Pléifimid anois ceannteidil an Bhille, an Bille um gníomhaíocht aeráide agus forbairt carbóin íseal. We will discuss the outline heads of the climate action and low carbon development Bill 2013. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Dochtúir Brian Ó Gallachóir, léachtóir in innealtóireacht fuinnimh i gColáiste na hOllscoile Corcaigh,UCC. He is very welcome indeed. Gabhaim buíochas leis as bheith i láthair inniu.

I wish to highlight a couple of procedural things, although Dr. Ó Gallachóir's will have heard them already because of his presence in the Visitors Gallery. I draw his attention to one or two procedural items before we commence. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Dr. Ó Gallachóir's opening statement may be published on the committee's website after proceedings have concluded.

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 House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We have Dr. Ó Gallachóir's opening statement, which is quite detailed and good, so if he wants to give us his thoughts around it, he is more than welcome to do so. We have heard from Professor Kirby. This is a very important issue for us. Our overarching objective is to produce a report with a view to finessing the legislation. We have the heads of the Bill, so we are very interested in Dr. Ó Gallachóir's views, given his background, on how best we can advance our overall objective in that context.

I thank the Chairman. I am delighted to address the committee. This is a very important topic and is also very urgent. I propose to summarise the opening statement that I have provided to the committee.

The most recent assessment report from the IPCC concludes that warming of the climate system is unequivocal. That is its analysis as published in 2007. A more recent report published last month by the International Energy Agency concludes that the world is not on track to meet the target of 2°C agreed as part of the international process on climate change negotiations, the Cancún agreements. According to the scientific analysis, this means we will have more extreme weather events which will become more frequent and intense. I understand the committee has addressed the impacts of flooding as a separate issue. According to the International Energy Agency, we are likely to have a temperature increase of between 3.6°C and 5.3°C compared with pre-industrial levels.

Greenhouse gas emissions are associated with two things: energy on one side and agriculture on the other. What I call energy includes energy used for transport, energy for heating our homes and businesses, energy for industry, and power generation. Energy is at the heart of the challenge. The increase in emissions is largely due to what we have been doing in terms of energy and is also where the solutions lie. The focus of my research is energy modelling to inform policy decisions. We have built the only software model in Ireland that allows us to examine different scenarios in the period to 2050. It is on the basis of that analysis and research that my comments have been generated.

I would like to raise five key points which will, I hope, inform the deliberations of the committee. One is that Ireland has distinct challenges in making the transition to a low-carbon economy. That is not a reason to abnegate our responsibility, but it is a contextual point of which we need to be aware. Second, policy to date has been effective in isolated areas but has been insufficient. Third, growth in beef and dairy farming is not aligned with developing a low carbon economy. Fourth, we should be ambitious and also realistic. Fifth, we need more evidence-based policy.

In the context of the first point, Ireland has distinct challenges. I want to draw the attention of the committee to two of them, which are related to some of the comments made earlier. Our emissions have grown while EU emissions have declined since 1990. When we talk about targets relative to 1990 and 2005, we can have a very different perspective from other countries. Reference was made earlier to the EU low-carbon roadmap, whose target is a 40% reduction in emissions EU-wide by 2030 relative to 1990 levels. That is equivalent to a 36% reduction relative to 2005 levels for the EU, but if we apply a 40% reduction relative to 1990 levels to Ireland it is equivalent to a 52% reduction relative to 2005 levels. If we simply apply the EU low-carbon targets for 2030 to Ireland we end up in a very different situation compared to the rest of the EU.

The second point in regard to our distinct challenges is agriculture, which has been discussed. Essentially, 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, whereas 10% come from agriculture in the EU as a whole. This does not mean we are bad at reducing emissions from agriculture; rather, it reflects the fact that a significant portion of our agricultural output is exported. The emissions are calculated based on production rather than consumption. The fact that cows are belching here means they contribute to our emissions even though the resulting steaks and milk are consumed elsewhere. About 80% of our beef and dairy sector output is exported. That raises a key challenge, a point to which I will return.

The second key point is that policy to date has been effective in isolated areas but has been insufficient. I used two examples in my submission. One is the fact that in 2000 we started to take wind energy deployment seriously and moved from a situation in which wind energy represented 1% of our electricity generation to one in which it represented 16% of the total, in 2011. That is a very significant achievement and was delivered through policy. It was largely the work of the renewable energy strategy group in 2000, which effectively transformed wind energy from a peripheral policy issue to one which achieved almost full stakeholder support. That is not to say that wind energy does not face challenges, but it is a success story.

