Energy Efficiency Action Plan
We are running a little behind schedule, for which I apologise, but we have heard from two interesting panels. We will find out whether the information that we received was useful when we discuss it with our adviser and the clerks under item 5.
The next item of business is the energy efficiency action plan, which was published, finally, just before the October recess. Members have before them the document and some information from the Scottish Parliament information centre. I thank SPICe for producing that paper quickly.
I was surprised and disappointed to see how many of the actions in the action plan are not actions at all but are, in fact, commitments to establish more streams of work in order to develop the action plan. Given that the action plan has been in gestation for five years, I would have thought that many of those work streams would have already been established in order to inform the action plan, rather than being instructed by the action plan.
Do members have any comments?
12:15
I am interested in the debate on the targets for carbon reduction in areas that relate to transport systems. We recognise that change of behaviour and attitude is an important issue, and people have had plenty of time to think about it over the past five years. Earlier this year, some of us had the opportunity to undertake driver training activities to reduce the amount of fuel that we use. When we think about the amount of fuel that people waste through the ways in which they use their motor cars, we would expect that to be quite an important area for investment. We should be trying to get people to buy into that. In parallel with that, people are complaining about the increase in the price of diesel and petrol. Surely there has to be a correlation between those two aspects. I welcome the fact that the Energy Saving Trust has said that, if drivers are thinking more carefully, they can save themselves a lot of money and save the planet at the same time, to an extent.
I would like us to go big on questions to the Government about how we can get people to change their behaviour. That need not necessarily be as expensive as some of the other things that need to be done, such as insulation and so on. I am concerned that the issue might be seen to be an afterthought, but I am glad to see that the Energy Saving Trust thinks that how we use our transport systems is one of the most important parts of what we can do in this regard. The fact that we have before us the energy efficiency action plan should allow us to focus to a greater extent on that aspect.
I note that comment but suggest that, technically, that issue probably falls within the remit of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, rather than this committee. That is, perhaps, unfortunate, but there you go.
I am mindful of the time, convener. I am grateful to SPICe for the work that it has done on this matter. Of the submissions that we have received, the one from the Sustainable Development Commission Scotland will be most helpful to us in setting the terms in which we could write back to the Government.
We could highlight three issues. One is that the link between this document and the report on proposals and policies for the implementation of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, which is due to be published on the day of the budget, is not clear. We should ask the Government to indicate how the two link together. The second issue is that the Government does not say enough about how investment in energy efficiency will be delivered, with regard to the role of the green investment bank and the Scottish Futures Trust. The third issue, on which the Sustainable Development Commission’s submission is impressive, is that, although the renewables market has been well studied and we are aware of the potential for job creation, we are far too far away from developing comparable figures for how energy efficiency could contribute to the economy. We should encourage the Government to do some work on that.
It might also be helpful to write to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to say that we think that, when it considers the report on proposals and policies for the implementation of the 2009 act, it should think about the links between that report and the energy efficiency action plan. We should also copy that committee in on the letter that we write to the Government on the points that I have just set out.
We need further and better particulars on the headline target to reduce final energy consumption by 12 per cent by 2020. The Sustainable Development Commission asked for that in its submission, first and foremost. The reason why the issue is worth emphasising is connected to what the committee learned during our energy efficiency inquiry, when we visited Denmark, which is pretty close to being the world leader in this area. The committee was shown a graph that showed that, despite Denmark’s best efforts, the net result of all its energy efficiency effort was that it was able to stop the increase in energy consumption. Thus far, Denmark has been unable to decrease its energy consumption using energy efficiency measures. Those measures stopped the graph from going up, but they did not set it going down. We are saying that, in eight years, we are going to have cut our energy consumption by 12 per cent when the world leaders have not been able to do that. The key question is how we are going to do that.
