Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action debate -
Tuesday, 28 May 2024

Finalisation of Draft National Energy and Climate Plan and the National Long-Term Strategy: Discussion

The meeting will commence in public session. I welcome everybody. Could I get members' agreement that if officials want to participate or make contributions, that that is allowed? It is allowed. I thank members very much.

The purpose of the meeting today is to have a discussion on the draft national energy and climate plan and the national long-term strategy. On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and his officials to the meeting.

I will read the note on privilege. I would like to remind witnesses 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 way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members that they are only allowed to participate in this meeting if they are physically located on Leinster House complex. In this regard, I would ask all members, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, that they confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I call on the Minister to make his opening statement.

I am very glad to be here to give an opening statement on our national energy and climate plan, NECP, and the long-term strategy. The integrated national energy and climate plan collates the policies, measures and actions related to energy and climate outlined in a range of Government plans, such as the climate action plan, the national development plan, and Project Ireland 2040 into one cohesive document.

First submitted in 2019 and followed by a draft last December, the updated NECP has been carefully drafted with input sought from experts across Government to ensure that the plan fully reflects Ireland's ambition on energy and on climate. My Department received an assessment in February of the draft NECP, submitted the previous December, highlighting areas for improvement in the draft document along with its strengths. My officials have endeavoured to ensure that the Commission's assessment has been comprehensively dealt with, and that its concerns are addressed in this further update. As we seek to ensure that the document, which we will submit to the Commission during the summer, is of the highest possible standard and addresses the key areas which the Commission has highlighted as being of importance.

The European Union has increased its ambition in recent years on climate issues. The revision of targets through the Fit for 55 package, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% in 2030 compared to 1990 has resulted in a significant increase in the contribution Ireland needs to make to ensure Europe can meet these targets. Whereas previously Ireland needed to reduce its non-ETS sector, primarily agriculture, transport and built environment, greenhouse gas emissions from those sectors by 30% compared to 2005, that target has now increased to 42%. Under the Revised Energy Efficiency Directive, Ireland must reduce its final energy consumption to 10.45 million tonnes of oil equivalent. The latest iteration of the Renewable Energy Directive, RED III, has seen Europe's target on the overall share of energy consumption derived from renewable sources for 2030, increase substantially to 42.5% to which Ireland's expected national contribution is 43%.

The NECP is underpinned by robust modelling, which has been carried out by the SEAI and the EPA, analysing Ireland's progress towards its targets.

Projections have been carried out under two scenarios: the with existing measures, WEM, scenario, and the with additional measures, WAM, scenario. The with existing measures scenario demonstrates the progress Ireland will make toward our targets based on existing policies and measures. The WAM scenario demonstrates the progress that can be made if we successfully implement the full suite of planned policies and measures outlined in the climate action plan and similar plans.

While the WEM and WAM modelling in the NECP will show shortfalls to some of Ireland’s targets, the plan will nonetheless demonstrate the significant progress which has been made, with contributions from across government showcasing the most recent plans, policy developments and ambition throughout the document. It must be noted that the NECP collates, in one document, the full extent of Ireland’s policies in the areas of energy and climate and highlights our ambition in that regard, but it does not rewrite or create new policy. Where gaps or issues are identified as part of the update and through the consultation process, they will be fed into the domestic policy cycle and reviewed.

Public consultation has formed, and will continue to form a crucial element of the NECP process. While the constituent parts of the plan were subject to consultation in their own right, the NECP presents a unique opportunity to review a document which draws together crucial elements of a wide variety of plans and policy from across Government. The consultation process on the NECP seeks to build on existing and ongoing public engagement across Government on energy and climate policy. In February, my Department held a public consultation on the draft NECP which received 40 submissions from various stakeholders, members of the public and NGOs. This will shortly be followed by a second consultation on this updated version of the document.

In addition to public consultation, my officials and I have engaged positively and frequently with our EU colleagues in the Commission and other member states through fora such as the North Seas energy co-operation group, NSEC, as well as engaging with our nearest neighbours in Northern Ireland and in Britain on elements of the plan which have North-South or east-west implications, particularly with regard to the all-island energy market.

Over the coming weeks, my Department will carry out a public consultation process on this updated NECP, during which officials will engage with stakeholders through a webinar event to better inform the process for all parties. The consultation process also includes the carrying out and completion of a strategic environmental assessment. Following the conclusion of the consultation, my officials will take a short period to review the submissions received and integrate changes which arise to the NECP as a result. It will then be submitted to the Commission.

With regard to our long-term strategy, LTS, under EU legislation all member states are required to prepare a long-term climate strategy with a perspective of at least 30 years. Member states must ensure consistency between their latest long-term strategy and the NECP and must update the respective plans as needed. Member states’ and the Union's long-term strategies must contribute to fulfilling the Union's and the member states' commitments set out under the Paris Agreement and the European climate law and they should cover emissions reductions, emissions removals and the socioeconomic aspects of the transition to climate neutrality. A comprehensive draft long-term strategy was prepared in 2019 by the then Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. However, with a new programme for Government in 2020 which committed to substantially increasing our climate ambition, including our 2050 objective, submission of Ireland’s draft strategy to the European Commission was paused to ensure it fully aligned with the State’s enhanced climate ambition.

Ireland’s first long-term strategy on greenhouse gas emissions was approved by Government and published in April 2023, and was subsequently, in May 2023, submitted to the European Commission as stipulated by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action. The strategy is underpinned by input received from Government Departments and agencies and through a public consultation. It is in line with the increased ambition set out in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Acts 2015 to 2021 and the Climate Action Plan 2023. Following its publication, my Department launched a further public consultation on the strategy with aims of preparing an updated strategy that meets additional requirements established by our national legislation and aligns with the latest Climate Action Plan 2024. I have also consulted further with Ministers and the Climate Change Advisory Council as part of this process. My Department is currently finalising the updated strategy, which will be completed shortly. The updated strategy will be the first national long-term climate strategy to be prepared in line with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Acts 2015 to 2021.

Given its conformance with EU and national requirements, the updated strategy will also be submitted to the European Commission and the UNFCCC and will replace our current strategy.

I thank the Minister for his opening statement and for outlining the strategy and the plan. We will now move to the members. It is agreed that each member will have five minutes for questions and answers? Agreed. The first member to indicate was Deputy Whitmore.

I thank the Minister. That was four pages of text but there was not a great amount of information in it. In light of the EPA report and the publication of its analysis, the elephant in the room today is the fact that the Government is not going to meet its climate targets. It is not going to meet the climate targets under the NECP or those relating to the Act. The EPA's analysis was exactly the same last year. This is the second year in a row in which the EPA's analysis has shown that even if the Government implements every single policy measure set out in the climate action plan in full, this will result in a 29% reduction as opposed to the 51% required. It is clear that the Government is failing to be ambitious enough in its policy and is failing to ensure that we have sufficient policies to meet our targets.

As I have said, this is the exact same analysis the EPA came out with last year. The Minister has had a year, and there has been another iteration of the climate action plan. In that year, however, he has not managed to lay out any policies that would result in even an additional 1% reduction in emissions. Will he please explain how that can be the case? I raised this matter in the Dáil with the Minister last year. At that point, I asked him to revise the climate action plan but he said that he would not, that it was an iterative process and that the climate action plan was in the process of being revised and would be published in December. That document is still not good enough. What is the Minister going to do to get down on paper the policies we need to meet our targets? We know that writing the policies down is the easy part. It is implementing them that is difficult. That is my first question. Will the Minister tell me and the committee what he is going to do to ensure that the Government is planning for that 51% reduction?