The second issue relates to the purchasing of new cars. We changed our car taxation system in July 2008. The emissions performance of new cars purchased in Ireland has significantly improved. In 2008 every kilometre travelled by car resulted in the emission of around 166 g of CO2 per kilometre, but now the weighted average for new cars is 130 g of CO2 per kilometre.

These successes are in isolated areas. Problems arise in the energy system as a whole and we have not been successful in dealing with that. There are areas of the energy system that we have neglected and, as a result, despite these successes, our energy system continues to be dominated by fossil fuels with high import dependency. We need a plan for the full energy system - that is, energy used for power, electricity and transport, and in buildings.

The third key point is that growth in beef and dairy farming is not aligned with developing a low-carbon economy. This presents a huge challenge for us. As I mentioned, our beef and dairy farming has a low carbon intensity but we export a lot of our output. Beef and dairy farming make a significant contribution to emissions. The decision Ireland has to make is whether to stop or continue with beef and dairy farming in the context of moving to a low-carbon economy. If we stop it, the chances are that beef and dairy products will be produced elsewhere, resulting in greater emissions. We are working with Teagasc, but based on my analysis, a reasonable target for the agricultural sector would be to have zero growth in emissions from agriculture between 2020 and 2050. That would allow for growth in agricultural activity, coupled with an improvement in the emissions performance of agriculture. If we combine that with an 80% reduction in the remaining emissions from the energy system, we end up with a target for 2050 of 50% below 1990 levels. That does not sound ambitious in the context of goals of 80% to 95%, but they are the figures we need if we want to keep the beef and dairy sector going.

That ties into my fourth point, namely, that we should be ambitious and yet realistic. The 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions comprising 0% growth on the agriculture side relative to 2020, protected levels until 2020 and an 80% reduction in energy emissions relative to 1990 levels are ambitious but realistic challenges.

We explored the idea of going further in the energy system, such as achieving a reduction of up to 95% in emissions by 2050. We found the marginal abatement costs - that is, the cost to squeeze out the last tonne of carbon dioxide in 2050 - increased fivefold when one moved from a goal of 80% to one of 95%.

More evidence-based policy is required. Mitigation strategies for deep cuts in emissions require significant financial investment. The development of strategies based on poor information and analysis will be expensive and wasteful. This is needed for two reasons: to develop national policy in an informed and considered way, and to strengthen our negotiating position at EU level. I have cited one example in my presentation in which our research suggests that the non-ETS target for Ireland was based on flawed analysis and that the cost of the misinformation is approximating to between €3 billion and €4 billion. Our negotiating effort at the time was diminished because we did not have modelling tools such as the one we have developed. We have that tool now so we can have a more informed negotiating effort and, I hope, negotiate a better result in the future.

I refer to eight recommendations which I submitted to the committee. In order to allow time for discussion and questions, I do not propose to read them now.

New Zealand is a similar country to Ireland. It has an agricultural economy with a low population density. Can we use New Zealand's experience with regard to legislation on climate action and low-carbon development? The agricultural sector is a significant factor in this debate because it represents the biggest challenge. We have signed up to the Kyoto agreement and other international obligations. Should we regard those obligations as targets when formulating legislation?

I refer to the model for abatement costs suggested by Dr. Ó Gallachóir. It seems a little on the low side, vis-à-vis GDP, in my view. Is he satisfied that this model is robust? What are the possible economic costs of directly substituting the purchase of carbon credits? There may be an argument for investing in better public transport if the model is shown to be cost-neutral. I refer to the implications of Harvest 2020 for other sectors. Emissions are increasing and we hope to achieve our targets under Harvest 2020. What are the costs for the other sectors such as transport and energy? They will have to pick up the slack in order to neutralise the increase in emissions.

I equate Kyoto and other obligations with targets. Kyoto is an international agreement and there are also targets from the EU non-ETS burden-sharing agreements. I equate those with targets in that they are mandatory once we have agreed to them. I am not familiar with the New Zealand legislation. My expertise is in energy rather than in agriculture. I study the consequences for the energy system of not being able to achieve targets in agriculture, based on other people's analysis of what is feasible in agriculture. That touches on the implications of Harvest 2020 in the short term.

Ireland's short-term target is to achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the non-ETS sectors relative to 2005 levels by 2020. Our analysis shows that the targets of Harvest 2020 mean that the energy system will have to deliver a reduction of more than 30% in greenhouse gas emissions in the non-ETS sectors. The non-ETS sectors in energy are the most difficult ones in which to achieve reductions, and these are the ones that have been neglected. The focus of the energy policy has been on electricity. Electricity will not help us to meet our non-ETS targets because it is part of the ETS grouping. Transportation and the heating of buildings, homes, shops and offices are the key areas of the energy portion of non-ETS emissions. Because Harvest 2020 has been agreed, the consequence is that if the energy system delivers the overall required reductions to achieve the 20% target, the marginal abatement cost is four times higher than it would have been if the targets had been allocated sectorally - that is, if everyone had to give a 20% reduction.

