I am deputising for the Chairman. I welcome from the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Eimear Cotter, Ms Laura Burke and Dr. Ken Macken.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Discussion with Environmental Protection Agency
Ms Laura Burke
I am director of the Environmental Protection Agency's office of climate, licensing and resource use which is responsible for the annual production of greenhouse gas emissions projections. I am accompanied by two colleagues, Dr. Ken Macken, programme manager, and Dr. Eimear Cotter, who is responsible for compiling the projections. Our suggestion, if it is acceptable to members, is that Dr. Cotter make a brief presentation on the projections. If members have questions, we will be happy to answer them.
Dr. Eimear Cotter
I will make a brief presentation on our emissions projections. I will consider the numbers in respect of the Kyoto Protocol limit for Ireland and what the projections tell us in meeting that limit. I will then move on to consider the targets to be achieved by 2020.
The Environmental Protection Agency has produced greenhouse gas emissions projections on an annual basis for the past three years. The latest projections were produced in April and these are the figures under discussion. The numbers are based on the ESRI's world recovery scenario published in May 2009 in a report entitled Recovery Scenarios for Ireland which takes into account the economic recession in 2009 and 2010 but which assumes growth thereafter up to 2020. The projections also encompass the impact of the latest developments in Government policy. We are co-ordinating a large quantity of data from a range of organisations. I mentioned the ESRI, but we also take data from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, which produces a national energy forecast, Teagasc in terms of forecasting animal numbers and COFORD in respect of carbon sinks.
In line with EU reporting requirements, we have two emissions scenarios that show different levels of policy implementation, although their underlying assumptions in terms of economic growth and so on are the same. The first is the "With Measures" scenario, a projection of where our emissions will be if the only policies that are implemented are those that are currently in place.
Does Dr. Cotter mean policies that are committed to or currently in force? They are different categories.
Dr. Eimear Cotter
In force.
They are actually occurring.
Dr. Eimear Cotter
Policies that are being implemented, are legislatively provided for and to which funding is allocated. The second scenario is the "With Additional Measures", WAM, scenario. More optimistic, it assumes that every policy and measure that is legislatively provided for is in place and that key policy targets for 2020 are achieved, for example, the targets committed to in the White Paper on Energy and the programme for Government. My submission lists some of the existing measures, including the SEAI energy agreements, the VRT and motor tax changes, the building regulations that will come into effect primarily in the residential sector, CAP reform and the diversion of biodegradable waste under the landfill directive.
These are not existing measures. For example, CAP reform is far from agreed. However, I understand what Dr. Cotter means, namely, that these are measures we will need to face in the coming years. Another issue is whether the landfill directive is being implemented.
Ms Laura Burke
If we are required to implement a measure, we must include it within the projections.
Dr. Eimear Cotter
The additional measures are the achievement of key policy targets for 2020, including a 20% improvement in energy efficiency, 40% renewable sources in electricity generation, 12% in heat generation and 10% in powering transport. It is important to point out that, while our projection assumes that we will meet these targets, the policies and measures that will achieve them have not yet been identified. We still have some way to go in terms of mapping out how to reach our targets.
A graph in our submission shows our total national emissions up to 2020. Focusing on the Kyoto period, we have shown the limit as an orange line. We are meeting our 2011 and 2012 targets, more or less. The different colours in the bar chart show the main sources of emissions. Red represents the energy industries, primarily power generation. Yellow represents the agricultural sector and one of the greens represents transport.
To understand what this projection means in terms of the Government's purchase of credits, we must consider the relevant contributions of emissions trading system, ETS, and non-ETS emissions rather than our total national emissions. The Kyoto Protocol target allows us to emit 13% above our 1990 baseline value and our assigned amount for the entire 2008-12 Kyoto period is 314.2 million tonnes, which equates to 62.8 million tonnes per year for each of the five years. We must subtract from the annual figure what was allocated to the ETS sectors, a figure I have tried to show in a pie chart. The 22.3 million tonnes given to the ETS sectors are their responsibility. The remainder, approximately 40.6 million tonnes, is given to the non-ETS sectors. This is effectively our Kyoto target and the Government has responsibility for it.
