We have no apologies. The first session is from 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. and is an engagement with witnesses on projections for Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions from 2025 to 2030. I welcome the following representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA: Ms Roni Hawe, director for the office of evidence and assessment; Dr. Conor Quinlan, programme manager, office of evidence and assessment; and Dr. Tomás Murray, senior manager, office of radiation protection and environmental monitoring. They are all very welcome here this morning.

I remind all in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent or are switched off. Before I invite opening statements, I advise witnesses of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded 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 might 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, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The format of the meeting is that I will invite the witnesses to make an opening statement to a maximum of five minutes. Once the opening statement has been delivered, I will then call members of the committee, in the order they indicate to me, to put their questions. We operate a rota system, which provides each member with an initial five minutes to engage with our witnesses. It is important to note that the five minutes are for both questions and answers and, therefore, it is essential for members to please put their questions succinctly and witnesses to be succinct in their responses. Please note that the duration of this meeting is limited and, therefore, the times must be strictly adhered to, so I ask everyone to be focused in their contributions.

I invite Ms Hawe to give her opening statement on behalf of the EPA.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee, first of all, for facilitating the rescheduling. I know we had some difficulties with the earlier dates so we very much appreciate the committee's forbearance.

I thank the committee for inviting us here to talk about the greenhouse gas projections. I am the director of the office of evidence and assessment. I am joined by my senior management colleagues Dr. Conor Quinlan, who leads the EPA climate change programme, and Dr. Tomás Murray, who leads the EPA mission statistics team responsible for producing Ireland's greenhouse gas projections and inventories reports. For the committee's information today, we have also published the provisional inventory report, so we can take some questions on that if members choose to go into it.

The EPA's purpose is to protect, improve and restore the environment through regulation, scientific knowledge and working with others. We do this, particularly in relation to today's discussions, by providing timely evidence and knowledge to drive climate action in Ireland, including through compilation reports of national emissions statistics, climate adaptation, climate research, international engagement on climate change and behavioural insights and engagement.

The agency's work in relation to risk and adaption extends to preparing Ireland's national climate change risk assessment, which prioritises climate change impacts and actions across all sectors. We also play a role in adaptation governance.

The EPA is the competent authority with responsibility for developing, preparing and publishing projections of greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland. The EPA produces the national projections on an annual basis. They are compiled in accordance with and to meet UN and EU reporting obligations. At a national level, the greenhouse gas emissions projections inform policy and monitor and report Ireland's climate action performance to the Government under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Acts 2015 to 2021 and to the public as outlined in the climate action plans. The EPA's greenhouse gas emission projections are an estimate of what emission levels are likely to be in the future if planned measures are implemented at a given level. They are based on key assumptions, such as economic growth, fuel prices and Government policy. The EPA produces these on an annual basis for all sectors of the economy in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including State bodies such as the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, which provides national energy forecasts and Teagasc, which provides animal numbers and fertiliser use for the projection period. This is the fifth set of projections prepared following the enactment of the climate Acts and the 51% target contained therein. The policies and measures contained in Government policies, such as the climate action plans, are assessed and included in the projections at a representative level based on the latest information available.

The EPA published the greenhouse gas projections on 27 May this year. The key findings were that Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions could achieve a reduction of up to 25% by 2030 on 2018 levels with full implementation of a wide range of policies and plans across all sectors. This compares with a national target of 51% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The EPA's assessment indicates that the gap to target is widening in some sectors of the economy while narrowing in others. Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be close to the first carbon budget of 295 MtCO2eq. The second carbon budget is projected to be exceeded by a significant margin of 53 MtCO2eq to 82 MtCO2eq

Ireland is projected to exceed its EU effort sharing regulation target of 42% reduction by 2030. We are projecting a maximum reduction of 23% on that category. The slow rate of progress to meet the national 2030 targets can be attributed to, for example, the inability to model the unallocated savings, slower than anticipated deployment of offshore wind and grid development, low afforestation rates and lower than expected but improving EV sales. With less than four years to go to 2030, there must be a stronger focus on implementation of policies and measures to meet climate targets, which will deliver multiple benefits for environmental protection, support public health and well-being and reduce Ireland's dependence on fossil fuels.

Turning to the individual sectors, depending on the level of implementation of the measures outlined in the policies and plans, emissions from the agriculture sector will decrease between 4% and 19% over the period of 2018 to 2030. A direct comparison of the sector against its absolute sectoral emission ceiling is no longer possible given recent scientific updates to the baseline historical agricultural emissions.

In the transport sector, we see projections to reduce by up to 28% across the same period if the measures in the plans and policies are implemented. This includes at least 751,000 electrical vehicles on the road by 2030, increased biofuel blend rates and measures to support more sustainable transport.

Regarding residential emissions, we can see that the fuel combustion for home and hot water heating is projected to decrease by up to 18% by 2030. Lower uptake of home energy improvement measures, including planned heat pump installation in existing dwellings, has lowered predicted emissions for emission savings by 2030.

Regarding industry, emissions for this sector are projected to reduce by 12% over the period. Fuel combustion in manufacturing is the primary source of emissions in this sector. Emissions from mineral, chemical and metal industries contribute the next largest portions.