The Deputy said that the costs were on the low side vis-à-vis GDP. We have produced marginal abatement costs. It is quite a crude calculation in terms of the cost of meeting a target. We have divided it by GDP. Our model is driven by GDP activity, which produces the requirement for energy. We do not currently have feedback when we start creating scenarios in which we impose climate targets on our energy system. It is a work in progress. We are working with ESRI to improve that. The costs are on the low side. In our scenarios we get in the order of 1% to 2% of GDP associated with our emissions reduction scenarios by 2050 but we need to do further work to improve those results.

There is a resource implication for future development. Is Dr. Ó Gallachóir modelling the projected growth in GDP based on that? Is he making any assumptions about what level of growth is sustainable?

No. Our focus is on the energy system, so we work with ESRI, which produces economic growth scenarios for us. Those growth scenarios are based more on economic factors. We are working on developing feedback so that when we impose a climate target we get some feedback mechanism to assess the impacts on the economy more robustly, but that is not in place yet.

I thank Dr. Ó Gallachóir for his presentation and for his attendance. He stated that significant ETS emission reductions may be achieved through electrification of heating and increased bio-fuel use in transport. I refer to the use of arable land for production of bio-fuel crops and the target in Harvest 2020 to increase production by 50% by 2020. This will put increased pressure on arable land to be used for food crops.

According to Teagasc, agriculture is responsible for producing 32% of our greenhouse gas emissions and we must try to reduce this while we are also trying to meet the Food Harvest 2020 targets. How can we reconcile these two? Ireland is, apparently, better than New Zealand in the context of the amount of greenhouse gases produced by agriculture. Again according to Teagasc, the emissions figure for agriculture in New Zealand is slightly higher than that which obtains here. We have reduced our emissions by just over 17% from their peak in 1998. Perhaps it is possible that there are ways in which they might be reduced further. Will our guests indicate how they see the contradictions in this regard being dealt with and how matters are going to play out?

In the context of the energy sector, one of the matters about which I have been concerned for some time is the fact that we have not yet even begun to address the issue of hydropower. This is despite the fact that the country experiences significant levels of rainfall. The potential for hydropower projects to be exploited exists at a significant number of sites throughout the country. In previous centuries, such sites were exploited in this way. In the context of public policy, this matter has not registered on the radar since the project at Ardnacrusha in 1928. The approach that was adopted in the wake of the latter was that we had done enough and there was no need to do anything else. However, there is potential to put in place throughout the country a number of small-scale projects similar to that at Ardnacrusha. Will our guests indicate how we might kick-start a move towards exploiting hydropower, which is a carbon-neutral way of producing energy.

My final point relates to waste energy. I have visited a few pilot projects in this regard but I am not aware of very many others. Nothing significant seems to have happened in this area or if it did, perhaps I missed it. I certainly have not seen much evidence of such projects. Flares are used at landfill sites to burn off methane gas, which, for want of a better word, is mad. A huge shift in policy will be required because we will be obliged to target all of these small sources. We cannot replicate what was done at Ardnacrusha or Poulaphouca 20 times over throughout the country. However, there are many small sources of energy which can be harnessed. To a large extent, we have left it to private enterprise to develop projects in this area and that has not really worked. Will our guests indicate how they see the policy shift to which I refer and which would reflect the same kind of national or Free State vision which obtained in the 1920s in the context of gearing up the ESB, Ardnacrusha, Bord na Móna, etc., coming into play? We need to make it our mission to tap into the other sources of energy that exist. As stated, in many instances the methane gas produced at landfill sites is actually being burned off.

The Deputy raised a number of interesting points. He referred to a significant conflict which I did not bring up in the context of what we should do about agriculture and its impact on the energy system. One of our sets of results shows that if we continue as we are with the beef and dairy industry and if we want to meet more stringent targets, then the energy system must do more. Part of the solution in this regard relates to bioenergy. Immediately a further conflict arises in respect of agriculture in the context of competition for land use. This is another issue with which we must grapple and there is no easy answer in respect of it.