Under WAM, our total projected emissions are 62.3 million tonnes for every year of the Kyoto period. The contributions of ETS and non-ETS sectors are 19.2 million tonnes and 43.1 million tonnes, respectively. Additional domestic action Government purchases will amount to 2.6 million tonnes in each of the five years. This last figure is the difference between the projected 43.1 million tonnes and our effective State target of approximately 40.6 million tonnes. As such, 12.9 million tonnes is the total projected gap for the period. To date, total State purchases amount to 8.3 million credits. The difference between this figure and the projected gap is 4.6 million credits, which is what we must make up to meet our Kyoto Protocol limit.
Under the ETS, we set up a new entrant set-aside for installations that want to join the scheme subsequently or expand during the 2008-12 period. This set-aside is topped up by closures during that period. We are projecting that approximately 5 million credits will be left in the set-aside at the end of the Kyoto period. Under the rules of the national allocation plan, we are allowed to use any unused allowance towards compliance with the protocol. In light of the remaining 5 million credits and the gap of 4.6 million tonnes, no further purchases will be required under this projection to meet our Kyoto limit, which is in agreement with the suspension of the purchasing programme the Government announced last year.
In terms of the 2020 targets, we are only discussing non-ETS sectors. We do not need to make the disaggregation between nations' ETS and non-ETS sectors that we highlighted in the preceding slides, as the EU has decided that the ETS will be governed under a single EU-wide cap. Every member state has responsibility for its non-ETS sectors. Ireland's 2020 target is to reduce emissions by 20% relative to 2005, which is provisionally calculated as being 37.2 million tonnes, although this figure will be refined in time. This reduction is the upper limit of what we will need to do. The EU's move to an overall 30% reduction, assuming an international agreement is reached, will have implications for Ireland and deeper reductions will be required.
The next graph shows the projections of non-ETS sector emissions for 2010, 2015 and 2020 under WAM, excluding and including carbon sinks. The red bar excludes carbon sinks and the grey bar includes them. In 2020, the red bar will put us at 7.6 million tonnes above our limit while the grey bar will put us at 2.8 million tonnes below it. This graph highlights the important role played by carbon sinks in terms of Ireland meeting its 2020 targets, but no provision has been made to allow for their inclusion in that endeavour. The matter is under negotiation at EU and international levels.
The next slide shows that we are not aiming for a single non-ETS sector emissions target for 2020. We have a legal obligation to reduce our emissions every year between 2013 and 2020. This is shown in the solid black line on the graph. This is our linear reduction pathway. Every year between 2013 and 2020 we need to show we are reducing our emissions gradually. I have shown the projections on that graph without carbon sinks in red and with carbon sinks in grey to show how we are doing relative to that linear reduction pathway. We will start to exceed our linear reduction pathway in 2018 if we are allowed to include carbon sinks but without carbon sinks this situation is not so good and we will start to exceed it in 2015. It shows the very important role that carbon sinks can play for us.
I will now look at emissions trading sector, ETS, and non-ETS emissions, the main sources of emissions and the sectors contributing to non-ETS emissions. The pie chart shows that agriculture and transport account for more than 70% of non-ETS emissions in 2020, with the third largest source being residential at 14%. This means that more than 70% of the effort will have to be focused on the agriculture and transport sectors to achieve reductions.
Transport is responsible for 36% of our non-ETS emissions. The graph shows the transport projection up to 2020. This projects a 12% increase in transport emissions between 2009 and 2020. Although there is still an increase, it is much slower than any previous rise we saw in transport. A considerable slowdown in the growth of emissions from the transport sector is projected. The slow down in the economy is having an effect as are measures such as the 10% bio-fuels target, the electric vehicles target and mobility management schemes. A number of measures are coming into play in this area.
Transport is an area that receives quite an amount of attention and emissions had been growing quite rapidly. The EPA research programme spends quite an amount of resources examining the transport sector. We will fund a national transport model in the coming months that will help us look at the various policy measures that may work in the transport sector to give a firmer handle on what could be achieved in the sector as a means to inform policy making.
Agricultural emissions are responsible for 39% of non-ETS emissions. This graph shows the agriculture projection on its own. A 5% decrease is projected between 2009 and 2020. The main source of emissions is from enteric fermentation and manure management. The underlying driver for agricultural emissions is primarily cattle numbers. We get data on projected cattle numbers from Teagasc and its projection modelling takes account of declining animal numbers under CAP reform, the expansion of milk production with the abolition of the milk quota and decreasing fertilizer use. All of these factors are included in the projection. In combination these project a 5% decline in agricultural emissions.
