The majority of people in this Chamber understand that we need to change the way we work and live to meet our climate change obligations. I say the majority because not all of us do. The majority of us do. I understand the Minister is meeting the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the next couple of weeks to determine the percentage of emissions reductions targets. The scale is between 22% and 30% but has to be negotiated. Would it make more sense, before we decide on a specific target, to reach the afforestation targets that we set ourselves? The target is 8,000 ha per year. At present we are only delivering 2,500 ha. We should look at technological solutions such as aeration of slurry tank systems and so on before we set those targets.

The afforestation rates we need are going to be higher than that. This is complex. When you go into the detail of it, we have to account for farming and agriculture but we also have to account for land use. It is a slightly different category but it is connected obviously. We have learned that the forestry put in over the past four or five decades was in peaty soil where there is a release of carbon. It is not a sink. We will be clear-felling it in rapid fashion, which means that sink of forestry would turn into a larger source than we expected. We are going to have to go further.

Returning to what I said earlier, critical in any changes we make is the key metric of getting an income to farmers and foresters so that young people can see a future for themselves to be part of the climate solution and get paid well for it. The sort of discussions I am having with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy McConalogue, and other Ministers are on how we make sure we make this change in a way that works for our people as well as for the environment.