Official Report 532KB pdf
Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2011 [Draft]
We welcome our witnesses, who are Dr Andy Kerr, Lynne Ross, Colin Howden and Dr Sam Gardner. I ask you to introduce yourselves by briefly telling us your backgrounds. We will try to go straight into questions, because members have various commitments and would like to raise their concerns with you.
I will speak for myself and Colin Howden, as we both represent Stop Climate Chaos Scotland. I thank the committee for inviting Stop Climate Chaos Scotland to give evidence. We are a coalition of more than 60 organisations that represent the breadth of civic society across Scotland. Our membership base comprises more than 2 million members.
I am the director of the Edinburgh Centre on Climate Change, which is a hub for low-carbon innovation and skills. We are hosted by the three Edinburgh universities—the University of Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt University and Edinburgh Napier University. I am partly involved with Scotland’s 2020 climate group, which Lynne Ross represents. I am also a director of a new initiative that has just been established this year called the centre of expertise on climate change, which the Scottish Government is funding to improve the flow of research into policy teams and other public sector agencies.
I work at Scottish and Southern Energy as the head of climate change policy, but I am here to represent Scotland’s 2020 climate group, which many members will know already. The group is a unique and significant collaboration among more than 120 organisations that include representatives of individuals, small and medium-sized enterprises, business representative bodies, companies, public sector bodies and environmental non-governmental organisations. The group aims to act as a critical friend to the Government in climate policy formulation.
I point out that not all four witnesses have to answer each question.
You provided the top-line answer, which is that, as the Committee on Climate Change acknowledged in its advice to you, the drop in 2009 was largely because of the downturn in the economy, with the greatest reductions being seen in the manufacturing and power sectors. The preliminary indicative figures for 2010—as members will be aware, there is a long delay in receiving the verified figures—is that emissions are likely to have risen. That is of great concern to Stop Climate Chaos because it suggests that we have failed to lock in the emissions reductions that were a consequence of the economic downturn and that we risk not applying the necessary policy effort at the right time, which will cost more in the long term as we have to reverse a growth in emissions. Those are our top-line thoughts.
Eighteen months or so ago, it was commonplace in policy circles to talk about the recession providing us all with some breathing space. We have seen the effect of the recession on the 2008 and 2009 emissions. I urge the committee to realise that while we have had the benefit of that breathing space, we must now attach an important priority to policy implementation.
The Committee on Climate Change gave evidence to this committee that it expects the emissions data for 2010 to show an increase, although it thinks that the level will still be below the targets that have been legislated for. Do you agree that the 2010 emissions level is likely to have risen? What should happen to lock in the emissions reductions that have taken place over the past two years?
The CCC’s suggestion that emissions rose in 2010 will be correct because it is based on verified data from our power sector, so it is real data. What we need to do in order to lock in the emissions reductions or to increase our policy effort is to deliver the full report on proposals and policies, which is the Scottish Government’s action plan. We have the benefit of a pretty comprehensive description of all that we need to do in order to hit our targets. The problem is that we are currently not delivering the full content of the RPP. For instance, for 2012, there is a significant reliance on new proposals coming forward if we are to hit those annual targets. Some 25 per cent of the annual target that we must hit in 2012 is dependent on new activity being introduced to the Scottish economy. In certain sectors, such as transport, which my colleague Colin Howden might touch on, the figure is far greater: well over 70 per cent of the emissions reductions that are expected to come from transport are from new proposals that must come forward as funded policies, which is why this afternoon’s spending review announcement will be so interesting.
I do not have a great deal to add to that. The key ask of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland over the past few weeks has been for the report on proposals and policies to be funded in full in the spending review, so we await what happens with that. Sam Gardner is right that transport is the area where most of the measures are currently not funded. We would like to see expenditure being shifted into those areas in order to meet our targets.
It is worth noting that until a Government has 100 per cent control over emissions through its policies, say through trading schemes and so on, there will always be volatility year to year. Obviously, one of the issues is that a steep decline in emissions is planned. However, even within that, we will have a lot of volatility. That means that if we are to hit the target, we will have to overachieve on a regular basis in order to get the minimum hit.