In the energy sector, continued roll-out of renewable electricity generation is projected to provide 52% to 59% of Ireland's electricity by 2030. In addition, increased importation of electricity from interconnectors will contribute to reductions in Ireland's emissions. However, delayed delivery of planned renewable energy projects, such as offshore wind, has lowered potential emission savings by 2030.

Turning to land use, emissions from this sector are projected to increase between 4% and 72% over the period as Irish forestry reaches harvesting age and shifts from being a carbon sink to a source of emissions. Planned policies and measures for the sector, such as increased afforestation, water table management on agricultural organic soils and peatland rehabilitation are projected to reduce the extent of the emissions increases.

The EPA continues to provide the evidence to inform progress towards Ireland's emission reduction targets. Ireland could achieve up to 25% of a reduction if all the projected measures are implemented, which is nearly halfway to our 51% national target. Progress is possible and we see this through the reduction of Ireland's overall emissions since the baseline years of 1990, 2005 and 2018 but the pace and scale of the delivery will need to increase significantly if we are to meet both our EU and national targets.

I thank Ms Hawe very much. I invite members in the order they have indicated to engage with the witnesses.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in. I thank Ms Hawe for the opening statement.

I have a few questions. Delivery seems to be a big problem at the moment. We are one of the worst performers in Europe. Do the witnesses agree with that?

Figures that we have seen to date in comparison with other EU countries put us second from the bottom in the European kind of scenario. That said, we have to acknowledge that we have a very different emissions profile to a lot of other countries. A like-for-like comparison is a little bit challenging.

As we are required by the EU, the legally binding targets are for a 42% reduction but the EPA's projections say that it would be 13% under current measures. Is that right?

We are saying 23%-----

A total of 23% with additional measures. There is a lot to get into. On EV cars, what are the significant barriers? Is it the cost of the EV cars? Is it the charging infrastructure? What is the main barrier whereby we are failing to increase the number of EV cars or reduce the emissions by the necessary amount?

We report in relation to the targets that have been set in the climate action plan and the ambition was 750,000 cars by 2030. As of the end of last year, we hit over 200,000 EVs. It is starting to improve. We have seen a lot of reporting recently regarding different incentives and challenges. What we do in terms of this exercise is that we take the projections that are there and modelled to the Department of Transport and we put them into the projection modelling scenarios. We look at the existing measures that are in place. We also look at additional measures and those that have been signalled and signposted but maybe are not in full implementation yet.

When the EPA hinted at the recent change and the new pilot scheme, did it anticipate that the pilot scheme would be sold out or exhausted within a very short period or did it have any notice of that?

It is almost irrelevant because we had published these back in May and they are for last year. The projections are-----

What about this pilot scheme?

We will factor that in. Any new developments like that have to go through a process. For all our projections, there is a methodology that is set down by the EU and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. Any new additional measures have to come through that process.

Should more money be put into targeting lower incomes and having tiered schemes?

What we would say unequivocally is that reducing our transport emissions will have a significant benefit to meeting our projections.

Okay.

Ms Hawe mentioned offshore wind in the report. Is it fair to say that we are way behind? There is massive untapped offshore wind potential of 540 GW and we are unlikely to hit the 5 GW target.

To deal with the first point, the more renewables that we bring into decarbonising our electricity generation, the better that is. At the moment, we have hit about 41% renewables in terms of electricity generation. We had up to 2 GW of wind factored into the projections at the moment. That is-----

Is it 2 GW right now?

It is in the current projections.

Is that for 2030?

Yes. That is a step down from the original ambition that was there for 5 GW. Doing more obviously would increase the benefits in terms of the emission reductions.

One Minister said that the Government in recent years has been sitting on its hands and navel-gazing about offshore wind. Does Ms Hawe agree with that?

I am not here to give opinions on Government policy.

No, it is about actual delivery. We are way behind on the targets.

We have also seen an acceleration in things like solar.

We are way behind with offshore wind.

We are reporting on what our progress is in the context of the overall targets. We are agnostic on the individual measures. We just report on them.

Fair enough. The current methodology and measures relating to agriculture are insufficient to hit the target of 4% to 19%. What more does Ms Hawe think could be done to reduce the emissions from agriculture?

We have seen the benefits of things like the low-emission slurry measures already. That has been a positive. There are opportunities in terms of things like feed additives that were identified and signposted in the climate action plan, but have not yet materialised. There are further opportunities.

Has enough been done by the Department to introduce those types of measures?

Again, we are agnostic on which measures it put forward and pushed for.

Ms Hawe is not giving me an opinion on that.

We are reporting on what the progress is and how it is performing.

Progress is not as it should be. It is failing to meet the targets.

The projections show that the measures planned at the moment will not meet the targets. More is needed.

I have a final question in relation to the emissions reductions which are unallocated in the climate action plan. There seems to be a lot of unknowns throughout the plan. Could Ms Hawe expand briefly on that?

When we look at the sectoral emissions ceilings and the carbon budget, particular targets have been set for individual sectors. It has not yet been decided where the unallocated savings are going to fit. I might ask Dr. Quinlan to elaborate.