In terms of hydropower, we have actually exploited our best sites. There are some smaller sites which could be exploited but they would not contribute a significant amount in the context of our overall energy requirements. When Ardnacrusha was developed, the grid was developed around it. At that time, effectively 100% of our electricity came from the renewable source of hydropower. At present, approximately 2% of our electricity comes from it. Electricity represents less than 20% of our overall energy use, which is a very small proportion. Our analysis suggests that the biggest opportunity in terms of meeting our emissions reduction target at least cost relates to wind energy and bioenergy. In the context of bioenergy, the use of biogas has been neglected. It is possible to anaerobically digest the organic fraction of waste to generate biogas and one can also grow crops to generate it. One of the best crops, in the context of land use and energy output per hectare, is grass. Of course we have expertise in this area. Essentially, we could foresee a situation whereby grass could be used in anaerobic digesters to generate biogas. The latter could be then fed into the national gas grid and used to meet our heating and transport requirements. The latter would be done through the adoption of compressed natural gas, CNG, vehicles. Some activity is happening in this area in Ireland but the pace is very slow. As with many things in the energy space, a significant boost will be necessary if we are to make the transition we require.

On producing energy from waste, a number of the larger landfill sites have electricity generation plants. However, there are others where, as the Deputy stated, the gas is flared off. My view on the production of energy from waste is that we should seek to generate biogas and feed that into the gas grid by upgrading it to biomethane.

I apologise for missing Dr. Ó Gallachóir's opening statement. He may well have addressed some of the points to which I am going to refer. I draw his attention to recommendation No. 5 which states, "As we enter negotiations regarding Ireland’s contribution to 2030 and 2050 EU targets for energy efficiency, renewable energy and climate mitigation, this modelling tool [I presume this refers to The Irish Times' modelling tool] provides the capacity to improve both our negotiating position". From what Dr. Ó Gallachóir stated, I presume including unilateral targets in primary legislation is arguably less important than adopting an evidence-based approach to future negotiations on international targets and obligations as the relevant processes evolve.

It is interesting to consider the UK's approach in this regard. The UK has legislated based on a target and it has five-yearly carbon budgets, with annual reporting in respect of these. In that respect, the UK authorities can take account of changes as they occur and then readjust their strategy to achieve the overall goal.

Based on evidence.

Yes. I suggest that a similar model would be very useful here. Reference was made earlier to the need to have scientific input into advisory committees. A constant re-examination of where we stand and where we are heading will assist us in making adjustments in order that we will not develop a low-carbon roadmap which will be set in stone. Technologies will change, as was the case with photovoltaic generation. Significant changes, which would need to be taken into account to proceed in a more considered and efficient manner, can occur.

I thank Dr. Ó Gallachóir for his presentation. As we proceed, it will be difficult to avoid a conflict between the energy and agriculture sectors. Dr. Ó Gallachóir put it mildly when he stated that there is a contradiction between Food Harvest 2020 and the targets we have set ourselves in terms of reducing emissions. I wish to tease out the position regarding what he refers to as the ambitious but achievable goal of reducing the target by 50% by 2020 through zero growth in emissions from agriculture.

Has he teased out the matter or done so with fellow social scientists, economists or agricultural economists? What is the reality? The other great challenge that we face is investing in electrification and continued electrification, particularly for heat. How can this be achieved in the short-term? Clearly, Government policy on economic development, particularly in the energy sector, is not in tune with the EU targets.

On a philosophical level, Dr. Ó Gallachóir seems a little more pragmatic than Professor Peadar Kirby and is not as aggressive about achieving a target within a timeframe, with claims there is a trajectory by which we will achieve it at a certain point. I would like Dr. Ó Gallachóir to comment on the matter.

As the Senator has said, there is tension between what is happening in energy and what is happening in agriculture on a number of fronts. If we have an overarching target and agriculture does not deliver then energy must do more. Conversely, if energy must do more then more land is required. There is feedback in terms of conflict.

The 2020 timeframe is not an issue in the short-term. An analysis has been carried out on the amount of land required and what land remains. It is more of an issue post-2020.

That is short-term. Will it be an issue beyond 2020?

Yes. The Senator made a second point about the 50% reduction by 2050 being relative to 1990 levels. In some of the work we did previously we examined the EU low-carbon roadmap, which indicated that in the EU one can get a 50% reduction in emissions in agriculture. However, we are not experts in agriculture, so we just applied the roadmap in order to see what the consequences were for the energy system. We concluded that if one could get a 50% reduction in agriculture and a 95% reduction in the energy system then one could achieve the overall 80% goal. We have talked to people in Teagasc and other experts in agriculture and realise that achieving a 50% emissions reduction in agriculture in Ireland is not feasible because agriculture in Ireland is very different from agriculture in the rest of the EU. Ireland's emissions are dominated by activities associated with grazing. Crops and housed animals give other mitigation options that Ireland does not have.