The residential sector is responsible for 14% of non-ETS emissions. The graph on residential emission projections up to 2020 projects a strong decrease of 20% on 2009 emissions. The residential sector is projected to deliver significant savings, primarily in energy efficiency measures and building regulations. Anything the residential sector can deliver will be limited as it is a source of only 14% of emissions; it is small in comparison to the other two sectors.
I will speak a little about the assumptions underlying our emissions projections, beginning with GDP assumptions and assumptions on economic growth. As I mentioned earlier, this is based on the ESRI's world recovery scenario which was published in 2009. At that time it projected a contraction in the economy of approximately 8% in 2009, which is what transpired, and a 2% contraction in 2010. More recent data shows the actual contraction might be deeper and this will impact on emissions. Our next round of emissions projections will have to accommodate this. The ESRI projects relatively significant growth of an average of 5% from 2010 to 2015, moderating slightly to 3% growth from 2015 to 2020.
The other key assumptions that go into the modelling are on fuel prices. The ESRI, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and ourselves decided to take the fuel price forecast used in EU level modelling, which is the PRIMES model. These fuel price assumptions will have to be revisited as we go through the next round of energy forecasts. It is very difficult to forecast fuel prices at present as they change so rapidly.
There is uncertainty as to whether we will be able to include forest sinks in our compliance regimes for 2020. There is the potential for forest sinks to significantly bring us closer to our 2020 targets but how this will transpire and whether we will be allowed to include them has yet to be worked out. At present there is no provision in the legislation to allow us to use those sinks.
Under the additional measures scenario, we assume the achievement of policy targets such as the 40% renewables target by 2020 and the energy efficiency target. However, not all of those targets have measures associated with them so there is still a need to get to the level of emissions projected under the additional measures scenario. There is also a need to identify measures and go beyond them to get closer to our targets.
The final slide summarises our key messages. Ireland is projected to meet its Kyoto protocol limit without further purchases through a combination of domestic action, purchases already made and use of the new entrant set-aside. With regard to the 2020 target, non-ETS emissions represent a particular challenge for Ireland, particularly focussing on the transport and agricultural sectors which make up such a large share of non-ETS emissions. We need to develop policies and measures to achieve the reductions that will be required in these sectors. The inclusion of carbon sinks is important for Ireland, as I mentioned on numerous occasions. It is also important to point out that our 20% reduction by 2020 is the least we will have to do if we move to an international agreement. The EU has committed to moving to a 30% reduction will which require deeper reductions from Ireland.
Ms Laura Burke
We tried to summarise the projections and I hope the presentation has given the committee a clear understanding of the work we have been doing.
It was a very impressive presentation with much valuable and new information coming into the public arena and we thank the delegation for that. I apologise for the lack of members in attendance. It is the last day of session in the Dáil and many committee and other meetings are also being held. We will probably have to leave for votes also but we will carry on as we are for the time being.
I thank the delegation for the presentation. While it was very concise it contained much information and I appreciate that. One can start with what can only be called the silver lining of the deep black cloud of the economic recession, which is that we will not have to buy credits with regard to Kyoto. Other than that, while I would not say we are adrift, my impression is that we are very far from being in a position to be confident we will reach the requirements set both by ourselves and at European level. I find this report worrying, even that at the start certain percentages per sector are mentioned. As a committee we have a problem. If, for example, we bring in a Minister — from any Department — and ask him or her what are the departmental reduction targets for that year, there are no targets. There is a general target which probably will not be met in any case but that is by the by. If it is not put down to each sector, realistically I do not believe we can make very significant progress.
Ms Burke separates out "with measures" and "with additional measures". I have concerns about this; perhaps she might comment on them. "With measures" does not necessarily mean what it appears to mean. For example, the obvious, the low-hanging fruit, is having energy efficiency in the residential sector for which money is allocated by the Government and trumpeted about. It is there, it is real and is for a purpose that everybody understands and supports and yet, at the end of 2009, almost one third of that budget went back into the Department of Finance. That really worries me because it means that, even in the simple areas where we should be getting things done because there is no doubt about them, it is not happening. I wonder about the actual "with measures" and whether, even if they are committed to in law, they are effective.
I note that Ms Burke was at a very good conference I attended in the Aviva stadium recently and for which I was grateful. I note that the International Energy Agency makes the point that energy efficiency lies wherever in the energy area 51% of the required reductions can be made. If that is the case we are not at the races. We should have a mammoth retrofit programme in train now but we do not have any such plan.