The two scenarios that we produce for the projections are with existing measures, WEM, and with additional measures, WAM. These are set out in EU and IPCC guidance as to what we include and do not include. For the existing measures scenario, policies have to be in place with financing and they have to be essentially deployed. For the additional measures scenario, there has to be a clear pathway to implementation there for them to be incorporated into that. For the various policies contained in the CAP or the unallocated savings that there is not a policy glide path for, they are not included for that specific reason because they fall outside the methodological parameters.

As we saw with the 2025 report, we have significant challenges in some sectors. The emissions gap is widening in some sectors and narrowing in others. I want to focus on land use, land use change and forestry, LULUCF for a moment. The projections with additional measures would have us at a 72.2% reduction versus a reduction of 4.1% with existing measures. Could Ms Hawe outline what additional measures might be proposed? I am looking at the climate objectives in the land use review, which was published last week, where there are examples of good practice, but it also states that we need to ramp up carbon sequestration of peatlands, etc. Will Ms Hawe outline the position in that regard, please?

Obviously, the land use review was published last week. That would not be factored into the projections and methodologies just yet. As Dr. Quinlan reasoned and as I just explained a moment ago, the measures have to have a pathway in terms of legislation, policy and financing in order to feature in the projections. We will have to see how that plays out over time.

The LULUCF sector typically absorbs carbon. With the ageing profile of our forestry, however, as we start to harvest it, a problem is going to arise as it becomes a net emitter of carbon instead. In the climate action plan, a target of 8,000 ha of forestry per annum was set. We do not see that materialising at the moment in terms of achievement.

Have the LULUCF targets the potential to absorb, literally, some of the emissions from other sectors, which are increasing? Has it the potential to offset the worst impacts of other sectors that are underperforming?

If we look at the full range of sectors involved and the scale of them, we can see that our biggest ones are agriculture, transport and residential home heating. They have a significant impact. I do not think that just doing something on LULUCF on its own is the solution in respect of those sectors. There still needs to be change made in other sectors. I might ask Dr. Quinlan to come in on the details.

As I am sure the Senator is aware, in most European countries, LULUCF is a net sink for emissions. As Ms Hawe said, in Ireland, due to our forestry estate age profile, drainage profile, etc., it will be a net source. Both the WEM and WAM scenarios project it to be a source, essentially. Even given implementation, that will be a severe problem for Ireland in light of the fact that when you plant trees, it takes a number of years for them to become a net sink. Within the 4.172% envelope, it will be very challenging for it to offset anything.

One of the things that has been identified is the need to put the right tree in the right place on the right soil.

Even with peatland rehabilitation, it can be a net emitter for quite a period up to the time it is certain to sequester.

In relation to the figures published this morning, there is a significant challenge with agriculture. Ms Hawe stated that the EPA is agnostic on these issues. Perhaps it is an issue for the Climate Change Advisory Council, but the real issue regarding nitrogen-based fertilisers seems to be significant. It is obviously going to lead to water quality challenges in the next year or two. Is there a view in relation to a significant shift toward regenerative farming practices and away from the current industrialised model?

We have seen nitrogen fertiliser creeping back up from the low levels we had in 2023 and 2024. To put it in context, there is a bit of uncertainty. A proxy for the figures is the sales. We know from the impact of US tariff changes last year that there was an element of stockpiling. We also know that ahead of this year, with the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, a certain amount of stockpiling may have taken place in the sector. That is something we are watching from a water quality point of view. We reported on it last month. This is a matter of concern to us in that sense. One of the reasons that we talk about the co-benefits that a lot of these measures can deliver is that there is an element of climate action, but it is also about improving the broader quality of the environment and how that relates to us and protects public health, for instance, in clean drinking fresh water.

Does the EPA have to factor in the disapplication of the climate Act in relation to Government policy and Government legislation that is coming through, be it the Dublin Airport (Passenger Capacity) Act, the Critical Infrastructure Act or the Development (Strategic Gas Reserve) Bill, whereby the Government is parking the climate Act? What potential knock-on effect can that have on our emissions profile in the next decade? I know that it is very difficult and that there is no science to it because we are talking about lots of infrastructure and other potential implications, but can it be factored in? Is there a means of factoring in the impact of disapplying the climate Act in the context of other legislation?

The first thing I want to do is frame the projections and what they are at national level. I also want to frame the report we published earlier, which is the inventory or the stock-take as to what has happened. They do not translate down to an individual project level, and that is something we have to keep distinct in our minds. We referred to some of the new measures that have come into play since we produced these projections. We also referred to the process that new measures have to come through in order to be validated, along with the methodology set down by the EU and UNFCCC being taken into account. We will have to see how that emerges over time.

I thank our witnesses for coming in. Following up on today's report, we saw a 2.2% reduction in our emissions last year. There were single-digit reductions of less than 2% in two of the three years before that as well. The EPA is now saying that if we want to meet our targets, we would have to cut emissions by 10% year on year. Will Ms Hawe give us an indication of what measures would be required to implement a 10% cut year on year in emissions at this stage?

What we can do is identify what the big emitting sectors are.