Teagasc is working on projections up to 2050 and we are using a zero-percent target as an interim measure. The target suggests that if we want agricultural activity to grow then it needs to find mitigation to reach a zero sum. We have made a crude assumption which is not based on evidence from agriculture. Clearly, if we want the beef and dairy sector to continue then the target would be in that vein. Obviously, if the country chooses not to continue, then we can apply a different target. As I said, our focus is more on how an 80% target could be delivered in the energy system.

The Senator also mentioned the electrification of heat. Our model generated certain results in the context of the 2020 targets because we must meet an ambitious non-ETS target, and Food Harvest 2020 has other knock-on effects. As I mentioned, emissions generated in electricity are associated with ETS. If we use electricity for heat or transport then we will shift them from the non-ETS to the ETS sector, an option that is open to us. I have two things to say about the electrification of heat. First, we have about 1.6 million permanently occupied dwellings in Ireland and nearly half of them have oil-fired heating. The amount of oil we use is unusual when compared with other EU member states, but it is the result of our housing stock being spread out. I will outline one of the measures we could examine. We could analyse how many of the 700,000 dwellings with oil-fired hearing are located close to the natural gas grid, and a sensible move in the short term would be to connect them to natural gas. The initiative would immediately lead to improved efficiency and reduced emissions. In the long-term, feeding biogas into the gas grid means that housing stock can access renewable gas.

We are examining the possibility of attaching an air source heat pump for houses located away from the gas grid. Therefore, the electricity requirement would be drawn from the ambient air temperature. That would be a sensible way to electrify heat in the residential stock. We are carrying out a further analysis with other modelling tools that focus more closely on the power system and on housing and residential energy use to see which houses might be suitable. One could adopt a strategy of aiming for larger and more inefficient houses, upgrade them to reduce their energy consumption and then electrify their heat use to see what kind of incremental gains could be obtained from energy efficiency and electrification. That means the electrification of heat plus the gasification of heat, which is often overlooked.

Achieving the ambitious target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 would require electrification of heat and transport and increasing our electricity usage from 20% to 30%. It would mean the remaining 70% would not be electricity-based but largely biomass-based. In some areas, such as aviation, kerosene is still being used. Electrification is only part of the story but it is an important part.

I have a supplementary question. I do not know if Dr. Ó Gallachóir heard Professor Kirby's response to the heads of the Bill and how aware Dr. Ó Gallachóir is of the Bill. I would like to hear Dr. Ó Gallachóir's view on the matter, particularly as he has examined agriculture's energy and natural resources. What is the natural Department to hold responsibility for delivering the targets? Has he considered the matter?

I have not considered it in detail but I did listen to Professor Kirby's presentation earlier. Given that different Departments are responsible for different emissions and different parts of the economy, it makes sense that the Department of the Taoiseach become the overarching Department.

I thank the delegations for their submissions. I congratulate Dr. Ó Gallachóir on the IT tool that he developed in Cork. It will enable him to read and acquire scientifically based information on how we will change and perform up to 2050. We want results now, so can Dr. Ó Gallachóir give us some good news? Obviously we need a long-term plan. The climate is changing. Sea levels have risen 3.2 mm and the temperature is rising in the Mediterranean area.

At present we are talking about agriculture and food production. Obviously, food security will also be important to the European Union. Scientists have predicted that the Mediterranean countries will no longer be able to be as agriculture-based as they are currently, so it will fall on the prime agricultural countries to provide food security in Europe.

Dr. Ó Gallachóir mentioned the land mass and trying to strike a balance between energy and food production.

Our ocean mass is ten times the size of our land mass but we are not putting enough effort into ocean-based wind production. Wind energy production has increased to 16% from the low base of 1% but if we are to ensure that we reach our renewable energy targets, we will have to make recommendations. Does Dr. Ó Gallachóir have to incentivise ocean energy production - wind farms at sea - because we have seen how difficult it is to get a wind farm project off the ground, and community considerations must be taken into account also?

Dr. Ó Gallachóir said we are getting more efficient in terms of wind energy and as a result of the tax measures on cars. In the European Union this week, we saw that the efficiency in terms of car emissions is reducing every day. It is hoped that we will soon reach the point where we will have cars with zero emissions. Our car tax is based on emissions. If we are looking to get funding from somewhere to put into renewable energy, including wind energy, an additional 1.5% of the market price of large, 500 hp diesel cars costing €100,000 would not be much for people who can afford that. The Fiat Panda is becoming more energy efficient yet the tax is higher on that. If we eventually reach zero emissions in cars, obviously we will have no tax revenue.

