I thank Deputy O'Rourke. In regard to process, going back to what I said earlier, one of the reasons we rely on the UNFCCC accounting systems here is that we it means we do not have to replicate what we are doing already by creating a new system. The starting base was very much in the sectorial emissions ceilings that they would reflect the EPA emissions inventory. That makes sense. We take existing data. We do not create new data streams when we can avail of what is there. It was a long, complicated process. We had to consider a range of factors such as economic cost, feasibility, socioeconomic impact and the effect on other environmental sustainability goals. Also, critically, in setting these first two budgets and taking a view over the long run, we do not have to do something where we will have to reverse engines. We have to recognise we are going to net zero. If something can be a stepping stone towards lateral emissions reductions, obviously it will be very beneficial.
In the process one of the key elements was the employment of outside consultants - McKinsey, at is happens, which assisted the Department and engaged, with the Department, in extensive negotiation processes with other Departments. It was not as if we just started doing this in August. There were six months leading up to it. Deputy Bruton mentioned this earlier and I understand the process is similar to those in which he engaged in 2018 and 2019, in the sense of replicating the consultation process with different Departments. As I said, it is not easy.
The focus in the media and among the public was on agriculture. In truth, agriculture proved to be challenging because it is not easy to change some of our farming practices. However, in the end it was a beneficial process. We learned a good deal from engagement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, as did it. That gives me confidence that we are on a solid footing to where we go from there.
Deputy O'Rourke mentioned the energy area, in particular areas such as offshore energy. This is complicated because I have the ministerial portfolio and the Department has the responsibility for that. I am convinced that the targets are achievable for the energy sector, which has the highest and most challenging target of achieving 80% renewable electricity and a 75% reduction in emissions. The war in Ukraine has accelerated the case for change.
There are some large interventions, such as the likes of developing offshore wind, which can fundamentally switch the way things work within a decade.
The most challenging issue will be transport because, again, one is dealing with people’s everyday lives and transport patterns that have been set for 40 or 50 years of increased car dependency and a more sprawled, disbursed planning model in our country. That is not easily reversed. It will be a four-way switch: to biofuels and electric power; to walking, cycling and public transport; the reduction in the overall demand for traffic, which is probably the most important but least discussed; and a sharing of transport. Moving to more shared mobility options would be a clever way of not just improving our emissions but also improving our public realm.
I was drawn to that this morning coming in. It was the first morning that the schools were back, but also it seemed that many office people were coming back on a Tuesday. There was much traffic. Certainly, on my own route in this morning, the traffic was back to the worst days in terms of tailbacks of cars. That has to change and it is not an easy one to change. More than anything else, it is not engineering solutions, technological innovation or anything other than political will for us to reallocate space and create the environmental conditions which will allow for traffic volume reduction.
My understanding is, as I said, that a lot of detailed information has already gone to the Committee of Public Accounts, including a summary of some of the McKinsey analysis. We will follow it up this week, as I said, with further sharing of information. Further analysis will then be presented subsequent to that, including the detailed analysis from MaREI in University College Cork, UCC, which helped as lead academic agency in the collation of a lot of background research materials. All that information will be provided. They are the background appendices of analysis that underpinned the Department’s and McKinsey’s work.
We have known this information in this committee for at least five or six years. There is nothing new that has been presented in any of the analyses. Members could have a fairly good assessment from engaging here with MaREI or others as to what their recommendations are.
I would say one thing on that. It is interesting and I was just reflecting on this with a colleague the other day. Some of the modelling information from MaREI five or six years ago was quite different in its assessment. The world does change. Five or six years ago, for example, its assessment in the energy sector looking forward to the energy future strongly stated biomass would be a significant element in meeting our energy needs and decarbonisation. However, actually, five or six years on, the cost of offshore wind has halved and the price of solar has come down 70% or 80%. The assessment of what is possible keeps changing. That is why I keep coming back to this approach where we do a new climate action plan each year and we continue to update what is happening on the basis of those changing circumstances. Even though one gets good background scientific modelling information, it changes. Perhaps more in a five-year period than in a year-to-year period, but it is continually evolving. It evolves towards more renewables, more efficiency and the land use plan being probably the most important project we have in the climate agenda in front of us. Completing that is the most strategically important in so many different ways – for biodiversity as well as emissions.