That tells us where the change can be driven. We can acknowledge some of the challenges with it. For instance, we are aware that in our profile the likes of agriculture is a diffuse source of emissions. It is difficult. As we have over 120,000 or 130,000 farmers, it is a very difficult sector to make that kind of progress on. Things like feed additives that could reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation is obviously one possible pathway. If we look at transport, driving the growth in EV numbers is a significant beneficial measure, as are other things like public transport and active travel measures. It has been lovely to be up here in Dublin the last couple of days and see so many people cycling and walking around. Those all have a benefit. Obviously, they are not equally available to everybody everywhere and that is part of the challenge that has to be resolved. Those are a couple of examples. Another is heat pump adoption in residential heating, which is another big pillar.

Looking at energy in particular, I think Ms Hawe said 41% of our energy is now from renewables or wind. It was in or around that figure anyway. However, it seems to be equivalent to the amount of gas we are using. Broadly speaking, is that-----

Broadly proportionate, yes.

Is the EPA seeing any decarbonisation here? We are increasing our use of renewables but are we seeing - or where are seeing - reductions in fossil fuel usage?

We would have to acknowledge that the cessation of coal burning in Moneypoint has had a significant impact on the fossil fuel emissions coming from the electricity generation sector. The more we can build out renewables and effectively bring them into the grid, the more we will decarbonise.

One of the things we are told every time we ask the Government about missing its climate targets is that it says it has successfully decoupled our emissions growth from our economic growth. There is an element of truth to that but equally our emissions are reducing very slowly. From the EPA's perspective, is it possible to grow the economy and the population of the country as has been done over the last ten or 15 years, while meeting the targets that have been set out for us from an emissions reduction perspective?

The inventory document we published today probably captures that really well. It shows our emission profile back to the 1990s. We can see just how much we have transformed in the context of continued population growth since that period.

However, we are still way off our targets.

We are way off our targets but we do not want to lose sight of the fact that there have been huge achievements. If we had not made those reductions we have achieved so far, our emissions profile would be so much worse. The quality of life that people are able to enjoy and the affordability and things we can achieve through future measures is really important.

Okay. Again, on energy with additional or existing measures, has the EPA taken into account the Government's new data centre policy in relation to expansion of data centres, the number of projected data centres, their energy usage and the amount of extra fossil fuels they are going to be using, even at only 20%? Has the EPA taken that into account in its modelling for our energy or electricity targets?

Yes. I will set out some facts about what is in and what is not in, if that helps. The electricity primarily that powers the data centres comes in under the electricity sector. As that is the biggest element, obviously decarbonising the grid helps to decarbonise the impact of those data centres. The on-site on-demand backup generation they have would feature then in the commercial and other sector, where measures like alternative fuels can be a significant decarbonisation measure. The CSO figures that were published yesterday track with the projections we have, which are based on the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland national energy future projections. They have set an estimation of 27.5% by 2030. The figures that were published yesterday are in line with what is factored into the projections. To deal with the large energy user policy, because that came out in December 2025 that is not factored into these projections yet. Again, that would have to come through our methodological process to be built in.

So it should be included in next year's figures.

Potentially, yes.

I want to talk about the electricity sector briefly. We are seeing a 7.1% decrease in the emissions from that sector, but that is based not only on renewables but also on imports. Can Ms Hawe tell me what that figure would be if imports were excluded from the analysis?

I do not think we have calculated that precisely, I am afraid.

I have concerns in particular about the reporting on this sector. The Government, for example, has stated we have seen a 7% reduction in emissions from the electricity sector. A huge component of that, however, is because we are importing it from the UK. We just do not count for emissions that are generated in the production of that electricity. There is a certain level of masking of the actual figures - things we can and are responsible for within our own jurisdiction. Why does the EPA include those in the figures? Is that under the IPCC or are there external rules that would-----

As we get the figures for the national future energy demand from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, it factors in things like the existing wind that is in Ireland, and solar, including the increase in rooftop solar that we have seen in recent years. Those renewables are factored into the projections at the moment. I will ask Dr. Quinlan to come in on the other aspect.

The Deputy is correct. It is a methodological factor essentially because the inventory we produce is called a territorial inventory. We account for the emissions that occur here. If electricity is generated here, we account for those emissions. If it is generated in the UK the emissions are accounted for in the UK. In the global stocktake, nothing is left out but they are accounted for somewhere else. Similarly, we account for the emissions from livestock here if the beef is consumed elsewhere. That has pros and cons across different sectors but that is set out in the IPCC principles to which every country adheres.

If we are saying 16% of our electricity is from imports, is it safe to say that if we were to exclude that, our emissions would go up or actually would be reduced? We have seen a 7.1% decrease. Would it go down to about 5%? I am wondering what kind of impact we would see.

We have not calculated that.

The EPA has not looked at that. Is that something it would consider looking at? It is important. We need to know what we can deal with in our own authority as such. That masks the challenges in the sector if we are including imports when we are not responsible for the emissions from them.

That information is not contained in the published figures in the inventory because that is not what the inventory is designed to address, but those figures for emissions based on national power generation would be contained in the data that feeds into it. That information does exist; it is just not part of the outputs of the inventory.