First, it is a real challenge for us to meet the targets. That is because our population is growing, which is not taken into account in either the European or UN processes. Our economy is also growing very quickly compared with those of other European countries. However, we can and will do it.

According to the climate action plan and what the EPA is saying, the Government will not do it because the policies are insufficient.

It will be really challenging. We have to think long term. It is not just about getting to 2030. We know the European Commission and others are saying we need a 90% reduction by 2040.

May I finish answering the question? The real challenge is how to plan for long-term change over the next two to three decades so that Ireland can become a zero-carbon country. I am absolutely convinced that we can and will do that.

I am very limited on time. My question related to the 2030 targets.

Agreed. I can answer that-----

The climate action plan contains policies and projects that will result in a reduction of 29%.

As the director of the EPA said on the radio this morning, there are further measures that have been implemented or outlined by Government. We have also signalled that there are further measures we will need to take to close that gap. It is true that there is a gap on the basis of the policies and projects in respect of which the EPA can carry out its modelling. To answer the Deputy's question as to what has changed in the past year or even the past week, today we are introducing a biomethane strategy backed by €40 million in capital grant supports. That is a further measure that is not included in the existing modelling. What happened last week? We introduced a new solar support price for farmers, businesses and communities. That was not in any of the modelling and I believe it can help us close the gap. What also happened last week-----

To answer the Deputy's question, in the past year we also introduced a major new transport demand management modelling exercise and plan to help close the gap in transport.

For some of the measures, for example, what we plan to do in Dublin city centre this summer, the EPA has not modelled them because it does not find it easy to model those sorts of projected changes. How could it model whether Dublin City Council will actually follow through on the sorts of changes we want and need to make? Therefore, there are a whole variety of different additional actions, which Government introduced in the last year, which will help close the gap.

Is the Minister saying those actions are not in the climate action plan?

They are in the climate action plan, but not all of them are in the projections of the EPA. The EPA projections-----

So, essentially-----

-----have to be based on very strict UN guidelines in terms of what can be measured. It does not include all the additional measures at which Government is looking. Can I give the Deputy another example?

No, that is enough examples, thank you.

Deputy Whitmore has one more minute.

In that regard, what the EPA is saying is that it has not modelled everything because the Government has not actually set down enough information or given the supporting policies for it. One of the measures the EPA talks about is the increases in petrol and diesel about which the Minister spoke. However, that information has not been put down. That was not included because there is no information on it. There is no pathway to the implementation of embodied carbon in construction. There is no pathway with regard to agriculture. Essentially, what the EPA is saying is that Government may talk a lot about these measures, but it is not actually putting enough information down for them to be implemented. It is not putting the pathways down or giving the indications as to how it is going to implement these policies. This is a huge problem because time is ticking by. This Government is nearly over, and after four and a half years in Government, even simple things like the roll-out of the infrastructure for EVs, while very welcome, but my goodness, how did it take four and a half years to get something so simple down when we have a target of 1 million EVs on the road? The infrastructure has taken four and a half years.

I thank Deputy Whitmore. The Minister has a chance to come back in.

I have just come out of Cabinet where we have agreed a further measure to reduce the emissions in our cement sector. That is one example. To take the point the Deputy mentioned that we have not lived up to what we committed to in terms of increasing petrol and diesel prices, which I understand is referred to by the EPA, I explicitly said in every single Chamber, in this committee and elsewhere, that would not be the approach we would take. Yes, it is one of the long-term options-----

It should not be in the plan then.

No, it was-----

So, what we need-----

The plan contains a whole variety of different options for changing our transport system. However, what I always said explicitly in the Dáil and in these committees is that would not be fair on the Irish public and that it would be socially unjust because what we need to do is provide the better alternative first.

Minister, you put stuff in the plan and you implement it.

If I can just finish the point because this is important-----

The biggest political obstacle in meeting our targets is getting political support for what we will do, which is reallocate road space so that the buses work quicker, traffic is less gridlocked and the system works for everyone. That, and not increasing prices of diesel and petrol, was the stated Government policy and my clear direction as Minister as to where we were going to go. It is hard to model that. How can we predict? It has to come from the bottom up. We require local authorities to support those sorts of changes. If we are introducing a bus gate or putting in a bus lane, particularly if we are trying to do it quickly, which we need to do, that is very unpopular. The Deputy knows that. We all know that. It is not easy to get it through, but I believe we can and will. It is going to be good for the traffic system and better for public transport as well. I do not know where the EPA got that understanding that we were all relying on an increase in petrol and diesel prices. That is not true. It was clearly signalled and directed that it was not the direction we were going to take and that it would be far better to do road space reallocation to improve the bus system and make it safer to walk and cycle. That will reduce emissions.

I thank the Minister. We are going to move on now.

We are going to move on because the Deputy has had seven or eight minutes.

What the Minister has brought into question is whether the EPA analysis is worthwhile. What he is saying-----

No, I have not.

I am sure we will come back to that.

He is saying it cannot model these measures.

It is a UN system. The EPA acknowledges this. I had a very good meeting with the EPA. We absolutely rely on it for its independent scientific assessment. That is really useful. However, there are measures that are not fully funded yet or that need to be developed, for instance, the promotion of rail freight, which require further Government action and initiative before they can be modelled. Those will help close the gap.

The Minister can elaborate on that further later. We will move on now to Deputy O'Rourke.

One of the issues that has been highlighted with regard to this process is the delay with the Department getting these submissions prepared and submitted. My sense is that there are capacity constraints. That is reflected in some of what we saw from the EPA this morning. What was the reason for the delay?

We will not be late in putting this forward. We will present it to the European Commission before the end of June, which is when it wants it by. This is the important document. Earlier, draft documents were not the final document. I would have preferred to have had the document earlier last autumn rather than in December. It has taken us time to scale up the modelling capability within our agencies and the Department, but we have done so. We have doubled the size of our Department to try to realise the climate ambition we have to meet. We have almost doubled the size of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, so there has been no shortage of resources to ensure we have the capability to do the work, but it is complex. It has taken some time but we are now on track to deliver it, along with the 26 other member states, by 31 June this year.

What is the position on the delay regarding the long-term strategy and the NECP?

The long-term strategy will also be published in June. They go together and will both be finalised and agreed next month and, in the case of the NECP, presented to the European Commission. The latter is important because the Commission has to aggregate all NECPs, incorporating them into the European position within the climate negotiations.

Is it the Minister's position that there are no capacity constraints within his Department? Consider the position if we go section by section. Regarding transport, for example, the Connecting Ireland programme, which entails rolling out rural transport services and which everybody universally agrees upon and supports, is supposed to involve a five-year plan. However, at this rate it will not be implemented within ten years. With regard to offshore wind energy and renewables more generally, including onshore wind and solar energy, it is quite apparent that there are capacity constraints. There are administrative constraints in the planning system and elsewhere, but it is certainly the case there are capacity constraints. It has to fall back on the Government, including Deputy Ryan, as Minister, to ensure those roadblocks or bottlenecks are removed. Is it not the case that the Minister has not done that during the term of this Government? He has not identified those bottlenecks and responded to them quickly enough.