I will reiterate the comments on the draft RPP that we made to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee last November. We encouraged the Government to consider a broader range of measures and indicators rather than focusing every year on the annual outturn. The RPP contains a range of milestones and we proposed key performance indicators, which are useful in signalling in advance that we are on the correct trajectory in terms of the number of houses that are being retrofitted or the number of businesses that are adopting energy efficiency technologies and so on. Such indicators are also useful in helping us to understand in a more measured way broader progress against the targets, rather than disproportionately fixating on a single measure. It is important for us to broaden the way in which we measure progress.
There is a lot of discussion about whether the European Union will be able to achieve its aim of setting a 30 per cent emissions reduction target for 2020. Do you have any further information about where we are with that target and whether it is likely to be achieved before the Durban conference in December?
There is a great deal of scepticism about whether the EU will move on that. I have no inside information beyond the conversations that are going on around different European forums that suggest that no one thinks that it will happen now. That does not mean that it will not happen, however.
I will add a slight note of positivity. Andy Kerr is right that it is extremely unlikely that we will see a move from the EU to the 30 per cent target prior to Durban. At the moment we are being held up by the presidency of the EU, which has made its position on that target quite clear. There has, however, been a considerable amount of movement outwith that and a coalition of member states, including the United Kingdom, Denmark, France and Germany, have come together to call for the 30 per cent target. Progress has been made.
I am also sceptical about Europe moving to a 30 per cent target. The importance of that for us is that we have a series of assumptions in our reductions policy and we cannot now take them for granted. When it published the RPP in March, the Scottish Government said that a move to a 30 per cent emissions reduction target was a critical success factor in Scotland achieving its targets through to 2020. The Government said that if it became clear that Europe would not move to a 30 per cent target, it would need to make additional policies and ensure that a whole range of policies was explored fully.
Two of our committee members are leaving—not because they do not like what you are saying, but because they are going to try to influence the Polish presidency just now.
Good morning—it is still morning. Two or three of you mentioned your concerns that the RPP is not delivering and needs to be funded in full. I am interested in exploring that a bit further. You mentioned insulation and transport. Which measures in the RPP do you feel are paramount for funding?
I will kick off with the example of energy efficiency. The RPP makes it clear that we require a doubling of emissions reductions between 2011 and 2012 from our current energy efficiency policies in Scotland, which include the universal home insulation scheme and the energy assistance package. To reach that level, we are seeking a significant increase in the level of support for those policies: somewhere in the region of at least £100 million per year, as previous Parliament committees have recommended.
Last year we gave evidence on the RPP to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, as it was then. The RPP came out on the same day as the budget, and we were looking for the two policies to be integrated. We pointed out that there was a massive split between what was described in the RPP as being necessary for meeting the targets and what was in the budget. We will be looking similarly at what comes out this afternoon.
We are talking a great deal about the Government’s spending review, but there are two important points to note. First, we have moved beyond the stage at which a Government can simply say that it will spend money on the problem. We must get individuals, communities and businesses to buy into and invest in the measures. It is not so much about how much money the Government is giving, but about how the framework is being delivered to enable investment to come from the private sector, and from individuals and communities and so on, to bring about the changes.
If the CCC’s view is correct—that we have seen an increase in emissions in 2010—are any panel members concerned that emissions will continue to increase, or is there a view that that increase was perhaps just a peak?
The risk is that there could be a continued increase, unless we see the step change in emissions reduction for which the CCC has called repeatedly. In numerous reports it has made it clear that we need to see—this is its phrase—“a step change” in policy effort to reduce emissions. In the absence of that, emissions will go up. We need to see increased effort, whether in transport, homes, the farming sector or elsewhere, that will reverse the increase that we saw in 2010 and make sure that we are on a downward trajectory.