Picking up on what was previously spoken about in relation to the data centres and the large energy users policy, the impacts of that policy will not be seen in this reporting period. We already have contracted energy usage that would be, I imagine, incorporated into the EPA analysis of that. That large energy policy is really post 2030 but the EPA refers to predictions out to 2055. Does it incorporate the additional 5.8 GW of energy in the projections to 2025? I have the spreadsheets here; I have not had a chance to look at them yet. Has the EPA incorporated that in there, particularly the fact that any large energy users or data centres under this policy do not have to have renewable energy for the first six years of their operation and there is what is being called a "glide path" to that point? Not only that, but then they are allowed have 20% of non-renewable forever and a day. Has the EPA looked at those projections?

As I answered earlier to Deputy Ahern, we have not factored the new policy into the projections because it came out late in the year. It would have to come through the methodological process to be incorporated. What we have factored in is the electricity demand that will come from them. That is in the SEAI projections. The on-site on-demand generation is modelled out and I will ask Dr. Murray on the figures from that.

We projected to 2055, if that is what the question was.

Yes, it was.

That is a product of reporting protocol as we adhered to under the EU governance regulation on energy and climate action. It is just by convention that we project out to 2055, but in reality there are very few policy levers post 2030 that really form that trajectory.

It is to 2030 and those targets we have the highest accuracy in terms of the projections. As there is still largely an absence in respect of many policies post that, going out to 2040 or even 2050, the trajectory is largely flat.

The EPA is not really looking beyond 2030 or those projections.

Dr. Murray is saying there is no policy certainty post that. Many of the measures and regulations in place at present are focused on 2030. After that, it gets a bit more nebulous, which is the difficulty. Again, this is why I said in my opening statement that these are estimates.

Is there not a difficulty with that? Obviously, the measures put in place now will have an impact post-2030. The EPA performs a hugely valuable service in having this data and evidence and putting it out there in order that we can have these discussions. If, however, we are not incorporating or looking at the emissions impact from these large policies beyond 2030, that is a risk.

It will be built into future projections if it comes through the methodological process. That is the bit we are saying today. It is not in this year's projections but it may well be in future ones to a certain extent.

It is an annual iterative process. As we receive information that is of a particular quality that we know will pass peer review, it gets incorporated. We update it every single year these ones.

So I do not need to look through this Excel data sheet then?

If the Deputy likes, she may.

I am delighted to hear that.

While I understand the methodology of that time lag on things like the large data users policy, it is a pity because the headline figures here are being used as the justification but they are not factoring in that piece. Of course, we know with the energy and electricity usage piece that it is not just the 20% fossil fuel component but effectively, over the next six years - we are talking about 2025 to 2030 here - there is not even a 20% ceiling in this regard. The target of 80% renewables and only 20% fossil fuel only kicks in after this reporting period. I am just conscious that the witnesses said it will hopefully be by next year. However, I think the problem is the period that is most likely to be negatively impacted in terms of our achieving these targets by this new policy is-----

It also does not have sight of the fact that the large data centre, which have on-site demand and generation capacity, would come under the ETS scheme - the initial trading scheme.

That is why I also wanted to come in under the ETS scheme. There are two things the witnesses might speak a little more on. We are not going to hit our effort sharing regulation target. As for the emissions trading scheme, as I understand it, aviation is one of the areas that always has been perceived as being a bit of a fudge in terms of where it has been counted. One of the things was the emissions trading scheme only counted intra-European flights but my understanding is there has been literally no accounting of flights from Europe outwards because there was meant to be a new international measure that was due come in in 2027.

Is that happening now that the US is out of the Paris Agreement? How much of a hole might there be in the counting of emissions from aviation in that space?

We have definitely gone far from the projections reported in the inventory report now but domestic aviation is incorporated within our projections and within the inventory. As the Senator said and she is fully correct, flights out of the EU are not captured. They are not in our national projections; they are in the ETS.

Beyond that, there are efforts made as regards global reporting but I do not have the details on what is happening with that situation right now.

The EPA is the relevant link authority in terms of the ETS, as far as I understand it.

Yes.

I understand that there was meant to be a change in 2027 in respect of the global piece.

I might ask Dr. Quinlan to come in on that bit.

To clarify, there is a distinction between ETS, which is a cap-and-trade emissions trade scheme to obviously incentivise the reduction of emissions and stocktake inventory of the measuring and accounting of emissions. If something is included in that national or intra-EU aviation capture under EU ETS, allowances have to be purchased and surrendered at a cost.

International aviation is accounted for by the IPCC but is not contained and does not have to be paid for within the EU ETS. It is not that it is being ignored; it is just not part of a cap-and-trade scheme.

One very striking thing about this concerns the additional measures in the land use piece, because the land use report was so very late to be published. It is the one where alarm bells are really ringing for emissions.

The witnesses have referred to projected and current measures but are there other measures that should be taken in terms of re-wetting or a shift in mandate? It has been said that we now are at harvesting time but there are measures such as, for example, continuous cover in harvesting. There are different approaches in harvesting. If we are at an emergency level in respect of hitting our targets and costs, there are questions as to whether we should be looking towards a large phase of clear-felling. That is a sector where we are very significant outliers. The EPA has stated we are not going to do it on projected current or additional measures. Is this one where new additional measures need to be generated?

We have said that some of the measures in the climate action plan have not been factored in because they do not have a clear pathway yet. As Dr. Murray was describing earlier, it has to have legislation, policy, financing and a clear pathway into implementation to get through the methodological process. Not all the measures currently in there have been factored in. There is scope for some of those to be developed and brought on board, which would impact on the projections.