Could the Deputy show me another Department that has doubled in size in four years? That is what ours has done. We need to go further. One of the biggest problems we have had in the past four years has been that An Bord Pleanála had a very difficult period. We all know the reasons behind this. The body was not resourced enough. It has since been resourced, and my understanding, particularly regarding offshore energy, is that it has the necessary staff now to take in the six planning applications. One has already gone in and the other five are to go in during the coming weeks. The board will make quick decisions on these, I expect. Therefore, many of the resource issues have been dealt with.

There is another resource constraint, a financial one. Particularly in transport, this is going to be our biggest challenge because projects worth €100 billion are in development and we have €35 billion in the capital budget for transport. We have to prioritise, and again that has not been hugely popular. One of the greatest difficulties I have had as a Minister in trying to meet our climate ambition is people saying we should not be prioritising the way we are, but it has been the right thing to do.

On Connecting Ireland, the National Transport Authority has been provided with significant additional staffing resources. I agree with the Deputy in that the State had not scaled up, but I would argue that the record of the past three or four years shows huge increases in staff numbers in my Department, the SEAI, the EPA, the National Transport Authority and An Bord Pleanála. All five of those agencies have probably been the key bottleneck points, in addition to local authorities. We provided 250 additional staff for the active travel offices in local authorities and there was a similar large increase in the number of climate officers in local authorities. Therefore, our problem has not been getting additional staff resources from the system. Our real problem has been getting the planning decisions in a timely manner and getting public support for many of the big changes we need to make, which is a challenge.

I appreciate there are increasing numbers but I do not see the primacy of this stuff within government and across Departments. That is reflected in my experience at this committee.

These matters need to be issues for more than an individual Department. They need to be issues across government.

Unallocated emissions savings are in the region of 5.25 megatonnes per year in the second carbon budget. That is a large unknown. When will it be dealt with?

I just looked around at my officials. I do not know how many of them were here three or five years ago. Mine is a whole new Department and new officials have come in.

We need a whole new government.

The next government will also have a role in this, and we must have continuity. Meeting our climate ambition will require several governments in a row to give the issue complete focus, attention and priority in funding, staffing and other resources. The climate action plan was only approved in Cabinet last week. It recognises that the closing of the gap must be a part of the 2026 climate action plan. We will have to decide those measures in the first quarter of next year and I expect the central question in any programme for Government negotiations to be how each of the parties will approach the issue. I do not know what position is taken by Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, the Social Democrats or Fine Gael, which are the four parties represented at this meeting. Do we agree that we should continue with what this Government has put in place, that we set 10% of the transport budget for active travel and for the rest of the budget, take a 2:1 ratio in favour of public transport over roads? Is that agreed? That is the sort of detail that will have to go into the programme for Government, which will have to be agreed by March next year. That is the time at which we will have to conclude negotiations about how we reallocate-----

I am happy to come back on that issue.

I would appreciate it if the Deputy would.

One of the significant indicators we have is that the path we are on at the moment is not delivering. There must be a fundamental review of the full approach. The climate action plan is not delivering on the targets that are agreed. There is, in fairness, broad political consensus around the targets themselves, which we should not take for granted.

How are the unallocated emissions reductions going to be dealt with? I presume that will have to considered in the context of future governments.

We set that out in the Government-approved climate action plan last week. For transport, rail freight is critical. As the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, stated this morning, road freight is the most challenging issue in transport. There has to be a strategic decision to switch to rail freight. That requires Dublin Port, the Port of Cork and the Port of Limerick to make the necessary investments and for us, collectively, to put in the marshalling yards so we start to make that switch. That is one example.

A second example will not be easy or popular. All the measures are difficult because of the scale of change that is needed. We will have to look at the likes of carbon capture and storage. Our cement plants, incinerators and other large industrial combustion units will have to capture the carbon, before converting it, using hydrogen coming from electrolysis, into other materials, which can be good for the country. Those other materials include fertiliser, sustainable aviation fuels and so on. Those are the sorts of large additional measures that we can take. Carbon capture and storage is not new technology. It has not been deployed much in Europe but it is starting to be. We need to do that. It will put a cost on cement, which will not be popular. The cement industry will be the first to cry foul and say "No", but that is a second example of the sort of changes we can make.

A third example will not be easy either. Farming is starting to kick in and do its bit. Irish farmers are behind this, but they are going to have to go further. As we all know, that is not easy politically because farmers rightly feel they are getting too much of the burden, attention and blame in this regard when they should not be. However, that is another area in which we are going to have to go further.

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I understand his frustration. I hear the Opposition continually looking for higher targets but then opposing the measures proposed, whether a carbon tax or planning reform, to allow us to deliver more quickly. There is a political dilemma to upping our ambition.

The EU has set targets for renewables, efficiency and effort sharing. On which target are we furthest from delivery? I suspect that energy efficiency has not got the attention it deserves, compared with what has been happening in other countries, where, because of the gas crisis that affected the rest of Europe more than us, there has been a sense of driving efficiency.

It is a win-win in that it brings cost savings. I saw the Minister's comments the other day about more returns for farmers to help them to deliver on the potential. I believe that it is important. Farmers do not see a pathway in the present arrangement of policy tools that gives them confidence that, in 20 years' time, they will have a prosperous family farm. I would be interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.

I am interested in knowing where we are with the concept of border adjustments. We happily look at transport solely in the context of fuel consumption, but, of course, if we go out and buy a large SUV, it adds enormously to the carbon emissions, but that happens in Germany, Korea or somewhere else. I am interested in the concept of recognising that it is not a big success if we bring down our inventory at the cost of putting it in someone else's inventory.

The Minister is right in saying that planning delays are an issue. I saw that electric vehicle charging is now going to another consultation. Are we just swamped with consultation about some of these measures? We have been kicking this around for ages. It would be worthwhile to detail the renewable energy projects that are being caught in the planning system and how long they are being caught for. That needs to be part of the public dialogue. Lodging objections is not free of any opprobrium. It is a national interest to achieve renewable energy. We need to see more facts about delays, where they are being caused and if justifiable complaints are being raised.

I thank Deputy Bruton. This morning, the EPA said, as it said last year, that we are starting to deliver on retrofitting. We are starting to see targets met in our homes. One reason for that is that we have continued the carbon taxation system that was put in place in Deputy Bruton's time in government and it is working. It delivers social progressivity. It helps to protect against fuel poverty, with 30% of the emissions going to social welfare increases. It funds the growth in retrofitting which means that we are starting to get there in our homes. I absolutely agree with the Deputy about other parties. They say every time that they are against carbon tax but are in favour of retrofitting. The money comes from the carbon tax to pay for retrofitting, particularly in poorer homes with low incomes. That is an example of where one has to make some hard calls, because it helps to deliver.

On the three targets that were set in the NECP, the Deputy is correct to focus on efficiency. It is the most challenging. On the other two, we have a 43% renewables target by 2030, which is challenging, but the modelling that we are doing within the NECP, similar to the modelling that the EPA and others are doing, shows that we can get to 42.7% or some such figure. With significant effort, focus and attention, we can deliver it, and it is in our economic interests. It is a better strategy for the country to use our own power rather than importing it. We can deliver that. We have a target of 42% for emissions reduction and effort sharing in the non-emissions trading sector. The emissions trading sector is 62%, which is for the big power sector and big industry. The 42% one will be challenging. It has a different base to the climate action plan, since it is 2005, not 2018, so you have to be careful about comparing apples and oranges. The hardest one is energy efficiency. I was involved in the negotiations on this in the European Council and made the point that the proposed 12% reduction in final energy consumption, down to 10.4 or 10.5 million tonnes of oil equivalent, is really challenging for a country like Ireland, because our population will grow by 5% in the next six years and our economy continues to grow. We have to be careful not to restrict our ability to use some of that renewable power if we are to reduce the final energy consumption.