I echo that point. The Sustainable Development Commission’s submission makes the other important point that to approach the question of changing behaviours as a simple matter of personal responsibility is to duck the issue; the context needs to be changed to achieve the changes in outcomes, and behaviour change is an outcome, not an intervention. We need to press the Government to understand why its energy efficiency action plan, which had a long gestation, is still seeking to understand people’s behaviours rather than to deal with things that we should already know very well.
I have two points. First, the plan did not seem to look at all at the impact of peak oil within the next 10 years. The Financial Times at the weekend contained an article speculating on the $100 barrel, which is up from $10 a barrel in 2000. If we extrapolate from that, we will be in real trouble if people behave like the employees of Stirling Council. That was a terrible indictment: 82 per cent of workers were going to work by car and 2 per cent were going by bike. We saw how such behaviour adds up during the Copenhagen conference. Such people make Homer Simpson look like Socrates.
Secondly, we have to think about the impact of disaster. With the flooding that we have been having in this country, we are in a stadium in which—this is the only thing that Nicholas Stern has to say about it—the deteriorating conditions that are on their way will cause major disasters. At present, those disasters are going to be tackled by conventional means, which means even greater emissions of carbon in order to pile up barriers, put sandbags in, drain places and restore sewerage systems. When all that is costed, it will be very sobering to find that we will have to budget so that we can run desperately to stay in the same place, which is much like the Danish situation.
I have one further suggestion to make. We have timetabled a committee discussion on the report on proposals and policies on the low-carbon economy for the end of November. I am aware that the spending review happened last week and the green investment bank is going to go ahead, but significant changes have been made to the Department of Energy and Climate Change programme. I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on tomorrow’s debate, but the rest of us are still not clear about the fossil fuel levy—what the sum of money is, how it will be accessed and so on.
Graeme Cooke, from SPICe, is here. SPICe gave us such a good briefing that I wonder whether it could put together something about the implications of the spending review for Scotland. I am thinking particularly about the fossil fuel levy. Also, the ports development fund was reannounced last week and it is not clear whether that is UK-wide or for Scotland only. Similarly, is Longannet guaranteed to get the carbon capture and storage work? I am aware that there could be a hiatus in the Scottish Parliament from February through the summer, which might not be good for Scotland being on top of this. If we manage to get Chris Huhne some time before we go into purdah, it would be helpful for that discussion.
Particularly for our discussion on the report on proposals and policies, perhaps we could have a note from SPICe about how the spending review has changed things at the UK level and about its direct implications for the Scottish bits of the puzzle.
And, if possible, before the debate tomorrow morning. [Laughter.]
Even I would not ask that. I was hoping that the Liberal Democrats would be able to enlighten us about whether the fossil fuel levy figure is £250 million, £180 million or £500 million, and how we can get our hands on it.
If I can answer that tomorrow, I will try to do so. The representative from SPICe was nodding right up to the point at which Rob Gibson asked for the report by tomorrow morning, but I am sure that SPICe will be able to provide the information that Wendy Alexander has asked for.
I have a couple of other points to add. We should express our disappointment that the permitted development rights have still not been brought forward. The plan talks about bringing relevant legislation into force by April 2010, which is about a year and a half after the committee said that it should have been in force. We should point out that, although we welcome some aspects of the energy efficiency action plan, there are things in our report, which was published a year past last June, on which more action should have been taken rather than just being mentioned in the plan. We might just mention that in passing.
It is also important that we point out that there is no clear timetable or action plan for what the Government will do about the energy efficiency of Government and public sector buildings. I would have thought that a fundamental starting point for any energy efficiency action would have been for the Government to state what it will do about its own energy efficiency. We should ask it to clarify what it intends to do about that. That information might come through as part of the proposed guidance, but it is disappointing that it is not referred to in the energy efficiency action plan.
If there are no other issues to raise, do members agree that the clerk and I will draft a letter to the minister to ask for clarification on the points that members have raised?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of the meeting.
12:26
Meeting continued in private until 12:44.