using whatever space is left to get their infrastructure to a basic point whereby they can have a sustainable society. I ask for a comment on the question of a fair share and where we fit in. That is important.

I was struck by what Dr. Hough said about public participation. Perhaps she could comment on the following. We sometimes listen to industry lobbyists a lot and yet the public participation space for things such as planning is seen as something that needs to be constrained. I am talking about just transition. As I understand it, just transition is the idea that we look to communities and to the public to discuss what a new future might look like. It seems instead to sometimes become a discussion around how sectors can retain their profitability. That conversation seems to be at the top and the conversation on climate action around planning and the things that involve individual members of the public seems to be the space that is getting squeezed. Some people are going to be unhappy, but we need to consider who is unhappy and who is squeezed. There is a difference there in terms of the choices we need to make.

I have a few other questions and I am sure some of them have been touched on. I have a concern on a European scale about where we fit in with military emissions. We are seeing a narrative about an escalation in militarisation. We know through figures from the Conflict and Environment Observatory and Scientists for Global Responsibility that the total military carbon footprint is approximately 5.5% of global emissions, or that was the case a couple of years ago. We are seeing a drive towards military emissions, which are not always counted or reflected in countries' strategies.

Especially at a European level, this military emissions aspect is one that may now give Ireland, as a country with a history of disarmament, environmental reasons to seek a pullback on some of this military drive as part of our responsibilities in Europe.

Lastly, I ask the witnesses to comment on an issue we have discussed a lot in this committee. I refer to data centres and things like this. These are things that are getting accepted as demand drivers and much of the focus is still around energy supply, with a little bit of focus on the public choices space. Regarding the major energy users, these demand drivers, in terms of losing time-----

An Cathaoirleach

I will cut across the Senator there because this issue has been addressed I think, although if she wishes to come back to it again, she is welcome to do so. I was just pointing this out to save her time.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Okay. I apologise if it has been addressed in detail. I was just struck by what Ms O'Neill said around losing time in this regard. Since this issue has apparently been addressed, I finish on a different point. One or two areas have been mentioned where we are losing time. These are areas where we could make a hard choice in this context in the next five years that would perhaps be better than the choice we would have to make if we were to wait another ten years. I would like to hear about one or two areas where we are losing time right now.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. That is a good one. Who would like to respond? I think Ms O'Neill indicated first.

Ms Sadhbh O'Neill

I am willing to have a go. I may not be entirely representative of all my colleagues. Regarding the UNFCCC question, whatever about the legal interpretation of it, which I am sure Dr. Kelleher will outline, by any metric Ireland is using up way more than our fair share of the planet's finite resources and carbon budget. Whether it is in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, the basket of six greenhouse gases emissions per capita, GDP per capita, carbon dioxide emissions per capita, energy use per capita or resources consumed per capita, we are way above the European average, and this is already very high. The significance of this is that it is our total ecological footprint that we need to consider, that is, the total carbon footprint, and not just the carbon budget impact.

Senator Higgins is absolutely correct in saying that our ultimate obligation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic warming. There is a differentiation between the responsibilities, obligations and commitments of developed countries versus those of developing countries. Ireland is clearly a very wealthy country. We have the potential to make this rapid transition, particularly on the energy side, happen fast. Ultimately, then, what needs to be done is a massive capital turnover and this must be done much faster than would normally be the case. We are talking about radically changing our infrastructure and our energy system. The acceleration of this process requires upscaling in renewable energy. Upscaling the renewables aspect is critical to delivering the solution to the sectoral decarbonisation challenges in heating and transport. There is a real danger, I think, that we might miss those targets because of the failure to do so.

We could look at the planning issue that exists in this context, but it is really more about policy and sequencing and putting everything in place to deliver the target. Much detailed guidance is available from industry and planning experts and from the legal experts with the committee today. They can advise on all of this. It is not, therefore, about sacrificing anything but about having team spirit and recognising that this is our number one challenge. Just delivering on the renewables, however, is not going to deliver everything that needs to be done. We still need to scale up our retrofitting programme. Interestingly, the EU obligation is to target the worst-performing housing, so this is an opportunity to address energy poverty. These two areas, and at least it is two and not five, are the ones I think could be taken as the priority areas to move forward with immediately.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. I thank Ms O'Neill. I call Dr. Kelleher.

Dr. Orla Kelleher

I am going to pick up on the question of whether Ireland is doing its fair share. Given my legal background, I am going to talk about this issue in more legal terms. What Ireland is committed to via the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 and the effort sharing regulation, ESR, at EU level still does not align to any sort of fair share contribution to meeting the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. This point is well documented by many studies.