I agree with Sam Gardner, but we are starting to feel some impact from energy-efficiency measures in homes and transport mileage in a levelling off in certain sectors of society. We are getting to the point at which we make a tangible downward change, as opposed to just trying to manage the upward increase, which is what we have been doing to date. We will bounce back up as industry and the economy pick up again—that is to be expected—but the question is whether we have started to underpin some broader changes with improvements in housing, transport systems and so on. We are just starting to see some interesting things in that space. In the next year or two emissions may well go up, but I think that after that we will start to make progress.
It is very difficult to predict what is going to happen for 2010-11, but if we have a broader range of output measures, which are readily understandable, are expressed in laymen’s terms, are clear and act as a stimulus to SMEs to innovate, and encourage young people to choose career pathways in low-carbon technologies because it is apparent to them that there will be economic opportunities for Scotland and for them personally in this transition, we will help to underpin our policy effort. Those are really important measures for us to understand as a society much more broadly. They will become self-reinforcing and positive.
Given that the 2009 targets are to be achieved over many years, it occurs to me that perhaps there needs to be more structural investment at the start than in the middle and at the end. I take on board what Dr Kerr is saying: it is not just about how much money you can throw at this.
This is the $64 million question: how do you get behavioural change? Two or three things can be said. One is that a lot of the evidence that we took in our RSE inquiry was that the things that are stopping other things happening are often very small. For example, they are about how the certification scheme for microgeneration is set up and how family building firms take advantage of many of the frameworks that are already in place. We have a UK regulatory framework that says, “We’ll essentially give you a nominal fixed return if you invest in renewable energy” and the renewable heat incentive is coming in.
You referred to a framework, but it strikes me that a lot of what you mentioned is reliant on private businesses and their ability to innovate and produce for the market technology that we can go out and buy. Given that in 2009 the Government committed to making a massive 42 per cent reduction in emissions, are we waiting for that to happen, or is there a framework to ensure that it happens?
The situation is patchy. There are areas where the picture is good. In Scotland, energy technologies are a very strong area in which we have strong research and development, and good investment from international companies that come here to develop innovative products and services. We have that in certain areas, but not so much in transport.
To return to your question about what Stop Climate Chaos is looking for from this afternoon’s spending review announcement, the top line is that we want the first three years of the RPP to be fully funded. The RPP gives us a very strong indication, but not a categorical one, as to what that level of funding should be, because it offers descriptions of the costs that are associated with the proposals. Unfortunately, it does not distinguish between public and private costs, but offers a sum total. A significant fraction of that, which will have to come from this afternoon’s spending review announcement, will have to be put into the framework that Andy Kerr talked about to leverage in private investment. An example from the home energy efficiency area is that, as the RPP describes, we need a doubling of savings between 2011 and 2012. We currently fund the universal home insulation scheme and the energy assistance package to the tune of £48 million. It would be an absolute minimum requirement to more than double that figure to £100 million in this afternoon’s announcement if we are to get anywhere close to achieving the level of emissions reduction that the RPP requires.
We will move on to the proposed annual targets for 2023 to 27.
What input have your organisations had to setting those targets? What is your view of the advice that is being given to the Scottish Government by the UK Committee on Climate Change? Perhaps the most significant question is whether the targets are appropriate and realistic.
The Committee on Climate Change has done its analysis from a fair and equitable top-down approach of what Scotland should do. However, it emphasised that it has also used a bottom-up approach to what is achievable. Broadly speaking, the targets are ambitious but achievable. However, looking so far into the future is always dangerous in the sense that we might have a false view of our ability to predict and shape levels for far-distant dates. However, the targets are important and useful, and show a steady trajectory down towards our 2030 targets and over the longer term.
I would echo a lot of what Lynne Ross has just said. To paraphrase it, emissions forecasts are there to make economic forecasts look good. We do not really know what our emissions will be in 10 or 15 years. On the other hand, the forecasts send a very strong signal.
I agree with the point that what happens in the next few years will be critical in determining whether we are on the right trajectory to hit the long-term targets. SCCS is broadly content with the targets that have been proposed by the UK Committee on Climate Change, but would stress that they ought to be the minimum for which we are striving. There are a number of reasons for that, not least of which is the extent to which the CCC’s advice takes in our historical responsibility for tackling climate change as the originators of the industrial revolution and our global debt to society to reduce our emissions at a faster rate.