There are subsets within that which are challenging but I think they are very good. We have a commitment of a 1.9% per annum reduction in the public sector, in our emissions, in all our buildings and operations, which we have to live up to. Efficiency is really the most challenging area.

On the carbon border adjustments issue, I did not really understand the question. The carbon border adjustment mechanism is going to be very complicated for us because of the UK, the Single Market and how that interconnects post Brexit. I did not quite understand the question when it comes to the car element.

If I dump my ten-year-old Mini Minor and buy an electric SUV, I add approximately 20 million tonnes to emissions in Korea - I do not know what the figure is - but-----

Through the production of the car.

-----I actually reduce the Irish emissions. We need some way to ensure that developed countries are not simply achieving their targets by offshoring manufacturing.

That is the logic behind the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Ultimately, this NECP goes through a European Union process where it is collectivised. It will go to Belém in Brazil next year, where we have to update the national determined contribution. That is where we will know whether we are serious about climate, globally. The global stocktake shows we are not on track globally and that we require much more significant, higher ambition. It includes all 200 countries. No one has an out. One of the key issues is whether they will arrive with serious NDCs. If they do, that answers the question because we know every country is going to have to meet the same sort of obligations and targets. There is no one getting an out.

On the issue of planning, I hear the Deputy's point about excessive public consultation, if such a thing is possible. It probably is not. Public consultation is the most important thing in this transition. We bring people with us, we listen to criticisms and adjust accordingly. However, there is an issue with the level of consultation. I will take this NECP as an example. We went out to public consultation earlier this year on the earlier draft. We only got about 40 applications. Given the seriousness and significance of the document, we would want higher involvement in it. The problem is that we have so many consultation processes in train on the climate action plan, on EV charging and on a whole variety of issues. We have to think about how we make the consultation processes really efficient for everyone, including the people taking part, in order that they are easy to understand. What we are proposing to do here with the online seminars - offering an interactive consultation process - is a really important innovation. The timeline is very tight. The first request when we go out to consultation will be for a longer consultation period.

With the development plan, there is consultation, then it is adopted and we go ahead. We seem to have another consultation on EV charging even though that has been in every plan you have published and those that were published before you.

I will give another example. Cork BusConnects is going to another consultation. I am pulling my hair out saying that we have to be quick here. I was down in Cork on Friday, where the public and the councillors are kind of behind BusConnects now. The consultation process is so long that in three years' time when we finally come to the decision, we may have lost the people. That happened in Dublin, where there was really good consultation on BusConnects in 2018.

All the momentum dissipated.

Six years ago. That is part of our problem. We have such complicated legal requirements to meet on consultation and other processes. It sometimes takes so long that it undermines the benefit of the system.

I thank the Minister. We will move on to Deputy Martin Kenny.

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I read it this morning and to be honest I found very little in it beyond indications that a lot of consultations are happening and reports are being written, with promises of where they are going to be. Yet we heard on the radio from the Environmental Protection Agency that we are not going to meet our targets and are going to be well behind. The Minister made the argument a few moments ago that they are not looking at the whole picture. That may be the case; we can debate it whatever way we can.

The reality is, even if we do look at the whole picture, we are still in a serious difficulty here. We are in a serious deficit in respect of that.

The Minister mentioned the biomethane proposals going through Cabinet. I would like to tease that out a little bit with him. I come from a rural constituency and there are a lot of farmers who do not make an awful lot of money. We do not have a big dairy industry. They are looking for something else they can make money from. They want to do the right thing for the environment. The problem is that, in the past, more than a decade ago, there was a proposal regarding elephant grass and a number of other issues that some farmers invested in, yet it all came to nothing. Farmers are very hesitant to change what they do on a vague promise from the Government. What we need are very clear pathways. Deputy Bruton mentioned it a minute ago. That is one of the issues, that farmers do not feel they have the pathway to deliver or to be included in this process. Perhaps the Minister could give us a little more detail on what has been coming from this, what opportunities there will be for the agricultural sector and what it can deliver regarding climate change and the biogases that will be reduced from it?

I agree with Deputy Kenny. We have to fund farming, forestry and nature protection to deliver on the objectives. This is where the farming community is starting to come around, that it is not the environment versus farming and that we have to work together. The environmental community is certainly of that view. I have a few examples. A figure €1.3 billion that has been set aside for new forestry programmes, which are often very innovative and will keep people farming in agriforestry, such as doing a riparian strip and so on.

Most farmers do not consider forestry to be farming.

No, they do not.

They consider it retirement. That is the problem we have.

No, but it is very well funded, well paid, is tax free and the product is tax free at the end of it. The way it has been designed is to promote farming and forestry, where you are not giving up farming but rather stitching it into your system. It will take time for that to take off, but it will. What the Deputy said is true. There have been historical examples. Farming is a precarious profession, because if a farmer tries to risk something, such as growing a new crop, the climate or market can go against him or her. This is one of the reasons, three weeks ago, the Government supported an ash dieback support scheme for those farmers who lost out on that in order for them not to feel burnt by it and help them maybe to look at forestry again.

Second, on new incomes, solar power will provide a significant amount. What the Government agreed last week was a guaranteed price for solar power to allow farmers to use that as an income stream, as well as covering some of their cooling costs, particularly if they are dairy farmers. That has been a new significant new development in recent weeks.

Today we agreed we would provide €40 million in grants for anaerobic digestion. That will be followed in the autumn by the renewable heat obligation scheme that will further incentivise the use of the gas. I expect that the real benefit for farming will be that there are other industries that use gas in a high, intense heat industrial application and for which there cannot be any replacement which will use biomethane for those processes and be willing to pay for it. For example, I believe data centres are coming around to this. You have to be zero carbon in what you do, and you do that by having renewables, backed up by storage, backed up by biomethane as an emergency backup power, which allows you to run a zero-carbon data centre. They too will be willing to pay for it. We are providing €40 million of first upfront grants. We want to get the industry working. There are only two anaerobic digesters in the country whereas there are almost 80 up North. We need to get it going. We will provide further grant support through the infrastructure climate and nature fund. The next Government will do it. It will be 2026, but we will agree it in principle in the coming weeks with the Department of public expenditure. As I said, the key thing is getting other off-take agreements with other industrial applications. It will effectively be a transfer from other Irish high-capitalised industries into those 130,000 small Irish businesses in farming. When we get that sort of contract arrangement, it will be a good ten or fifteen years, and it will be a very good, stable income stream, one of many we need to provide for farming.

While I accept the Minister's ambition on all of that, farmers in Longford, Leitrim or Mayo listening to him today are not going to decide to grow grass to feed the biodigester because of what they have heard. They do not have the clarity as to what is going to come down the road and that is the difficulty we have.

