Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 15 June 2023
75. Deputy Jennifer Whitmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications if the climate action plan will be urgently revised in light of the recent EPA analysis which stated that even in the event that all actions were implemented fully, it would only result in a 29% reduction in emissions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28778/23]
View answerI would like to ask the Minister if he will urgently revisit the climate action plan in light of the recent EPA analysis, which stated that even in the event that all the actions of the Government were to be implemented fully, it would only result in a 29% reduction in emissions. Can he make a statement on that?
The recent EPA report makes it clear we have to act now on climate change and reduce emissions. To reverse the trajectory and meet our 2030 climate targets, a significant shift is required in the speed at which we roll out and ramp up the policies and measures that will decarbonise our economy. The Climate Action Plan 2023 sets out our roadmap for systemic changes to reach those objectives. We need to act much faster and with greater ambition and scale to implement the actions set out in the plan.
The recent EPA report has projected that Ireland is on course to reduce emissions by 29% by 2030 under its with-additional-measures scenario. The EPA's projections do not fully reflect the pathway set out in the climate action plan. This is because sufficient data is not yet available to allow all policies and measures in the Climate Action Plan 2023 to be modelled. Policies and measures need to meet strict criteria regarding detail for inclusion in the EPA's with-additional-measures scenario. The EPA's projections report acknowledges that if all of the unmodelled policies and measures and the as yet unallocated emissions savings are included, the reduction in emissions would equate to 42% by 2030.
Further detail on this will be provided through annual updates to the climate action plan. I want to give three significant examples of areas that are not accounted for in the recent EPA projections that will be highly impactful once modelled. First are the diversification measures in agriculture that are capable of delivering significant reductions. Second, in electricity, the EPA’s modelling only considers a reduced level of the total targets for onshore wind and solar photovoltaic. Finally, in industry, measures to reduce embodied carbon in construction materials are not modelled.
In addition, the EPA's modelling cannot include the unallocated emission savings of 26.25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which has been assigned to the second carbon budgetary period of 2026 to 2030.
With all due respect to the Minister, the EPA report did not say that we need to speed up and ramp up, which we obviously do. What it said is that the Government's policies are not enough to meet our 51% target. The Minister is correct that there were certain areas where sufficient data was not provided in the climate action plan for the EPA to undertake their analysis. In itself, that is a huge flaw. If a State entity that is there to oversee what is happening is not being provided with enough information through the climate action plan to actually do its modelling, then surely the plan is not meeting its needs. It is not detailed enough for the EPA to make an assessment.
There are areas that need to be revised. As the Minister stated, the diversification element is one of them. He also stated that if all of that was spelled out properly, we would meet 42%. However, that is still well short of the 51% target that is required in legislation. Will the Minister immediately revisit the climate action plan? It is not due until December, so will he do that now and put in the details that are required for those areas that were not specific enough, as well as any additional measures that need to be taken?
No, I believe we should do the climate action plan at the same time each year. It is an iterative process. It requires a lot of work to be able to come up with real, practical solutions. One of the reasons for that is the whole issue of land use, which is probably one of the areas where there is the greatest shortfall. We have to update the plan to include targets on that. We held back on that last year because the science had changed quite significantly in advance of the drafting of the 2023 plan. A body of work will need to be done for us to be able to do that in December. It is better to take the time to do it and get it right. I mentioned that as one example.
I was not being rude there. I apologise to the Deputy. I was just asking my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, if we had received an update from Brussels on the EU Parliament vote. To my mind, that is an example of how we can go further, by combining benefits that give us nature-based solutions for biodiversity, as well as reducing emissions. Critically, these should fund farming, foresters and others to be able to make that change. This should not be done in a forced, top-down, punitive way, but in a way that can turn a challenge into an opportunity. That approach will see us going beyond what has been modelled so far. It is the most important change we must make. There is a sense that it is possible, we will pay for it and that it will come from the bottom up, not just the top down.
The fundamental reason to have the climate action plan is to set out that pathway for us to meet our 51% target. That is the fundamental premise of the climate action plan. The Government does not have sufficient policies in place to meet the legally binding target of 51%. That is clear from the EPA's report.
Does the Minister have the information? Is information available on issues such as diversification in the agricultural sector? I ask because if the EPA does not have it, I presume the agricultural sector will not have it either. Does the Minister not see that as a major issue? If we are trying to bring people along, and if the Department and the Government have not specified and detailed how we expect the agricultural sector to meet these targets, that is a major challenge. It will completely undermine the Government's ability to meet the targets set out in the climate action plan.
If the Minister is not going to revise the climate action plan, will he at least put in an addendum to include the details of those issues, such as diversification, that the EPA could not model?
I am sorry. I had asked a colleague whether there had been any update and I have now been informed that the European Parliament committee has just voted in support of the nature restoration law by means of the chair's casting vote. That helps tremendously.
The question was on the climate action plan.
May I explain why it is connected? We will now have to go to a meeting of the European Council next Tuesday, where a similar consensus should and will be arrived at. That will allow us to progress that law, which is good not just for nature but also for climate. To answer the Deputy's question as to the opportunities that arise and the ways in which we could do it-----
No. My question was whether the Minister will put in an addendum to the climate action plan that will specify, in detail, issues like diversification that the EPA could not model because the information was not available.
That is what we need to do. The approach we are taking here is iterative. It changes every year. You learn by doing. You accelerate what is working and, where there is a problem, you look at other solutions to work around it. The land use sector is the most complex. It is complex because you have to prioritise rural development to make sure we have a whole generation of new people coming into farming and forestry, young people who will have a guaranteed livelihood and income so that they will be able to raise families. That is why I just referred to the nature restoration law. If that uncertainty in Brussels is reduced, it will give us much greater confidence and a much greater ability to provide the funding and incomes required to lower carbon emissions while also restoring nature. That is why I believe it is relevant to our debate and discussion here today.