The July 2011 advice on transport only talks about low-carbon vehicles, which are an important part of the mix of decarbonising the transport sector. There is also a battery of measures outlined in the RPP and elsewhere that can and should be used to reduce emissions, but which were absent from the advice. I concur with the advice in headline terms: it is good and we support it, but it could be more detailed.
Two of the witnesses used the word “ambitious” to describe the targets. Given the factors that may come into play in this period, such as severe winters, worsening economic circumstances and cuts to funding of the Scottish Government, do you ever think, in your quieter moments, of targets that would be more realistic?
I will be the optimist and kick off on an optimistic note. The winter that we experienced last year was the worst in short-term living memory. We have the technology and materials to improve the housing stock in Scotland if we insulate our homes. That will reduce fuel poverty drastically, reduce domestic energy bills and insulate the population against severe winters. There are market and non-market barriers to that and, around the table, we have an understanding of them.
I share some of that sentiment, but I would not treat the targets as the be-all and end-all. If we miss the target in 2025 by 0.5 million tonnes but we have achieved decarbonisation of the power sector, we have brought houses up to standard and we have effective transport systems to deliver us around the country, whether we have met the target is neither here nor there; the important thing is that we have been on that trajectory.
There is a distinction to be made between whether the targets are realistic and whether they are necessary. The CCC’s advice is that they are necessary if we are to be on the right trajectory to hit the legally binding targets of 42 per cent in 2020 and 80 per cent in 2050. However, as Andy Kerr said, the co-benefits that go with achieving those emissions reductions are significant although they are often ignored or given only superficial acknowledgement. There are significant economic benefits to be gained from the economic investment that is needed to see that transformation; there are health benefits to be gained from having a greater level of active travel, which will have knock-on effects for society; and there are justice benefits to be gained through tackling fuel poverty. So, although emissions reductions are seen as the indicators, we should not ignore the fact that achieving those and setting out to achieve ambitious targets bring multiple additional benefits.
I have a question for Lynne Ross. The issues of emissions reductions, fuel poverty and the cost of fuel are all intrinsically linked. What can the energy companies do to address them?
Energy prices are highly topical at the moment. I am happy to comment on that briefly, but I am not here primarily to represent the energy companies or SSE in particular; I am here to represent the 2020 climate group.
May I come in on that? One of the challenges going forward will be high energy prices in a variety of areas. Thirteen years ago, the UK Government published “Energy paper 68: energy projections for the UK”, in which energy prices were forecast into the future. At the time, oil prices were forecast to be between $10 and $20 a barrel until 2010. In other words, the mindset was of cheap energy prices in the future. Given the fact that oil and gas prices are now structurally above $100 dollars a barrel and so on, as a society we must structurally deal with the fact that we will have high energy prices. The question now is more about how we can change the system from relying on gas, oil or coal and how we can turn it over to other mechanisms.
I have a related question on the targets. The Scottish Government has to publish a second report on proposals and policies. That will involve looking at policy well into another decade, beyond two Scottish Parliament elections and two United Kingdom Government elections. Many factors could influence policy makers over that period. Given that we are looking so far ahead, how robust can the RPP be? Is there sufficient unanimity of purpose across parties and across the spectrum to enable us to look forward over that period of time?
I will answer the final point first.
Can we do that at the moment?
We have got some good examples. Between community groups, the 2020 group and local authority groups, I think that a lot can be said. Whether that will all be fed in in time is another matter, but there is the potential to do that. If I were you, I would push the Government to do that. We want case studies and exemplars showing what can be done, rather than just a theoretical model that says that it costs £X million for a particular type of event.
An issue that we have touched on before is the importance of monitoring what we are doing and ensuring that there is more than an ad hoc learning experience from the current level of policy effort. We need a strategic and comprehensive means to gather information on how effective or otherwise the current policy delivery is. We must be able to evolve that delivery, because in many instances it involves first attempts. Things can improve, but only if we learn as we go along. We are keen for a robust monitoring process to be put in place so that we record the efficacy of the policy.