I would like to hear much more about anaerobic digestion and the capability inherent in our land based agriculture to ensure that we use more anaerobic digestion. It is a subject that gets a good deal of mention in our waste policy document but I would like to see a recommendation coming from the scientists on the way we could ensure more emphasis on anaerobic digestion.

Dr. Ó Gallachóir said that mapping a system is fine but that we could make a recommendation on a yearly analysis of how we are coping. I said in a previous discussion that realistic targets are important. We would all love to reach the 2050 target. The United Kingdom is aiming for 80% by 2050, and France has 75%. We do not have that but if we got from where we are now to where we could be in 2050, we could make recommendations. I will return to realistic recommendations later.

On the question of the Department this area should come under, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government would be the obvious Department but transport and energy are two huge sectors. The advisory council, which co-ordinates all the Departments-----

The Senator might ask some questions to be helpful to our guest.

Is the expertise in the Department of the Taoiseach or would all the expertise have to be transferred? Currently, the climate change expertise would be focused in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. New staff will not be recruited, therefore, so will all of the staff have to be transferred from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to ensure we have the expertise in the Department of the Taoiseach? We have to be realistic when we recommend that over-arching measure. Obviously, it will all have to be pulled together but wheresoever the expertise is located it will have to be used. I thank Dr. Ó Gallachóir for his input. We need more scientific information.

I thank the Senator. There is a lot to address. First, our model has the capacity to focus on the long term but we do analysis on the short term as well because it is important. I agree with the Senator on the need to keep a long-term perspective but to take actions now in the short term. We would make a number of specific recommendations in terms of incentivising renewable heat, anaerobic digestion and degeneration of biogas for heat and transport. In terms of retrofitting of buildings, the point I made earlier about electrifying and gasifying residential homes are all short-term policy measures that can help us in the transition to the long term

The Senator mentioned the ocean. She is correct. We have a significant resource in that regard and our results do harness that, particularly offshore wind energy, but the model adopts a least cost approach. Essentially, the model will choose the onshore resources first because they are cheaper but it will then look to the offshore wind energy. The Senator is right that for that to happen, it needs policy support. Otherwise, it will not happen because it is more expensive.

In terms of cars, there was some political lobbying at a European level to dilute the improvements in the targets for car performance. I do not see it as a problem. In terms of tax revenue, the Senator is right that we generate revenue from tax but if we have appropriate mechanisms in place people will change their purchasing decisions, and we have low tax associated with cars. The focus in terms of tax should be on the more polluting cars. The more polluting the car, the higher the tax. If we transition to a low carbon economy, challenges will arise in certain areas regarding revenue but I would suggest the Government continues to positively differentiate towards low emissions cars.

I agree with the Senator that more anaerobic digestion needs to be happening. One of my colleagues in University College Cork, Jerry Murphy, has done a lot of research in this area. Scientific evidence is available but, currently, it does not have the policy support.

In terms of realistic targets, setting a zero per cent target for agriculture and an 80% target for the energy system, resulting in an overall goal for Ireland of 50% emissions reduction by 2050, is what I would consider to be a realistic goal if we want to keep the beef and dairy sector in operation.

The Senator is right that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has the expertise. She mentioned transport and energy but the other one is agriculture. The challenge is to find a mechanism by which it is co-ordinated, be it in the Department of the Taoiseach or the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The Taoiseach's Department would have the over-arching control element but, as the Senator pointed out, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has the expertise. I am not fixed on one or the other but both of those need to be addressed.

I apologise for missing the earlier part of Dr. Ó Gallachóir's presentation. I had to attend another meeting.

Regarding the challenges around the storing of energy, one of the challenges with wind energy is what happens when the wind drops and how do we store it. How does Dr. Ó Gallachóir see that being resolved because it is clear we will have to rely to some extent on our existing means of generating energy with gas or some form of fossil fuel also? I would like to hear Dr. Ó Gallachóir's views on that.

Dr. Ó Gallachóir spoke about incentivising renewable heat. Would radiant heating be an aspect of that?

Regarding the onshore generation of energy, there is a major debate in the midlands about the memorandum of understanding Ireland has signed with England. While many communities have had a positive experience in terms of wind generation in their area, I do not believe people are ready yet to make that leap in terms of the number of turbines that would be needed and their location. I do not believe the public has accepted that yet. From where does Dr. Ó Gallachóir see public information campaigns emanating?

Should it come from the Government, from universities or from the companies that are trying to develop? From my own experience, I can discern a big deficit in this regard at present.