After that, you would probably need to talk to the Department or Teagasc on the ins and outs of the different sectoral options available.

The witnesses have discussed EVs, but I am just wondering about public transportation. Is that one area where a scaling up is possible? I am just looking to where we can move.

Certainly, our dependence on private cars is a particular challenge. There is also a significant opportunity in respect of the commercial fleet, for instance, light commercial vans right up to haulage, and the fuel blends. There, with the increase in the biofuel blend built into our fuels, we have seen that it is having an impact in reducing transport emissions and more can be done on this.

Obviously, public transport is part of the mix and overall, active travel measures that help people to get out of the car are positive ones.

I thank the Senator and witnesses for that. Does Deputy Byrne want to come in?

No, I am okay.

As I am conscious of time, I have a couple of questions from my own perspective and then we will do a brief second round.

On agriculture emissions, the EPA has stated the reduction is marginal, largely due to increased fertiliser use. However, I think what the witnesses are really saying is that fertiliser was purchased but we do not really know if it was used or not yet. It could be sitting out there unused. Is that what the witnesses are trying to say?

Yes. We are watching that carefully for air quality, climate emissions and water quality, which is where we will see the proof and outcome of it. It is always a tricky one to model as regards the outcome. One of the measures in the climate action plan that we also watch relates to liming. Pairing that with fertiliser use can really help to diminish the negative impacts of using that fertiliser.

It is about the best use and management of that where it is being applied. That has got to be kept in mind. For instance, when we see the lime drop off a little bit, we are concerned about whether that fertiliser is being applied in a way that is going to release more or not. We just have to bear in mind there is a management aspect there. The signals suggest to us, as does the feedback from some of the farm organisations, that there has been a certain amount of stockpiling so we will have to see how that emerges over time.

Residential emissions were down 5% in 2025, but it seems the witnesses are attributing that in part to fewer heating days. Do the witnesses have a sense where the split there in heating days is warmer weather rather than efficiency of energy? Can they do that?

Is the Chair asking me to speculate whether the heatwaves this year have impacted?

I am trying to work out if there is genuine energy efficiency reduction there.

Yes, we are seeing a certain amount of genuine reduction and that relates to the adoption of heat pumps on the one hand and the retrofits and building control regulations in improving energy efficiency on the other. It is the combination of measures.

The range in the projected increase of land use emissions - anywhere from 4% to 72% - is huge. Now that the report is available, the EPA is saying that the measures decided on and implemented will decide where we fall within that range. Is that what the EPA is saying, in layman’s language?

What we do with the projections is report on what is planned at the moment. We can see the difficulty with that. There is a lot yet to be determined in that sector.

To go back to Deputy Whitmore’s point, in general, do the witnesses agree that there is a bit of a shortcoming in the methodology around consumption versus production? Take energy generation or the production of cars, for example. For cars imported into Ireland for use, the emissions are recorded where they are produced.

I go back to one of our initial points, which is that we are producing these in line with the methodology set down by the EU and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC. I will ask Dr. Quinlan to come in on the consumption-based element.

As specialists, effectively, do the witnesses see a flaw in this regard?

I would not describe it as a flaw. There are pros and cons to any of the methods that could be applied. When a country imports and exports things, those imports and exports must be accounted for somewhere. These are territorial, production-based inventories where we account for the emissions that occur here. Consumption-based inventories can be carried out where emissions associated with what is consumed here, including cars, luxury goods, imports, etc., are accounted for. Depending on the economic profile of the country, it can yield different results. It can be like robbing Peter to pay Paul, with pluses and minuses across different sectors of the economy. It is in no way a flaw. Rather, there are simply differences in the approaches.

Okay. We will move to the second round. Each member will have two minutes because I am conscious of time.

Obviously, the EPA’s modelling and reporting are based on the measures set out in the climate action plan. We are aware that the Minister is looking at rationalising or revising the action plan because it has not been working. We are in July and we still have not seen the plan for this year. The plans are late every year. We are not meeting the measures contained within them either. Has the EPA had discussions with the Department in this regard? If it is looking to simplify this plan and perhaps make it multi-annual, I fear that both our ability and that of the EPA to report on it in a robust manner may be impacted. Does the EPA form part of those discussions as the Department looks to reform how the plan is done?

On the one hand, we prepare and report on these inventories and projections. Of course, we brief the concerned Government Departments, including our parent Department, the Department of the Climate, Energy and the Environment. In that sense, it is fully up to date on our projections and inventories.

On the other side of it, we are a consultee of the climate action plan. In those circumstances, we submit the evidence we have relating to climate action.

Is there a minimum standard or amount of information that is going to have to be provided in order for the EPA to provide robust analysis? Its analysis is only as good as the data that goes into it. I am not sure what the plans are for the climate action plan, but if it is watered down to the point that the EPA will not have sufficient data, would that be a concern?