I have another point for clarification. When Ms Burke spoke about "additional measures" I noted there is a certain reliance — if not an over-reliance — on the carbon sink. I have no doubt Deputy Doyle will speak about this because he is the expert and has prepared the report in regard to forestry. It seems to me we are no nearer to getting this factor into the equation when it comes to offsets. I have a concern there seems to be such a reliance on it in Ms Burke's report. Perhaps she has more insight. It would be great if she could inform us whether she feels this is a genuine possibility and that we will be able to include that particular measure. We will need to prepare in order to have forests to a much bigger scale.
Perhaps Ms Burke might comment on an issue that is of particular interest to me, namely, governance in regard to meeting climate change targets. I know the EPA is not a policy maker in that sense but at the same time the delegates are the experts in terms of seeing what does and does not work. I believe we need a climate change law that will ensure the Government changes how it operates, that there is complete linkage between Departments for which targets will be set very specifically and that there is overall responsibility rests with the Taoiseach. That would be a transformation of the way policy is implemented. In addition, the climate change strategy that we must have — which Ms Burke did not mention — is the framework within which we would make these changes. Perhaps she will speak about the next climate change strategy.
I have some other brief points. I find the linear reduction pathway discussed by Ms Burke somewhat worrying as it ignores the carbon sinks that we must implement now. I take it she is not being over pessimistic. It would be nice if it were otherwise but, I hate to say it, we are where we are. It shows we have a very big shortfall which is very worrying, particularly in the area of transport and at a time when Luas projects are being shelved. A key issue is how we will ensure we make some real impact in this area. It is interesting that agriculture, which was deemed always to be the big problem, is projected to show a decline. That is welcome but then there is the residential sector which I appreciate amounts to only 14%. If one is talking about achieving 20% then major measures must be implemented in regard to smart metering, retrofitting and whatever. That requires some detailed planning so that people will understand what is required of them and what is possible.
I refer to the 30% figure which is a possibility and which, after Mexico and everything else, may well become a reality. Have the delegates done any work with that kind of scenario and what would the projections be like? It seems to me we are not exactly over-achieving in regard to the 20% figure and 30% would be a gargantuan task. Have the delegates done any hard analysis in regard to what that would mean? I thank them for the very informative presentation.
Ms Laura Burke
I thank Deputy McManus who mentioned a wide range of issues. I will answer regarding some and pass other aspects to my colleagues. Deputy McManus is absolutely right that the recession has had an impact. We see this particularly with the new entrance setaside that is intended to reduce emissions. We deem that will give Ireland a bit of breathing space in order to look at the 2020 targets. These will be difficult, as the Deputy said, whether at 20% or 30%. What we wanted to highlight in the presentation was that even though we showed we would not hit even the 2020 targets, that was on the basis of 35% of those cuts not having policies in place currently. Now is the time to take advantage of the breathing space we have to put policies in place.
In the presentation we wanted to highlight sectors. Deputy McManus rightly pointed out it is a sectoral issue in that when it comes to 2020 agriculture and transport make up more than 70% of the non-ETS emissions. All sectors must contribute if we are to achieve this. If the domestic or residential sector is to hit 20% I would not underestimate the effort needed to make those reductions around energy efficiencies, building insulation and all those things. A major effort is required. This year one thing we particularly wanted to highlight was that although it is a relatively good news story in the short term, to 2012, a huge amount of work needs to be done. Dr. Cotter highlighted this in her presentation.
The Deputy made a point about governance. We did not specifically mention the climate change Bill in the projections. I am aware also of the excellent work the committee has done in regard to climate change and governance. This is something the EPA would welcome because if we are to hit these targets it will be across all Departments, involving everything from residential to agriculture and transport. Having a strong focus on delivery of those targets through legislation would be very beneficial.
As the Deputy noted, we are not policy makers but the implementers of policy, but to a small extent we have looked at what is happening in other countries, particularly the UK and Scotland. I am aware the committee did a more extensive search. When we talked to implementers in those areas they did not specify sectoral targets but there were Government Department targets which are as close as one will get to sectoral targets. Dr. Cotter's presentation highlighted that all sectors have to contribute. We will not hit a 20% or 30% reduction without all sectors having to contribute so we would be very supportive of having that enshrined in legislation.
A new climate change strategy is required for 2012 and Ireland also requires an adaptation strategy. Climate change legislation can feed into that process and address what is needed. Dr. Cotter will outline what is included in the "with additional measures" scenario in respect of energy efficiency, while Dr. Macken will elucidate further on forest or carbon sinks which is also a critical issue, on which we seek to be able to highlight the fact that Ireland is very dependent on achieving its targets. In addition, Dr. Macken will discuss the 30% reduction. I now call on Dr. Cotter to discuss the "with additional measures" scenario in respect of energy efficiency.