Apart from that, I think that is something on which I would appeal to the Minister that Government needs to come up with very clear pathways, where farmers can make money from all of this. If the Government does not, it will just be another pie-in-the-sky dream that people have out there. That is the difficulty. I would like to move on to transport but the Minister can come in on that.

Briefly, before we go on to that, I am told that there are about 40 projects ready to go. To be honest, one of the things we have to be most careful of in anaerobic digestion is that we do not do what happened up North, where there was a kind of carte blanche or whatever you are having yourself. They ended up having very significant air pollution and water quality problems. The most important thing to keep this as an income stream that is reliable for farming is that we get the environmental standards on water quality and digestate. I think this can be a good circular economy system, where you use the digestate from the anaerobic digestor to replace fertilisers, which reduces emissions and costs to the farmer. This is not new or rocket science; it exists right across Europe and we can deliver it. The Deputy can go on to transport.

I wanted to focus a little bit on transport for a moment because it is the second biggest area that we need to try to tackle or sort out. The Minister mentioned rail, and particularly rail freight. While I have heard all of this before, again I do not see the concrete proposals in place to deliver on that. I have raised the western rail corridor with the Minister on numerous occasions. There was a conference two weeks ago in Sligo with regard to that. The public is behind it and wants it to be delivered and yet, the Government continuously turned its face against it. It just seems to the ordinary person out there that what it is happening here is more talk and hot air. With regard to what is actually being delivered on the ground, and when it comes to things that people actually want to do and have options there for it, the Government refuses to do it.

It is real and it is happening. Companies like Baxter up in Mayo have switched to using container rail freight shipping out of Waterford. We will be putting in an order for new rail freight wagons, which will help develop that trade. We are building the new rail line to Foynes - I was there myself a few weeks ago - across the Deel river, and there was a new Deel bridge, which is concrete, real and will be in place in 2026, in operation and ready to go. Those new rail freight wagons will run there. We have employed consultants from the EIB to take the strategic rail review and look at turning the strategic objectives into a plan of implementation. Central to that, in my mind, is the building-out of the western rail corridor from Claremorris to Athenry.

No, it will not go to Sligo. We spoke about this in the Dáil last week. However, I absolutely support the preservation of that line as a greenway. It is not in the strategic rail review but we are preserving in that way future-----

No freight will go on a greenway.

No, it will not but the first part we need is the section from Claremorris to Athenry. That is not funded. It is not in the NDP, and it is not even in the €100 billion list of projects I said are out there. We do have to make political decisions. It should be a priority because it brings better balanced regional development, and all of those industries along the west coast would have a shipping option out of Shannon-Foynes with low-carbon haulage. Similarly, they can go out of Waterford, and I would hope Dublin Port as well. Dublin Port has not been promoting rail freight. It needs to change its plans.

It is open to it, I believe.

It is starting to be but we need to get that finalised and confirmed. As I said earlier to Deputy Whitmore, freight is actually one of the biggest challenges in transport and I do not see another alternative. I think the switch to electric would also make rail freight economic where it was not previously. The economics of running a truck from Sligo to Dublin Port and back on a single charge will not work-----

I thank the Minister.

-----and the cost of having to recharge will mean that rail freight will start to become competitive. You have a marshalling yard in the north west, you run-----

We will move on, if that is okay.

-----an electric truck short haulage to get the goods to the factory, and I think that is why the whole freight system is going to change.

I thank the Minister. From my perspective, on the NECP, the Minister said there were only 40 submissions. Is that because this is essentially just a document of collated plans, there is actually nothing of substance in it apart from what is in the plans themselves, and that the real document or plan we should be focusing on is the climate action plan?

Yes, I think that is a fair summary. The climate action plan is the one where we set out all the extra initiatives. It is fortunate for us that, in developing the NECP, we have the climate action plan there to be the bedrock but we do have to meet our European obligations and do this. There are different base years, and there are different targets and requirements. Our climate action plan is based on a 51% reduction in emissions, which is correct.

That is based on what we know we need to do in the Paris Agreement. The European directives push further in renewables, in efficiencies, as Deputy Bruton said, as well as in emissions. They are very similar. One complements the other.

Is there anything in the long-term strategy of substance or is that essentially the same kind of thing?

It is, and we have already published it and sent it out to consultation. We cannot just think about this on a 2030 time horizon. It is three-decade change that we will have to be engaged in.

Coming back to the EPA report this morning, the reason Deputy Whitmore is animated is because it is not great viewing or hearing when the EPA states that the maximum we can do with all the measures is 29%, which falls well short. It also alluded to the fact that there were some strategies it could not cater for because it said there was a lack of detail. It mentioned agriculture, which I was surprised at, because agriculture, in fairness, is one of the only sectors that has a planned-out roadmap for reducing emissions. Does the Minister want to comment on those sectors and areas where the EPA did not account for a reduction in emissions because there was no detail?

There is further work that every sector will have to do. I think the Leas-Chathaoirleach is right when he says that agriculture – the farmers, the farming organisations and the industry - is taking this seriously . If one is trading on the Origin Green brand and not real about it, it will not work. Agriculture’s emissions are complicated. There is actually a relatively low amount of carbon. Most of it is either methane or nitrous oxides coming from fertilisers and so on. I refer to whether we can retain the 30% reduction in fertiliser use - mainly due to the high price of fertilisers, in all truth – and go further. Farmers are learning. We were overapplying fertiliser and there are better alternatives. If you switch to a mixed-sward grass system, you can reduce your fertiliser use by 70% or 80% and get a better output with regard to feeding your animals. I think agriculture is starting to get that.

Does the Minister have an issue with the EPA report? As a different way of phrasing it, does he accept the findings of the EPA report, given that it did not include many of these important sectors?

Absolutely. However, there are additional measures that will help to close that gap. It includes the measures promoted by Teagasc – some of the technical measures, including the likes of, for example, the use of feed additives. It is difficult to model because the science around that is only evolving and the application in a pasture-led cattle system is different from where it might have been applied previously in Holland and Denmark, where most cattle are kept in all year round. That is a challenge. However, as part of the resolution of the 25 million tonnes in unallocated savings we need to make, I believe agriculture will be a contributory part. We will have to decide that in the next nine months.

I wish to touch on some of what I describe as the easy wins. Many of us here are a bit frustrated that some of the measures we feel should be achieved at a faster rate are not being achieved at a faster rate. One of them is electrification of the fleet. I know that electrification of the fleet is not the entire answer to reducing emissions in transport but I genuinely feel and I consistently say that in rural parts of Ireland, in places like where I live in west Cork, EVs can play a significant role in reducing emissions in transport. By its nature, we do not have the same amount of terraced housing. Therefore, the issue of installing chargers at home is not as big of an issue. In other words, not every house but many houses have their own driveways or parking areas. Second, EVs are far more efficient in rural areas. In other words, you only go 80 km/h or 90 km/h, where EVs really come into their own, as opposed to being on a motorway. Yet, we have seen the reduction in the grant for EVs down to €3,500. That has led to a worrying trend in that we are seeing a drop in the purchases of full electric vehicles. Surely, it is time now to return to the full grant.

I do not believe the reduction of the grant was the reason for the slowdown in the expansion.