I will take that question in the round. Certain measures in the earlier climate action plans, for instance, were not featured in the projections because, again, there was no clear pathway to implementation for them. Legislation, financing or a clear commitment to delivery must be in place. Those things have to be built up behind it to get through the methodological process. We are as transparent as we can be. We come through European audits clearly and receive strong feedback that we are as transparent and inclusive as we can be in those processes. We will work with any stakeholder that is developing measures and wants them featured in the projections. There is a process to go through. It is not opaque. We do our best to be inclusive and support people in how they can achieve those bars. It is up to the different sectors to identify measures they want to put forward.

I will return to the land use piece. We received phase 2 of the land use review last week. Does it throw the land use, land use change, and forestry, LULUCF, section of the EPA’s work into disarray in some way? There are interpretations in the review around the two definitions of net zero and greenhouse gas emissions being based on global warming potential 100, GWP100. There is the second definition on split gas. Both are prescribing and calling for deep cuts in methane emissions. Does the late arrival of this report present a challenge for the work of the EPA and other sectors? My understanding is that the report had been hovering about for well over one year. How does the EPA go about factoring the outputs and recommendations arising from phase 2 of the land use review into the projections and carrying out remodelling based on that work?

While I do not mean to sound like a broken record, I will probably repeat some of the things I said in response to other members. First, the review has only come out in recent weeks. It is not, therefore, factored into these projections. As an agency, we have not had a whole lot of time to significantly sit down and digest that review and determine what would come out of the wash. We do not have an informed view on it at the moment.

To go back to what would feature in the projections, it would be those ones that have a clear pathway. If there are recommendations that will be built on by way of legislation, supports, schemes or other measures, they will come through into the projections.

I will quickly turn to public procurement and buildings more generally. The State is probably the largest procurer of building materials and goods. It is also probably the largest constructor of buildings. I am particularly thinking of the Department of education and the Department of Health in this regard. A lot of building construction going on around the country still uses large volumes of concrete. It seems the message about modern methods of construction, MMC, is not being driven home. The use of hemp and other materials that contain less embodied carbon would deliver significant savings. Quite a lot of schools being constructed across the country are using significant volumes of concrete, such as shuttering concrete. Are there significant potential savings to be achieved in the construction sector, particularly from the point of view of the State, which is buying a lot of these materials and commissioning a huge number of public building projects, with a move towards materials with lower embodied carbon?

I will put on a different hat because one of the other jobs the agency has is producing green public procurement guidance. We provide that guidance for sectors. Obviously, the public service climate action mandate places a requirement on public bodies to have their buildings as energy efficient as they can be and to be decarbonised to A standard or the commercial equivalent. There are a lot of measures in place already. After that, we are kind of getting into the realm of building control regulations and things that are beyond the scope of the EPA, I am afraid.

I wish to look at transport again. The EPA is considering measures potentially up to 2030. Has the EPA carried out any analysis on the lifting of the passenger cap at Dublin Airport? There will be an increase in passenger numbers from the official figure of 32 million – it is probably closer to 36 million now – up to 40 million. Has an analysis been carried out regarding those increases over the next immediate period? I appreciate international aviation emissions are not counted, but I refer to an analysis on a domestic or European level. Is this being taking into account?

New measures have not been factored into the projections yet. Where that would be expressed in the projections would be in terms of domestic aviation, that is, flights internally within Ireland. That is where that would come into the national projections, if that answers the Deputy’s question. It is not built into the current projections, however, which we produced in May.

I appreciate that it is recent but we might expect it to be included in next year’s report.

Yes. We will see what comes through from the Department of Transport in that regard.

The witnesses mentioned public transport and active travel as one of the things we should be focusing on policy wise. Are particular public transport projects built into the projections, such as MetroLink or the expansion of the Luas lines and so forth? I know they have to be budget allocated and at a fairly advanced stage. Are there particular projects the EPA is basing its assumptions on?

I might ask Dr. Murray to answer that.

Those particular projects have been costed but we have no implementation pathway to build them into current projections up to 2030.

We have no implementation pathway to build them into current projections up to 2030. Once we have a very clear steer on exactly when those projects start and when we start seeing those passengers shift towards using those modes of transport, we can then build them into current projections. To date, we have yet to get that steer.

At what stage of construction or implementation of these projects are they included in the figures?

It is when we are in discussions with the parent Departments, specifically the Department of Transport, and we see that very clear implementation pathway of when people will be using those services, volumes of passenger numbers and vehicle kilometres travelled per annum. When we see that level of detail we can start modelling the emissions. Without that, it is purely speculative and would not pass peer review.

Are there any projects the EPA is about to include or in the process of including? I am just trying to get an example. Are there any examples Dr. Murray can give without giving anything away? I am not asking him to divulge State secrets.

With many of those projects, the presentation of the evidence to us is pending, so it would be unfair to mention them because they may not make it into next year's projections as an example. Again, it is probably best to consult the Department about what it is planning to present to us.

It comes through the Departments.

It strikes me that it would be very useful to get that methodological piece about those standards because when we are engaging with Departments and others, it would allow us to move past vague statements of intention and ask when a project is going to be of a level where it can measurably be shown that it will reduce our emissions.

It is quite a detailed document. It is sector-specific and all of that-----

It would be useful to have a sense of the barometer to inform us in our engagements or even a timeline of where that would need to be in order to feature in the projections next year or the following year. My concern is that we are now looking at a scenario of taking backward steps. There are additional measures that are not reaching the target, which should ring alarm bells. The committee needs to look at measures that are additional to the additional measures. There is also the question of potential backward measures that are not being fully factored in in terms of the time lag.