It was agreed because of political expediency and I think everyone in the meeting knows this. It is not yet a fair share contribution. The idea of a fair share contribution and of making a contribution towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement is not just a nice to have goal but a requirement of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 by virtue of the new section 3(3) inserted into the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. This was a novel requirement inserted into the original legislation that requires the Minister and the Government when carrying out various functions under the Act, including when preparing the long-term strategy, which, as we know, is going to be one document for our EU- and national-level obligations, to do so in a manner that is consistent with Article 2 of the UNFCCC, the idea of preventing dangerous climate change, and the requirement of Article 2 of the Paris Agreement. Importantly, this requirement applies to all of Article 2 and not just to the temperature goal of 1.5°C. We know this temperature is now the de facto goal. In addition to this requirement, however, there are requirements for equity and common but differentiated responsibility.

Effectively, we have created a bridge between the Paris Agreement and domestic climate law and this must be reflected in our long-term strategy. We must understand how the Minister and the Government consider that they have acted consistently in this regard. At present, the current draft does not show in any way to me how this is consistent with us making some kind of fair share contribution. There are different ways in which we could make this contribution. One would be to increase the level of ambition, which we have talked about a little bit already, of our decarbonisation target. How could we do this? One way to approach it would be via the carbon budgeting cycle. We have two upcoming revisions in this regard. We have the finalisation of the third and fourth carbon budgets and there would be an opportunity here to include international aviation and shipping emissions and also to make these budgets properly aligned with and proofed to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreement.

Professor Barry McMullin, Mr. Paul Price and Dr. Aideen O'Dochartaigh have been doing brilliant work on identifying a test that is compliant with the Paris Agreement. I definitely recommend that the committee seek advice from them on this issue. We could certainly achieve this goal by shrinking the goal of our carbon budgets and including emissions from international aviation and shipping.

Another way we could make an impact would be by being really transparent about our use of carbon dioxide removal technology and how much of this we intend to rely on, because currently this is not transparent. We could also put concrete limits on this approach because there are feasibility constraints. We know the IPCC has said there are major feasibility constraints to employing negative emissions technologies, including carbon dioxide removal and this type of approach. If we were to be really serious about achieving our goals here, then, we must say that, at a minimum, we are going to be reducing our emissions through actual emissions reductions by X percent. This should absolutely reflect the Paris Agreement.

Ultimately, the other way we can make a fair share contribution is through increasing climate finance. Ireland has been quite good on doing this but we could be a whole lot better. We really need to be scaling up climate finance if we are going to be demonstrating that we are making a fair share contribution. As I said, this is not just a nice-to-have aspiration but an actual requirement of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. That message is loud and clear. The clerk has confirmed that the Minister will be coming in on 28 May, which is in two weeks. These are points that my colleagues and I will be very keen to make to him when he is here. I see that Senator Higgins wishes to come back in. I am mindful of time, however. We intended to finish the meeting at 12.30, but she can come in briefly if she wishes to.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I apologise. I am just going to say that I had asked about the next five years and Ms O'Neill gave a couple of good examples of areas that could be focused on. I was going to ask as well about whether there is an area where we need to stop doing things in the next five years. There is the low-hanging fruit or the thing that delivers most, which is one question, but the other question, though, for the next five years concerns areas where we, effectively, need to stop digging. Are there things we just need to put the brakes on, even if that is difficult to do in the next couple of years, to ensure we are not making things harder for ourselves in the longer term?

An Cathaoirleach

I call Mr. Coghlan.

Mr. Oisín Coghlan

I will be brief. Dr. Kelleher addressed the fair share question. In the context of Stop Climate Chaos, in particular, we coalesce with many overseas agencies but with overseas aid agencies in particular. This is where it started. In this context, the issue of fair share contributions is really important. Back when Stop Climate Chaos started, we were the sixth most generous country in the world in respect of overseas aid and the sixth most polluting country in the same peer group when it came to pollution. We are still the sixth most polluting country. The overall number has dropped, but, per head of population, we are still the sixth most polluting country in the OECD. We have, therefore, a lot of work to do in reaching our fair share contribution. This should be the starting point for the next carbon budgeting process inside the climate council. I am concerned this was not how it did it the last time. Instead, the council looked too much initially at feasibility and practicality. While I know these are, of course, important considerations, the starting point should be our Paris Agreement commitments and the test in this regard.

I do not believe the climate council handled that well enough last time. I would be concerned if it occurred this time. We will be engaging with it, but in the committee's engagement with it, it will be really important to ask it how it is handling the Paris test for the recommendations at the end of this year, which the Parliament will have to deal with next year regarding the budgets up to 2040.