Dr. Eimear Cotter
I have before me a list which I will provide for the committee afterwards if it is helpful. These are measures firmly in place and being put in place. We take the data from the SEAI which runs the majority of these programmes. It carries out a good deal of analysis to work out how effective the measures are historically and where they are projected to be or how the authority envisages they will deliver in the future. The measures include the 2008 building regulations in the residential sector, the SEAI home energy savings scheme, an efficient boiling standard in the residential sector and the SEAI small business supports.
We know about the measures. Apart from the work of the SEAI, will the Environmental Protection Agency examine the estimates or the replies we receive to parliamentary questions? The problem is that the money was not spent. Somewhat more than one in every three euro was not spent in 2009. Presuming the money was spent and this was factored into the EPA calculations, it might not be the case. I have a concern about the existing measures.
Dr. Eimear Cotter
Yes.
Ms Laura Burke
That is part of the process of making projections. When one projects into the future, one must work on certain assumptions.
Yes.
Ms Laura Burke
In a way, the inventory work we produce every year is a look-back to establish if we have achieved what we expected to achieve. I hope the combination of the inventory and the projections will lend an idea. Deputy McManus is correct, but we can only work on that basis. I call on Dr. Macken to discuss carbon sinks and the 30% figure.
Dr. Ken Macken
The Deputy is right to zone in on carbon sinks, a matter of critical importance to us as also. I will refer to two issues, including the Kyoto Protocol limits. Carbon sinks are definitively included and allowed for in our meeting the limits. We have allowed for them in the numbers shown. The fact that we do not anticipate further purchases will be required to meet out Kyoto Protocol limits is partly due to the inclusion of carbon sinks in the calculations.
The second scenario concerns the 2020 effort sharing decision limits. As framed, Ireland is facing a -20% limit on a linear track between 2013 and 2020. In 2020 we will hit a figure of -20% of our 2005 emissions for the non-ETS, emissions trading scheme, sectors, including transport, agriculture, residential and waste. According to these numbers, we estimate that in 2020 it appears that Irish emissions will be limited to 37.2 million tonnes as calculated. Refinements to the calculation of the numbers are taking place, but the limit will be in that ballpark. Carbon sinks are not included in the way a member state will meet the target. Our presentation shows that our carbon sink level in 2020 will be of the order of 4.8 million tonnes. One slide shows a gap in 2020, with and without carbon sinks. Without them, the gap in 2020 will be 7.6 million tonnes. If carbon sinks were to be included, the obligation would shrink to 2.8 million tonnes which means this represents an important issue for us. There will also be an issue if the European Union moves to a -30% target.
There is an overlap in strategy for Ireland because the effort sharing decision text allows for the possibility of carbon sinks being included. It states specifically they may well be included in the calculation. However, in almost the following sentence, it states that if they are included, there will be another review of the numbers. It would be optimistic of us to assume Ireland would be able to succeed in having them included in the calculation and leave the numbers exactly the same. However, in any move to a -30% target which may happen during the next few years, it is vital that we keep the issue of carbon sinks on the negotiating table. Carbon sinks are of critical importance to this country.
I refer to the difference in moving to a -30% target from a -20% target. Working off the rough figure we provided of 37.2 million tonnes as the limit on a -20% trajectory in 2020, if one were to move to a -30% path, the target would be down by a further 4.5 million tonnes to approximately 32.5 million or 23.6 million tonnes. That deepening represents another 4.5 million tonnes and the effort would have to be made mainly in transport and agriculture, the two main sectors, because they hold the key to our meeting these targets. The issue of carbon sinks has not yet been included in the way we will be allowed to account in 2020. However, further negotiations must take place to deal with the issue of whether we move to -30% target. In all of this, it is critical that Ireland keeps carbon sinks firmly on the agenda.
Ms Burke referred to the necessity of sectors meeting their targets, particularly if carbon sinks were to be included. In private session we approved a report as a submission on the Green Paper on forestry. We wish to have forestry included and allow individual member states to deal with their obligations according to their circumstances. This is a very important issue for us. However, it concerns who will get the credit in the sectoral breakdown, if we break it down along sectoral lines. Let us consider the renewable energy targets. I realise energy production is part of the ETS scheme, but what is the position on an initiative which produces gas off land? Will it move from agriculture to the energy sector? Similarly, with regard to the production of gas or bio-gas using renewable resources, does the allocation move from agriculture to transport? Unless we consider the issue globally, as well as by sector, we will end up with infighting between sectors. We must be careful in that regard.
