I will take on board the Minister's phrases. He is potentially right that "best progressive realisation" and "best reasonable effort" may have loopholes of their own. My concern still stands on the backward step. I will not press the amendment now but on Report Stage I may introduce other amendments. I agree with the Minister that the phrase, "best reasonable efforts", opens perhaps a different set of loopholes. I will seek to ensure that the wording, "as far as practicable", does not include or allow for a step th…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 7, line 1, to delete "in so far as it is practicable to do so" and substitute the following: "in a manner consistent with the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change".

I move amendment No. 10: In page 7, line 3, after "change" to insert the following: "in a manner consistent with the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change".

I move amendment No. 11: In page 7, to delete lines 4 to 6 and substitute the following: " 'complete decarbonisation' means zero greenhouse gas emissions, combined with nature-based solutions that enhance biodiversity to sequester greenhouse gases from sectors where some emissions remain inevitable. 'Completely decarbonised economy’ shall be construed accordingly;". This is very straightforward and is interesting in the context of what we have been discussing regarding the 2050 targets. It speaks about complete dec…

I reiterate that the term "complete decarbonisation" is clearer. The definition I have offered in this regard recognises that anthropogenic biogenic methane emissions cannot be fully removed and need to be counterbalanced. I am concerned that this legislation is our landmark in terms of the big picture. I am not happy to leave it to the fates to see how things work out in terms of how much is removals and how much is emissions reductions and for the reasons I outlined in our debate on the first amendment. We know t…

We should learn from housing and take the position that we cannot leave this to the market and market-based solutions on climate change because they will not fix what we need fixed. There are farmers all over the world who are struggling with the effects of climate change. There are farmers who are struggling now with drought and farmers in Ireland who are struggling. I was one of the first to speak in the Seanad about the fodder crisis, which directly related to climate change. I agree that there are a number of a…

I move amendment No. 12: In page 7, line 4, to delete "neutral economy" and substitute "neutrality".

Everybody has focused on this issue. All the Opposition groups and Senator O’Reilly, a Government Senator, have brought forward amendments on it. One of the gaps in the Bill is the lack of sufficient recognition of just transition and engagement on it. We and others have taken two approaches to it in our amendments. One is to insert a definition of "just transition" and the other is to insert just transition principles. That is the type of approach taken in the Scottish Act where just transition principles were ref…

We have seen this narrative a couple of times now. The Opposition is not fighting tooth and nail among ourselves about the definitions. A number of people have come up with proposals to offer. To return to "climate justice" as an example, I am glad the bad language has been removed but I still want to see a good definition inserted. In some cases, these proposals directly reference the language used in the UNFCCC and a definition suggested by environmental NGOs. This was co-signed by many of us. We have been trying…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 7, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “ ‘just transition’ means a transition that ensures the economic, environmental and social consequences of the ecological transformation of economies and societies are managed in ways that maximise opportunities of decent work for all, reduce inequalities, promote social justice, and support industries, workers and communities negatively affected, in accordance with nationally defined priorities, and based on effective social dialog…

I wish to signal-----

I wanted just to signal that I am happy for-----

Sure.

I was just indicating that I am happy to discuss amendments Nos. 18 and 71 together because they relate to the concept of-----

Excuse me, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. We did not get agreement on amendment No. 70. I would like amendment No. 70 not to be in this grouping as it relates to a different matter. It relates to the functioning-----

No.

The House had not agreed to the grouping.

Yes. If we could have amendments Nos. 18 and 71-----

We did not. I indicated very clearly that I did not agree. I do not imagine this is super controversial. We normally accommodate when-----

I move amendment No. 18: In page 7, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “ ‘national minimum interim target’ has the meaning of the proposed 51 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, as set out in section 9(5);”. I am happy to speak to amendments Nos. 18 and 71 in combination. They both relate to the concept of a minimum target. If amendment No. 18 is carried, there will be consequential amendments, which I would be very happy to table on Report Stage. I have not tabled all the amendme…