With our existing targets, the other risk is what happened ten years ago, namely that with a new Government or set of circumstances, people will have the opportunity to say the targets of the preceding Government are mad and that they will not even try to meet them. There was much of that going on from 2011 to 2014, leading to the wasted time Ms O'Neill mentioned. The law, both national and European, should stop that, but that is the risk that all politicians of good faith need to be as ready for as the risk of our not doing our fair share, which is likely.

On the big things we can stop, we need to examine seriously the data centre question. In case people did not see the advice to the new Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which was mentioned earlier, it states we need to ration electricity used by data centres between now and 2030. We are way out of line in a different way, outside the European norm. It is an illustration of what Senator Higgins said about who gets listened to. While data centres have a role to play, we just need to keep things in proportion. If the public sees that all the renewable energy, which some people think they are putting up with but which is essential, is being used just to feed Mark Zuckerberg's algorithm to sell us more stuff, there will be considerable opposition. Energy for who is the question that Friends of the Earth asks. The renewable electricity dash we now need to make needs to be to power our future lives, not big tech.

I will address the issue of just transition, because it brings all of this together, and Senator Higgins's question on who gets listened to. My understanding is that the concept of just transition originated among unions worried about the impact of decarbonisation and workers not being listened to. I was on the task force with representatives of IBEC, social NGOs, the unions and farmers, and there was a strong consensus among the social dialogue stakeholders that there was a need for just transition to be very broad. The recommended definition of just transition for the Government, which I do not know by heart, is very much in line with SDGs and a holistic approach, which is really welcome given that it came from such a diverse group of stakeholders. I look forward to the Government setting up the just transition commission, which I understand and hope will be in the coming months. That commission will have a role in holding the ring for the kind of dialogue we need to forge a consensus or, if not a consensus, at least a shared understanding not just of the path forward, which is essential, but also of the vision as to where we need to get to.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

In that regard, the point on alignment with SDGs is a very good one.

An Cathaoirleach

Absolutely. I thank Mr. Coghlan for that and I thank Senator Higgins for her questions. We were due to finish at 12.30 p.m. but since it is now beyond that I will bring the meeting to a close. I thank those who have come to Leinster House. We know them well after some years of having them in quite regularly. We really appreciate their time. Equally, the presence of those who joined us online this morning has been very welcome and useful. Pending the agreement of the committee, which I do not believe should be an issue, the Minister will be in on 28 May. That is good timing for the consideration of all the genuine concerns we heard about today around a national long-term strategy and the NECP. We will put those concerns to the Minister very strongly with a view to seeing genuine improvement prior to the submission of the documents to Europe by the deadline.

Does Senator Higgins want to comment very briefly?

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I am aware that we are out of time but Dr. Hough was indicating a desire to contribute. Maybe the witnesses could submit written responses in respect of points they did not get to address.

An Cathaoirleach

I apologise to Dr. Hough as I did not see her indicating. If she wants to speak briefly, she is more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, she may follow up in writing.

Dr. Alison Hough

If it is okay, I will make two brief points. The first concerns what is important to bear in mind in framing the debate on whether we do our fair share in addition to addressing the statistics highlighted by Ms O'Neill showing that Ireland is the third highest emitter in the EU 27.

Also, regarding the targets we are falling short off in these plans, for the EU Fit for 55 target, which falls short of a pathway to 1.5°C and falls short already of the Paris Agreement targets and was a pragmatic decision by the Commission as to what was politically acceptable, we see that same pragmatism watering down our targets domestically because we are saying we cannot meet those crazy EU targets and we will fall a little bit lower than that bar again, which is leading to this fragmented agenda and political system which is damaging any prospect of keeping under 3°C. It is important to bear that in mind in the framing.

On Senator Higgins's question about the international and human rights underpinnings of the public participation Act and access to justice, I am quite happy to send in some documentation we have written on that topic.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Hough. Like many politicians, I am campaigning and canvassing at the moment. It is an incredible privilege to knock on doors of hundreds of people - thousands at this stage - and talk to people about these kinds of issues. I am not getting a strong sense of disagreement about what we need to do. I am actually getting a very strong sense of agreement that we need to do everything we can. Where the point of difference is, perhaps, is on the challenging local projects that can become very heated. However, I think we are moving forward. I am an optimist, but when I hear talk of a 3°C increase in the mean temperature, that is a total catastrophe for humanity. We must do everything we can to stay with the 1.5°C increase, which itself is quite catastrophic. We simply need to do everything we can to abide by the Paris Agreement.

We are well out of time. I thank the witnesses again. I will adjourn this meeting until later today when we will have a private meeting at 3.30 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.52 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 21 May 2024.