They almost overlap perfectly - the reduction of the grant and-----

It was the same all over the western world. There was not anything different in Ireland from what happened in Britain, continental Europe or indeed America. There are a variety of reasons behind it. I also had to make a decision as Minister where we have a very tight budget. We do not have the money for everything we want. The question is whether we use that €100 million to improve the charging infrastructure by slightly reducing the grant. When I listen to most people, they want to make sure there is good charging infrastructure. That €100 million will be delivered in the next two or three years in a fundamentally improved charging infrastructure, which overcomes some of the concerns people have. I agree with the Leas-Chathaoirleach that the biggest opportunity for emissions reductions for electric vehicles is in rural Ireland because the characteristics he referred to are true.

You do not have a charging problem at home. Often the distances are slightly longer than they would be in urban areas. Therefore, you get a very significant emissions reduction but you also get a saving for the householder because electric vehicles are coming down in price dramatically, which means it is a much cheaper option, particularly if you are in rural Ireland. The biggest problem we will have with electric vehicles is in inner-city terraced and apartment areas where we will have to put in charging infrastructure that fits into the street environment.

That is where public transport comes in. You can move a lot more people in the city areas with public transport whereas that is-----

But we will still need people to have access to cars in city areas and we cannot freeze them out. That is going to be one of the most important tasks as well as on motorways. We need charging in destination areas as well. The Leas-Chathaoirleach mentioned west Cork. We need charging infrastructure in Castletownbere so that, if you are a holidaymaker or a visitor to the area, you can get home.

Regarding the easier wins, the carbon tax is controversial. I would always defend it because of what carbon tax is ring-fenced for and where it is intended to go. One of the places it is intended to go is the warmer homes scheme which is aimed at making older houses or houses for older people on payments like fuel allowance more efficient. Obviously, we know there are massive delays in this scheme. Surely for us to make carbon tax an easier pill to swallow and for us to achieve efficiencies, there needs to be a focus on getting the warmer homes scheme waiting list down.

I agree. More than half of the money raised in carbon tax that is going to retrofitting is going in 100% grants to the likes of the warmer homes scheme. It is being dramatically expanded.

The rate of pace of getting them-----

I agree. I would love to get another €100 million in, but the one advantage of the carbon tax is that we know it is going to increase year in, year out. It is guaranteed income, which means we can budget to increase the contractors and get the apprenticeships up. It is frustrating because there is a wait for the warmer homes scheme, but the reason there is a wait is because there is massive demand. People rightly say, "I can get a 100% grant to dramatically improve my house and its energy efficiency, reduce my bills and improve my health." It is hugely successful. The consequences of its success is that we do have a queue and a waiting time.

Is there any strategy to reduce that waiting time?

I think that will come in the budget in October.

Deputy Kenny touched on the issue of biomethane gas. As the Minister knows, I introduced a Bill in the Dáil on anaerobic digestion because I genuinely see the potential for it in rural areas to be done on almost a co-operative basis with farms, distilleries, chicken farms or whatever basically being the input into these anaerobic digesters and then having the digestate for fertiliser. It is almost the definition of the circular economy. I am hearing a sea change in the Minister's attitude towards it. Regarding the grants of €40 million, what will they go towards? Is there any detail about where this €40 million will go in terms of grant aid?

We are discussing the EPA report today. The EPA appeared before this committee last week. I get the impression that it has an aversion to anaerobic digesters in general. I know this from the incredibly high standards compared with the UK and Europe in terms of the different aspects environmentally. It seems to be very low on the EPA's list of priorities, and unless we get that sorted out, we will not see the number of anaerobic digesters we need to reduce emissions and allow farmers to play their part. Will the Minister comment on that?

I think the EPA is right to be concerned about anaerobic digestion because there are international examples where it has worsened environmental conditions.

We are not condoning any of that.

Therefore, we need to get it right and I think that can be done. What we do not want to see is a massive expansion, for example, in the pig or poultry industries, which would see this huge economic opportunity to use the slurry for anaerobic digestion, and then have consequential problems with ammonia or water quality. It can be done in a way that protects the environment and provides farmers with an income. That is important because the retention and restoration of water quality is hugely important for farming. Farmers recognise that we need to go back to pristine waters to maintain our green status.

Any derogation will be measured on that more than on anything else. The EPA is correct. We can get the environmental conditions right. In some ways, by coming late to the table, which we are, we can learn from the mistakes of other countries and apply anaerobic digestion in a way that is sustainable. We can learn lessons from that.

The experience regarding anaerobic digestion is that the controls are far tighter and the levels expected far higher than those in the UK and Europe. That is why we are seeing a more widespread roll-out of the technology in Europe. We might touch on that later.

I thank the Minister. I will start with the EPA report and the EU targets, which are relative to 2005 rather than our 2018 targets. The EPA is saying that with the existing measures we would achieve a reduction of 9% by 2030 and with additional measures it would be 25%, down from 30% that was estimated last year. Will the Minister outline the range of fines we are looking at if, for example, we only have the existing measures and the reduction was 9%? What fines are we looking at if we achieved a 25% reduction?

The Deputy is right that there are different baselines and targets. The EPA target relating to emissions targets is 42% by 2030. This is broken down into two compliance periods, namely 2021 to 2025 and 2026 to 2030. The EPA is predicting that in the first period we will have a 0.06 megaton gap. In truth the cost of that is very small. To a certain extent the cost depends on how many other parties have a surplus and would have to negotiate any agreement. I do not expect there to be a significant compliance cost in the first period.

For the second period, we must focus on the EPA is looking at a compliance gap of 17.59 megatons. The Department of Finance is carrying out an assessment of the potential costs. They are significant. It is impossible to put a figure on it, however, because everything depends on whether other countries are in surplus and whether they would be able to meet and to trade. It is not insignificant. It would run to several billion euro. It would be far better for us to spend that money here in making emissions reductions and closing the gap, which I believe we can do, but it requires massive political effort. It is not too late. The outcome relating to second period will depend on what we do in the next two to three years.

I agree with that, but the Government that is putting money away in a rainy day fund as opposed to investing to do it now. That does not make sense from a point of view of the economics involved, quite apart from the need to have a liveable future for humanity. Putting money away now and not spending it, and as a consequence being hit with fines that run into the billions, does not make sense. That is what the Government is doing, however.

Yes, but the Government also set up the infrastructure for the climate and nature fund. I do not believe there is another government in Europe or globally that has set aside part of what is, in effect, a sovereign wealth fund specifically earmarked for investment in climate and nature. That was very scientifically done in that we took into account some of the work of the task forces on what we need to do in the context of public buildings, district heating and anaerobic digestion. Some of the capital grants for anaerobic digestion will come from the climate and nature fund. We have put money aside for that very purpose.

But this is with additional measures. This is the stuff on which it was promised that money would be spent. At the moment, however, it is not planned to spend the money.

As Laura Burke, director general of the EPA said on "Morning Ireland" earlier, the gap is being closed. Continuing progress in that regard will include the use of, for example, anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digestion was not contemplated by the existing modelling systems.

The EPA report tells us that even with everything the Government is planning to do and with all the additional measures, we will still be miles away from where we need to be legally in the context of our national and EU targets and even further away from where we should be in terms of the science. That is the bottom line. It is a damning indictment not just of the Government in general but also of the Green Party in particular.

Its reason for going into Government and signing up to all these things which it signed up for was because of the urgency of the climate crisis, yet it is continuing to sit in a Government which is failing. Every report we get says we are failing.