The head of one the EU departments said the Euopean Green Deal atmosphere is no longer there in Europe. Of course the atmosphere is still there and the emissions are still going into it. While this seems obvious, can the witnesses confirm that when the EPA is disapplying the climate Act, in terms of the section 15 obligations, the emissions coming from these projects and areas are still being captured as emissions that we have to account for nationally, even if the specific climate obligations on the sector to do its best are being suspended? Is the envelope of our national emissions still the same, effectively, and still needs to be accounted for?

The sectoral envelope is still the same. It will come down to the combination of these in line with the rest of the activities within an individual sector in terms of projections, on the one hand, and inventories, on the other. It very much depends on how those are built out. We know, for instance, that the environmental impact assessment still applies to two projects that still have to come through that. That includes a climate factor, as well as all the other things. In terms of critical infrastructure that should be important drivers and should not get lost, the big things are adaptation and resilience. We have seen this year the extreme weather in the heatwave we are experiencing and if we think back to Storm Éowyn and a second storm earlier this year, Portugal got them. If those two storms had tracked further north, we would have been on the receiving end of very severe high winds yet again. The resilience piece cannot be lost because that infrastructure is going to be an important investment into our future.

On the concern about dilution of data, to follow on from Deputy Whitmore, there is a question as regards the quality of data going in. There is talk about simplification of the emissions trading system, ETS, and the environmental omnibus. How important is it that the data the EPA relies on is maintained? It might be useful if we could get more information on the data the EPA relies on, so that the quality of data is not lost for the EPA in doing its work.

There is an important benefit and impact from regulation such as the ETS. The sectors that come under the ETS have significantly reduced their emissions and we see that is a combination of regulation and creating incentives for decarbonisation. I ask Dr. Quinlan to come in on data quality.

This inventory projection process is peer reviewed internationally by other IPCC participants, that is, other states. They carry out in-country reviews here and we carry out reviews for them. There is a very high bar in terms of the methodology, data quality, etc. The ETS and carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, rely on monitoring, reporting and very detailed verification. We can see in terms of the ongoing work to verify biofuel use, both in Europe and in a wider sense, the huge efforts made to ensure the veracity of that data. We can stand over that.

In terms of policy changes or anything else, when we produce the WEM and the WAM scenarios, we are very tightly bound in terms of what we can include and exclude. If something is not evidenced, we cannot put it in there. The methodology protects the outcome.

I thank the witnesses for the presentation on the work they do. Deputy Ahern asked about building into future projects. The challenge is that everyone here is committed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We want to achieve that, though we may not always agree on the methods. I wonder at times whether we are losing the battle and whether the need to be able to achieve reductions is being sold effectively. I ask because we are increasingly seeing growing public opposition when we move towards projects that will contribute towards that reduction. When we look at investment in renewable energies, such as onshore wind and solar, the level of opposition is significant. In some of the active travel projects and investment in public transport, we are seeing increasing levels of opposition. What can the EPA do and what can we do to raise awareness of the importance of what we are trying to do and then build in support for those measures that will lead to greenhouse gas reductions?

My answer to that would be to talk not about projections and inventories at all but about some of our other work. For instance, one of the pieces of research we have been doing over the past number of years is climate change in the Irish mind. What that is is a very detailed, deep, high-quality survey of Irish people's attitudes to climate change. What we see there is huge, strong public support for climate action until it hits people's pockets. That is where the brakes start to come on. That is a natural, normal human thing. It is where we need to help to alleviate some of that friction in terms of what makes it difficult for people and what the barriers are. For instance, food waste is a particular category domestically that we could all look at in terms of reducing our emissions profile nationally, through the brown bin and helping to recover that food waste and compost it. That can help to offset food waste costs.

I appreciate that but with some of the bigger project measures, we are seeing growing public opposition. We have to face that.

To give an example of one that has been fairly constructive, I am from County Cork, so I have been watching the build-out of the interconnector in Youghal with great fascination. I saw the detailed consultation and stakeholder engagement that took place on that. I then saw the build-out of that interconnector facility last year on a public beach in the height of summer without any significant opposition. There are examples of where we are getting this right, for one thing or another. It is important that we look at those and the efforts that were made and see what we can learn from them to bring forward to other projects.

What we need to keep sight of are the benefits of decarbonisation. We had Elina Bardram speak at our climate conference last month, and she spoke very eloquently about the energy security benefits of this for Europe and how, in the long term, price stability and getting away from the shocks and exposures of fossil fuel emissions will benefit us. Those are things we have to communicate to people nationally. Yes, our landscape might need to be treated differently and we might need to look at how we deliver and roll out the grid and what renewables will have to look like into the future, but we have to keep sight of why we are doing it and what the overall benefits are to us. In terms of reducing pollution, for instance, air pollution, we have one of the highest levels of asthma in the world, so anything that we can do to offset emissions locally impacts our own quality of health.

I propose we publish the opening statements on the committee website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for taking part in our meeting today on this matter. We will hopefully have them in again to talk further about emissions. I will suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave and our second set of witnesses to come in.