I refer to the figures provided by the delegation. We have done this in a different manner in our report in respect of the distance to target. Without carbon sinks we are snookered.
By way of clarification, there may be a provision for reviewing the requirement and whether we move beyond -20%. The requirement is only that we go beyond -20%; there is no need to go to -30%. We can exceed the figure by 0.1% or 0.2%, but this issue must be clarified. Notwithstanding this, additional reports which back up the point that we must be able to use carbon sinks to meet our obligations are welcome. The debate on sectors is one we should try to deal with ourselves. We should not go to the European Union to seek to establish to whom we should give credit. Deputy McManus has covered most of the other issues.
The delegation is correct to say there is a window of opportunity to assess our position because, with due respect to Senator O'Sullivan, we cannot assume the economy is beginning to grow again. If it does, emissions will grow; that is the natural consequence. However, we must prepare. This is a lull period which gives us an opportunity to prepare and regroup, but things will not stay that way. We are falling into compliance with Kyoto by accident and not by design. The fact that we have 0.4 million tonnes of a surplus or 4 million credits is good luck and is the cloud in the silver lining. The two reports are mutually beneficial and should be used together — one backs up the other — in our pitch to have sinks included because without that additional measure I do not how we will reach our required levels of compliance. The last thing we need is to have to purchase more.
Ms Laura Burke
My point was not to divide sector against sector, rather, it was to show that the enormity of the challenge means that if one sector does not contribute there will be a big contribution from another. We have to work together to determine the best way to achieve the targets. One tool that has been produced is the marginal abatement cost curve which is something that will be used by the UK climate change committee to a large extent because it is not necessarily the case that even though one sector is bigger than another it should contribute the same amount. It will come down to economics, to a certain extent, to determine where the best place is to achieve them. The UK climate change committee not only is working on the basis of the marginal abatement cost curve but has dug deeper into it and is examining it on a sectoral basis rather than having a country wide focus. I agree with the Deputy's comments.
With regard to what sectors gets credit for bio-gas, forest sinks, and so on, I will ask Dr. Macken to discuss that issue.
Dr. Ken Macken
As Ms Burke said, the key issue here is not to assume that every sector ends up with an identical reduction because it is essential that they are apportioned in terms of the ability of the sectors to make the cuts in the most economic and sensible way. When reductions are achieved, to where they are credited is very important, in terms of whether they are credited to certain sectors or credited to the total and shared with everyone. There is a need to manage this process. For instance, as the committee understands very well Ireland is unique in terms of our agricultural emissions in that almost 40% of our non-ETS is making Ireland a total outlier in regard to the general situation in any other member state. The next largest agricultural countries have in the order of 20% of non-ETS emissions coming from the agricultural sector. We are way out as regard the size of our agricultural emissions.
It is particularly important because while agricultural emissions are shown to decrease by 5%, as shown on one of our graphs, in the period to 2020, for the remaining 15% we have very limited options in the agricultural sector because the cost curve shows that agricultural reductions are not readily available at economically achievable prices. Where one apportions some of the reductions that might come from sinks, and so on, is very important and it is connected to the overall governance issue in that unless Ireland has a concerted, managed approach in the future, by way of centrally co-ordinated governance of some sort, we will not be able to deal with these disparate issues. They need to be dealt with by somebody who has the authority and the resources to understand the different pieces of information and then make decisions people can understand, while they may not like them, that are fair, reasonable and feasible for the future.
On a point of information, on the 40% renewables target for electricity, which is one of the few very clear targets the Government has set and is not referred to in the reports, is it my understanding that the delegates do not see that being realised? Is the delegation's figure 27%?
Dr. Eimear Cotter
No, that is one of the——
The delegates are taking 40%.
Dr. Eimear Cotter
That is one of the commitments in place, with wind energy coming on stream. SEAI has advised that we will be very likely to meet that target. It is a target which has the measures backed up behind it.
I apologise for the lack of members present today but it is the second last day of the Dáil session. I thank the delegates for their valuable contribution to the committee. The discussion will be placed on the Official Report, as they are well aware. I thank them for their useful contribution.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.26 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 8 July 2010.