We are succeeding in a whole variety of different areas such as renovating our homes and delivering renewable power. I wish to put it back the other way. In the context of areas in which we have a challenge delivering up the scale of renewable energy, Deputy Murphy's own party colleagues in Dún Laoghaire are opposed to the development of offshore wind which is going to be one of the ways we close the gap. His own colleagues in Dún Laoghaire opposed and fought tooth and nail against some of the traffic-calming measures of the pathfinder project that would not only reduce emissions but also improve the local environment. The challenge is in getting political agreement on some of the difficult changes that need to be made. Does Deputy Murphy support the development of offshore wind on the east coast? Why did he oppose the pathfinder project in Dún Laoghaire? They are some of the measures that can help close the gap.

The Minister raised the point about Dún Laoghaire and the living streets, or whatever project it was in Dún Laoghaire. He raised that with me in the Dáil before and I went to check it. We have one councillor in Dún Laoghaire and she voted in favour of that project.

As for offshore wind, we are in favour of the development of offshore wind but, in this case, there are real biodiversity issues. We have a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis. There is not just one planetary limit, there are seven, at least. We cannot cross all of these. In doing one thing, we need to not cause another ecological crisis.

I will put it back to the Minister. I note and welcome the fact the Green Party's MEP candidates are running for the European Parliament on a platform, among other things, of banning private jets. Obviously, private jet emission will not have an impact here but it clearly has an impact on our globe. We have a Private Members' Bill, which has gone past First Stage and which we are going to introduce on Second Stage to do precisely that, namely, ban private jets. Will the Minister and his Green Party colleagues be voting in favour of that Bill to ban private jets?

I have not seen the Bill. We will have to look at the legality of it to see if we can do it under the Chicago Convention, which may present real difficulties. It will not, as I said, do anything to close the gap we are discussing here today that we need to close.

I will refer to the point Deputy Murphy made earlier. There are trade-offs. It is difficult. Sometimes decisions have to be made - not just in Dublin as some of these hard calls will have to be made along the Wicklow coast - in which there will be some impact on biodiversity from some of the renewable power systems we have to develop. We need to make those calls. Part of our biggest problem has been public opposition or lack of political support for some of the difficult changes, particularly in transport and in land use and agriculture. It is all difficult. I am very proud we went into Government to effect change and to deliver real long-term change, which sometimes takes time. We will see the benefits from the decisions we are making in government in the next decade and in the one beyond that. The key question is whether we stop and start. Does the next Government continue to take the course we are taking? If it does, we can meet our targets. It is really challenging. The exact year of delivery may arrive a year later. It requires consistent, brave decision-making which is what we have provided in Government.

No. It is anything but brave decision-making. The children will pay the price for the lack of action by this Government. That is the truth. The Minister can try to lull people to sleep and pretend that everything is going to be okay, but it is not. We are heading towards an absolute catastrophe and the Minister is not telling the truth to people. The EPA report tells the truth to people. Let me get to my question. The private jets issue reveals the whole thing. Private jets are enormously polluting. The Minister understands it. They are approximately 16 times more polluting than travel by commercial flights. The vast majority of people on this planet will never be on a private jet in their lifetimes. It is a tiny minority of people. The Minister just said that his candidates running for election are campaigning on the basis of campaigning for banning private jets but when it comes to a vote in the Dáil and banning private jets, he will not commit to do it. There were false promises when he was in opposition and now when he is in government, he just gives up on most of them.

We can trade party-political attacks here. I remember Deputy Murphy's party being champions of the expansion of oil and gas exploration believing that it was the future of the country. I saw its posters claiming that we will have billions of euro.

That is nonsense.

I was there-----

The Minister stood by the Rossport Five and then sold them out when he was in government. That is what that is about.

I was here in the Dáil-----

I was battened off the streets by the gardaí because-----

(Interruptions)

I was here in the Dáil when Deputy Murphy was making that very case, that is, our future rested with fossil-fuel expansion at a time when, for the previous three decades, our party had been unique and singular in calling out the climate crisis for what it is.

It is a threat to our children's future.

We are going to move on.

It is somewhere where we do have to make fundamental changes for the better.

What about the question on private jets?

We all agree that it is a threat to our future. We will move on to the second round. The first person to indicate was Deputy Whitmore.

I will go back to the issue of the fines. The Minister said it would be in the range of several billion. Does he have money ring-fenced for those fines? Is there any possibility that it will come from the climate and nature fund? I just want to make sure that there is no possibility of that.

Does the Minister have a budget? Has he set aside some money for it?

This is all speculative. It is projecting what will be our gap. It is for the second half of this decade, not the first. The compliance cost depends on how other states perform, so it is very difficult to say. It is better to be upfront and honest and say it is not without a risk of being very significantly expensive.

The Minister also made another point earlier. He said that the policy is now for zero-carbon data centres. Is that the official Government policy or is that something he would like to see? My understanding is that it is not written in stone and that it is not actually the policy of the Government.

First, a large number of data centres are already contracted and the Government does not reverse contracts. Those which already have planning permission, grid connection, or are already proceeding, will do so under the conditions that were set, but I am looking forward to how additional new data centres should operate. Just like in every sector, there is not an out on climate: they have to live within the industrial climate limits that we have. I believe that the industry understands and accepts that. The alternative will not be easy. We will have to be at the cutting edge of learning how to do it but I believe we can: with the renewable power we have, with flexible use of the grid, with demand management, and with the use of waste heat and district heating, as well as the likes of biomethane as a backup fuel.

Has the Minister issued a direction that there should be no additional data centres unless they are proven to be carbon zero? I have issues with the fact they could be taking from the renewable energy that is required for residential homes. From the perspective of what the Minister said earlier, has he issued a direction?

They will not be taking renewable energy that reduces its availability to homes. We will have a surplus of renewable power by the end of this decade of some 13 TWh. We need to find industrial applications where we can use that to the benefit of our people and our country.

This summer the CRU will publish its guidelines on connections for large industry users, which includes data centres. That will set out some of the mechanisms that we will apply. There is a real issue-----

It is just that the Minister said earlier that data centres would be zero carbon, and this was at his request. Is that official Government policy and is it the case that any data centres that apply from now on will have to be zero carbon?

If I could just make the point, first, we are very seriously constrained with data centres, not just because of carbon emissions but also because of the need for grid enhancement and development, in particular in the Dublin area where we currently do not have capacity to take on additional data centres, as well as the climate prerogative. What I am doing is working with the industry and with my Government colleagues to say that the future direction and future projects, if they are able to get on the grid, which at the moment is severely constrained, should operate as I outlined. What is happening is companies like Bord na Móna, to give an example of one that is-----

I ask the Minister to be quick because other people want to contribute.

I am conscious that I am going to get stopped.

There are only ten minutes left in the session.

All I am looking for is-----

Yes, I am saying that new data centres-----

The Minister is the one who brought it up. Is it Government policy and the agreed position that all future data centres will be zero carbon?

The Minister should respond very quickly because we only have ten minutes left.

We will have to wait for the conclusion of the CRU process, which is the independent regulator of the sector.

So it is not. This is the difficulty.

What is actually-----

We will move on because other people want to get in on the second round.

I absolutely agree. The Minister talks about a lot of different measures-----

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but we have only ten minutes left.

-----but they are not being implemented.

They are being.

We have only ten minutes left, so I will move on to Deputy Bruton.

But that is not Government policy.

It is being implemented.

It is not Government policy.