On the Deputy's first question regarding storage, I mentioned earlier that we foresee wind energy making a significant contribution in the future. However, it is not the only thing there and there are other options such as, for example, natural gas with carbon capture and storage one could have coal with carbon capture and storage. As wind energy is variable and has other issues associated with inertia it will need to be supplemented. Our analysis suggests that were we to go down the route of using such options to complement wind, one option is to use the depleted Kinsale gas fields as a storage location for carbon dioxide and essentially to add carbon capture onto the new gas power plants in the Cork Harbour area. Storage is another option and certainly is part of the mix.

Interconnection is another part of the option because we can benefit from it. The Danes have benefited significantly from this in their development of wind energy. However, at present our electricity represents less than 20% of our energy use and the focus of discussion in respect of energy policy is dominated too much by electricity. While it certainly is an important part of the issue, a bigger part pertains to what is to be done with transport and heating, which collectively represent more than 80% of energy use. I am not quite certain what the Deputy meant by radiant heat and perhaps she might come back on that.

As for the midlands, I mentioned wind energy as a success story. Ireland has not had the same experience as the United Kingdom in this regard where they have had difficulties in developing onshore wind energy. They have had significant campaigns against wind energy and as a result, they have been obliged to move offshore more quickly. This is partly from where this midlands project stems, in that for the United Kingdom, the option is to build wind capacity offshore or import it directly from onshore wind in Ireland. I agree with the Deputy that the scale of the developments proposed is something new and it is unclear how this will be received in the heel of the hunt. Another issue with the midlands wind proposal is that if this wind energy is being used to meet the United Kingdom's targets, at a certain point in the future we will need it to meet our own targets or if we do not, we might end up with more expensive wind energy. Consequently, in the context of our own needs, I am unsure for how long that contract will be negotiated. Certainly, in the short term it is envisaged that the amount of wind energy available there will be surplus to what Ireland's system can accommodate but that situation is likely to change over time.

As for public information, there are a number of areas from which public information should come. The Deputy mentioned the Government and the universities and in the energy space, there is the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, the energy agency. Similarly, public information also is provided by EirGrid, the transmission system operator and there is certainly a number of sources from which public information is and should continue to be provided.

To revert to the question regarding radiant heat, I read about a particular type of heater, called a radiant heater, that is being used in Europe. I am not an expert on this subject but I ask someone in SEAI about it because I thought we should be trying to get people to think differently about heating. However, the point that was made was that because energy is so expensive here, this type of heating, while it would be a good type of heating to which to transition, is not feasible at present. Is Dr. Ó Gallachóir familiar with this particular type of heater? Apparently they are much better to use, even from a health perspective. Has he come across them previously?

I am sorry but I have not.

I thank Dr. Ó Gallachóir and certainly, I learned from the documentation he submitted. As for the Irish TIMES model, I had thought The Irish Times was something one read every day, rather than a model for measurement. Dr. Ó Gallachóir introduced something that is relatively new to me, although it has been discussed quite extensively in United Kingdom, namely, the carbon capture model. People there were advocating the use of the North Sea as a carbon sink for the United Kingdom. When the Kinsale gas field runs out, is it possible that it could be used as a significant carbon sink for Ireland?

Yes, it is.

Has Dr. Ó Gallachóir's group calculated the figures and undertaken the modelling in this regard?

We have. While essentially it is a work in progress, we have been considering its use. Some recent natural gas-fired power stations have been built in the Cork Harbour area, which would have a high efficiency relative to many of the power plants on the system. The idea would be to take the carbon dioxide from them, capture it and pump it into the Kinsale gas field. The Kinsale gas field is composed of different parts and we are considering precisely the issue raised by the Deputy, namely, the scale in terms of the number of years for which we could do that. In addition, we are considering what are the associated engineering challenges as obviously, one would wish to make sure that if it is stored there, it does not seep out and actually is sequestered. Consequently, it is very much a work in progress but essentially is to try to address this question as to what in the power system, if wind energy is there, will complement it in the future. Natural gas carbon capture and storage, CCS, is one option. Biomass of course is another but this brings one back to the land-use question. Should we use biomass for power generation, for heat or for transport? How much land should be allocated for biomass and if there is a constraint on land use, what is the most effective way of using that biomass? We are considering a number of options and in our model at present, we do not have biomass CCS as a technology because coal CCS and natural gas CCS are at much more developed, albeit stalled, stage of development. However, biomass CCS would give us the prospect of having negative emissions, which would be a very nice scenario towards which to move.

Has Dr. Ó Gallachóir undertaken the modelling that would ascertain what kind of percentage impact it would have on reaching the targets? I acknowledge the science changes all the time and it probably is difficult.