I do not think that the RPP is too long term because, despite the difficulty of predicting what will happen in the long term, we need to have our mind on the medium-term horizon and give the clear signals that I mentioned. It would be disappointing if RPP 2 looked completely different from RPP 1. It would be much more useful for everyone concerned if RPP 2 updates on progress, particularly on moving proposals through to testing as potential policies. As Andy Kerr said, it should also highlight case studies, exemplars and toolkits that have been developed by early projects in a form that other project developers can access and use.
On the robustness of the RPP, I will refer to the transport component, which was based on a report by Atkins and the University of Aberdeen that was published in August 2009 called “Mitigating Transport’s Climate Change Impact in Scotland: Assessment of Policy Options”. That is a thorough piece of work, in which we were involved as a stakeholder. Most of the proposals in it were transferred to the RPP when it was published last November, although some were omitted by the ministers—the proposal on workplace parking measures being the outstanding one. The proposals were watered down somewhat but, fundamentally, the RPP is a good piece of work. I would not go against what the other panellists have said.
On the issue of case studies and exemplars, do your organisations get feedback from bodies such as Community Energy Scotland? Before you came in to give evidence, the committee took evidence on land reform and community buyouts. A number of communities have received investment to set up district heating schemes and have gone on to establish a community buyout of forest to set up a woodchip system. Some have done thermal imaging of whole communities or housing estates to identify where the heat loss is and have then set up community funds to correct that.
I am happy to kick off. We are aware of many interesting pilots and projects around Scotland. 2020 climate group members are engaged in some of them and promote them to other group members. We are learning about and from other projects, and we have had dialogue with champions and sponsors of such projects.
Stop Climate Chaos Scotland’s broad membership base encapsulates a wide range of interest groups, many of which are community groups, such as eco-congregations. That offers us a means of learning from examples on the ground, which happens.
As we seek to effect large-scale behavioural change among the public, what role do the media have to play in the process of taking people with us? I am thinking about getting across to people the message about why we need to act and what we need to do, perhaps by citing the examples and case studies.
The media are incredibly important. When we talk to media representatives, they always say that they are just there to tell stories and not to give a message, as members know. A challenge will always exist.
It would be useful if the majority of newspapers in Scotland listened to your remarks, especially given the ways in which they report wind farm applications.
I am not familiar with the background of all the committee members, so it is worth me flagging up the odd situation in which the way that we account for carbon in a European trading scheme is not fully compatible with the way in which we would account for emissions nationally. There will always be slight oddities when one is imposed over the other, as happens in Europe. The same issue occurs here as it does in Greece or Poland or wherever. A trading scheme always presents a challenge, because it does not matter where the emissions are reduced—that is driven by the price—whereas we are interested in national emissions reduction. An odd situation comes up and it will continue to come up all the way through the piece; we cannot get round it.
Although the committee has flagged up the benefits of flexibility, it makes it quite clear that the Scottish Government should aim to achieve its emissions reduction targets through domestic emissions reduction in Scotland. Stop Climate Chaos is very much of the view that that should be the priority for the Scottish Government and that it should rule out access to domestic credits. One reason for that is that they introduce a great deal of uncertainty about whether we will see that domestic investment to achieve reductions, or whether we will end up buying credits elsewhere. There are concerns about that approach because it would mean that we have not reduced our own emissions, which we should be doing, and there is a question about whether the credits that we are buying are additional emissions reductions that would not have been achieved anyway. There are also real concerns about the sustainability impacts of the emissions reductions associated with those credits. We very much hope that the Scottish Government sticks with its current position of having no access to international credits beyond those that are traded under the EU emissions trading scheme.
Thank you all for your help. I am sure that we will see you much more regularly in the future.
Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/311)
Under item 4, the committee will consider the Plant Health (Import Inspection Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011. Members should note that no motions to annul have been received for the regulations. I refer members to paper RACCE/S4/11/5/5.
We will now continue in private. Anyone in the public gallery should leave. The next meeting will take place on 28 September 2011.