We will move on to Deputy Bruton because we have only ten minutes left.

Just on that, I think we have to be realistic about this sector as well. The data centre sector is committed to being net zero by 2040. There is a huge effort to innovate in the sector. Deputy Whitmore's suggestion would risk the development of the data centres, which is key to-----

It is not my suggestion.

-----our cloud ecosystem.

I am trying to clarify whether what the Minister said earlier is correct.

Does Deputy Whitmore want to shout me down? I am entitled to speak.

The Deputy is misrepresenting what I said.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach needs to protect the right of people-----

The Social Democrats have called for a moratorium until we can have a strategic analysis-----

The Deputy will have an opportunity to-----

That was incorrect and I am correcting the record.

Deputy Bruton can clarify what he said. Please continue, Deputy Bruton. We are nearly there; let us keep things cordial.

This is an important issue because as the Minister said, we will have a huge surplus of offshore renewable energy. At the moment, the other technologies, like hydrogen, are unproven. We cannot risk the longer-term development of the ICT sector, which has been central to our economic strategy for a very long period. We have to manage this sensitively, as the Minister is outlining, because if we allow short-term constraints to result in investment going elsewhere and Ireland's sector being postponed, it will have a huge impact. We have to look at this issue in a very balanced way and I commend the Minister on the sensible approach he is trying to take here. Yes, we have short-term constraints and short-term targets to meet, but we must also make sure that as the previous Taoiseach described it, our moonshot, our opportunity to develop an offshore renewable sector that will mean Ireland is a source of green energy, is not jeopardised. I commend the Minister as this is a sensitive area and he has to be careful and have full consultation and not adopt ab initio assumptions about what sectors can do. We talk about agriculture and it cannot do things overnight. No sector can do overnight what we would like to see them doing by 2030, 2050 or beyond. There should be balance to this debate on the importance of data centres.

I think the sector knows it has to go zero-carbon. It is committed to science-based targets. It would be willing to work in a country and with a Government with a similar view and which facilitates the use of renewables, the use of storage, the use of biomethane and the use of district heat to get zero-carbon developments. That is where the industry is going to go. It is challenging because it is new, it is different and it is at the cutting edge of what can be done, but that is what we should do and what we will do. I find that the industry gets that. We are all on phones all the time. That is the data centre. That is where it is being used. Its customers will rightly say they want that to be sustainable, and not part of the climate problem. The industry gets that.

I call Deputy Murphy, who has two minutes.

The agriculture share of emissions are due to increase from 39% in 2022 to 44% in 2030, according to the EPA. How can we justify one sector of the economy using almost half of our emissions? Why do big farmers, big agri-business, which is responsible for the guts of this and not small farmers, get to take up half of our carbon emissions or close to that?

I agree that every sector is going to have to play its part and that no one gets an out. Agriculture is more challenging than others for a variety of reasons, first, a lot of agricultural emissions relate to land use and land use emissions are complicated. The science is complicated and it requires considerations of how we get that right. How we manage peaty soils is a big part of reducing agricultural admissions. I would also go back to what the Deputy said earlier that we need to combine climate action with restoration of biodiversity. For Ireland, the economic opportunity and advantage that we have is that we have a family farming system. I think the average Irish beef herd is about 16 cattle. We are typically small farmers and that displays different characteristics to the 15,000 lots found in China, Texas or elsewhere. Our economic advantage and opportunity in agriculture is by providing a really high-quality food for export as well as for here at home, which restores nature as part of having a pristine, natural environment and getting a premium for it. That is not just about carbon but about nature and biodiversity being restored. That to my mind is the future of Irish agriculture.

The EPA said the rivers in the south east are saturated in nitrogen. We need to address that. The agriculture industry recognises that.

The Minister's colleague took a dairy cow exit scheme off the table.

I was not particularly in favour of that. That did not come from a green perspective. That was a dairy industry proposal.

We have to pay farmers. Surely, the Minister accepts that we have to reduce the national herd.

I think we need to pay for a whole new generation of people coming in. Not to disrespect anyone who is an older farmer, but their sons and daughters need to have a clear economic future going into the family farm and the current system does not really incentivise that. The solution to this is for us to provide income certainty to farmers and to pay for nature as well. One of the reasons I am in favour - I would be interested in the Deputy's perspective on the nature restoration law, which I presume he supports - is that it provides an opportunity in addition to some of the energy ones I mentioned earlier where we to start pay farmers for protection of nature. That is the way to go.

From my perspective, in terms of farmers doing their bit for nature, they want to restore habitats and rewild. However, whatever way you want to phrase it, there is going to have to be proper payment and proper compensation. ACRES has certainly had a lot of interest. Many farmers have signed up for that - close to 40,000 - but the measures need to be bigger and, therefore, the payment and compensation needs to be bigger.

One of the many elephants in the room is the fact that we have not yet set a budget for land use, land use change and forestry, LULUCF, or targets either. When can we expect to see those budgets and targets set for LULUCF?

They have to be treated in a slightly different way outside the rest of the sectors within a UN system, so within our land use emissions and in our European strategies. The reason we had to take it is that the science keeps changing. The science around the peaty soils in forests saw a 7 million tonnes swing in terms of the scientific assessment of what the impact of our forestry model was. Similarly, we have had a swing back the other way in the last year, which is very welcome. The Teagasc analysis, in terms of the amount of drained land in the country, was seen to be accurate and, therefore, that swung it back the other way. It is different from other sectors where it is much easier to-----

I understand why it is different but when can we expect to see the budget set?

The budgets are set but they are treated in a different manner compared to these other sectoral areas.

There is no carbon budget for land use and land changes is there?

This is compared to agriculture-----

No, it is not like in the five-year strategy or budget arrangement.

I have one last point before we move on. We are looking for solutions here and in many ways the rate of pace that we reduce emissions is the frustrating thing. I put it to the Minister before that hydrotreated vegetable oil, HVO, has a role to play in transport. The Minister mentioned how we decarbonise freight, and I think it has a role there and in home heating also. We know that HVO could achieve significant reductions in emissions. Compared to the electrified heat pump, which we all believe in in terms of the long-term goal, the transition of a kerosene boiler to a HVO boiler can reduce significant emissions, something in the region of 80% to 90% in terms of home heating. Surely it is time to not let perfection get in the way of progress here and start to roll out that technology in home heating.

I do not agree. There will be a role for HVO but it is likely to be in the transport area, or again in those industrial high intense heat application areas because it is very limited and it is an important resource-----

It is not limited.

I beg to differ. In terms of us closing the gap, going further and doing more and in regard to the expansion of heat pumps for industrial lower grade heat needs but also domestically, if there is one area where we need to go further and faster, it is in the deployment of heat pumps. They are the better technology and are suited to Irish housing, the Irish climate and the use of our renewable power. We are going to electrify everything and-----

The indication are that there is-----

There will be some amount of fuels and they will be in transport and in intense or industrial heat applications.

The target is 400,000 heat pumps and we have only done 6,000 so far, so obviously the rate of pace is slow. I am backing the Minister when I say that the solution in the long term is electrification of our heating systems, but there is a technology, HVO, and we should not be ignoring it for home heating.

I beg to differ on that one.

Okay.

There are no other members indicating. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today for the session. The committee will meet at 3.30 p.m. today in private session.

The joint committee adjourned at 2 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 11 June 2024.
Top
Share