EirGrid is considering the idea of wind energy on an instantaneous basis, that is, trying to move towards being able to accommodate 70% wind energy on an instantaneous basis. It is being looked at in the context of the remaining 30% on an instantaneous basis and what that will mean in 2050. Depending on the scenarios regarding electrification, it will be more or less and then there will be consequences in terms of what is feasible. Clearly the Kinsale gas field is just one example but it looks like the most promising. The SEAI and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, have done some studies on sites for carbon capture and storage around the country and that one looks to be the most promising. However, that is a very early stage result.

I revert to the heads of the Bill and the place of the targets. One target contained in the heads of the Bill, on which Dr. Ó Gallachóir touched, is the 20% reduction in emissions from 2005 by 2020 or basically, the terms of the Kyoto agreement. Has Dr. Ó Gallachóir done any modelling on the hitting of the first target, if one calls it that, contained in the heads of the Bill?

Does Deputy Humphreys mean on the 20%?

Yes, the reduction on the 2005 figure.

Yes, we have.

How far off are we? Has Dr. Ó Gallachóir figures on that?

We come at it a different way in the sense that we look at the target, we impose it and we see what is required to deliver it. Comparing that to where we are heading, we are far away from it. As I stated earlier, it is particularly in these areas of heat and transport because our focus has been on electricity in the policy space. We get electrification of heat which helps, but the remainder of the requirements relate to improving energy efficiency in buildings, using biogas and biomass for heating, and increased use of bioenergy in the transport system. It is quite different from the trajectory on which we are currently.

Dr. Ó Gallachóir mentioned that sometimes, as one moves in the direction of reductions, one gets short-term increases in emissions. Is it still viable for Ireland to hit the 2020 target?

All of the national projections show us falling short of the target. The national projections take into account matters, to which we have committed such as renewable energy targets but some of which do not have associated policies. It is already a challenge to meet the national projections. It is a more significant challenge to go beyond that and meet the 2020 target. From where we are today, I do not think we will meet the 2020 target. We can meet it but it requires a significant increase in a policy focus.

I note the way the figures change. In the Bill, we tie ourselves to anything that is negotiated in 2015 for 2030. We switch then, from a figure of emissions reduction from 2005 of 20% back to the 1990 figure. Dr. Ó Gallachóir stated it would jump, for us, as a 52% reduction. Those figures are correct. There would be a very steep curve going in tandem with these heads of the Bill.

Before we go any further, I will let Deputies Murphy and Nash ask a final question. Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has a point of clarification. Then we will have the response.

It is associated with the question that has been asked. I cannot see how we will make the 2020 targets. If we miss them, it will become much more challenging because we will be playing catch-up to achieve the 2030 ones. Will Dr. Ó Gallachóir highlight the matters that we could address in the legislation or provisions we could provide for in the legislation, not only for the 2020 targets but to improve the prospects of getting to 2030?

On a related point, Dr. Ó Gallachóir might clarify Ireland's inability to meet the targets under current circumstances. I assume what he is saying is that we have less chance of meeting those targets in the absence of legislation and that at least when the legislation and the sectoral roadmaps are introduced, we will have a better chance of meeting them? Can he clarify that?

On the radiant heaters, they are also known as infrared heaters.

I am sorry, I have not come across those.

Apparently, they provide a 70% energy saving. They are worth checking out.

It was a good sales pitch anyway. Well done to Deputy Corcoran Kennedy.

Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has the franchise.

Dr. Ó Gallachóir to conclude.

It raises a good point. The size of the challenge is such that we need everything we can get.

The other point is there are no silver bullets. Sometimes we tend to focus on individual technologies, and that has been the problem. As I said, in terms of policy we have been successful in certain areas but we have missed the bigger picture.

In terms of legislating for 2020, the 2020 target is already legally binding because it is part of an EU legally-binding agreement. We have a legally-binding target and we are not on track to meet it. Returning to the question of what we can do in the legislation to improve the prospects of getting to the 2030 targets, it requires a firmed-up commitment. We have these targets. We need a policy that looks at the whole picture and ensures that the individual elements add up. If they do not add up, we will not meet the target. That is where we are at currently. If they add up or if we look for where the gaps and change elements so that they add up, then we have a better chance of meeting the targets.

As to whether we have a lesser change in the absence of firm targets, the targets provide a useful goal in aiming for something. We need a roadmap to show us how to get there. Which comes first is less important in the sense that if we develop a roadmap, then we have a target at the end at which to aim, or if we start with a target, we will develop a roadmap. Essentially, we need both.

Cuireann sé sin deireadh leis an seisiún seo. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Dr. Ó Gallachóir as ucht an chuimhneamh a thug sé dúinn inniú.