Minister for Environment, Climate and Communications Eamon Ryan has strongly defended the absence of a target to reduce the vast amount of carbon emissions associated with land use in Ireland — and denied this was in contravention of climate legislation.
Appearing before the Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action on Tuesday, Mr Ryan disagreed with members who suggested the absence of a target in the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector was contrary to the Climate Act, and rejected suggestions it was undermining carbon budgets being rolled out over the next decade.
He admitted a meaningful target would not be in place until 2024 at the earliest as options to address an emerging issue about high emissions in the sector were being considered. This was being done in the context a land use review that would take 18 months to complete, the Minister added.
As sectoral ceilings were being drawn up earlier this year new scientific evidence emerged of “emissions deterioration” in LULUCF, which includes forestry, wetlands and croplands, Mr Ryan said.
In 2018, it was estimated to be responsible for 4.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year, but that figure was revised to seven million tonnes and projected to be 11 million tonnes by 2030 — land use, especially boglands, rewetted drained land and forestry if properly managed, has the ability to capture large volumes of carbon.
Mr Ryan underlined the programme for government specifically allowed for adjustments to the climate plan based on emerging technologies and in light of new scientific evidence.
The problems identified mainly related to afforestation on upland peaty soils and clear felling of trees at life-cycle end. The land use review would help address the issue and help set a limit for the sector, which was preferable to doing a last-minute back of envelope calculation, he said.
In response to People Before Profit TD Bríd Smith, Mr Ryan said there were already measures to reduce LULUCF emissions in the climate plan, which would be “intensified” in a revised plan published in November.
He disagreed with climate experts who had raised concerns about the absence of a land use target and outlined in a letter that in their view other targets did not fulfil the requirements of climate legislation by virtue of being short of required. They claimed “the ceilings announced by the Government do not meet the definition of sectoral emissions ceilings in the Act”.
The July agreement on ceilings for the electricity; transport; built environment — both residential and commercial; industry; and agriculture sectors provided “some certainty and clarity for these sectors on the level of action and investment required to reach our 2030 targets”, the Minister said.
“The critical thing now is to concentrate on delivering where we have clear targets,” he said.
Ms Smith responded that it was “quite extraordinary” that this was happening when a LULUCF target was not being put in place until 2024.
Mr Ryan said land use change would, for instance, result from deployment of anaerobic digesters at scale, which was projected to generate 5.8 terawatt hours of energy. This was a massive project affecting grassland use and would take time to get right.
The ceilings, which are the maximum amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are permitted in each sector of the economy during a five-year carbon budget period, would test the limits of what each sector could do, he accepted.
“They are really challenging. They are achievable. But they require political commitment and emphasis on delivery,” Mr Ryan admitted.
He rejected the view that there had been a lack of engagement with the agriculture sector and rural communities, while he insisted there was the elements of a plan to achieve the necessary emissions reductions in the sector.
Mr Ryan confirmed the energy sector had ended up with a higher target as a consequence of agriculture having a lower target compared to higher range recommendations.
But achieving 80 per cent renewables in power generation with a 75 per cent reduction of emissions was achievable in a scenario where the Ukraine war “accelerated that need”.
He reiterated his view that transport would prove to be the most difficult sector because of people’s every day lifestyle. It meant car dependency had to be reduced with scale-up of biofuel use; EVs, active transport and allowing more space for buses on roads, while reducing overall traffic volumes. Councillors in every part of the country would have to take difficult decisions to free up space.
The main priorities at this point were “more renewables; more [energy] efficiency and complete the land use plan”, which was strategically most important because of the requirement to address both emissions and biodiversity loss, he said.
