Emissions Targets
The IPCC report sends a stronger than ever warning that human activity is changing the global climate and that reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is the only way of limiting the extent of future climate change. It also shows that without global action, surface temperature could increase by up to 4.5°C and the sea level by up to 0.82m by the end of the century.
I thank the minister for his response and am pleased to hear about the recognition that Scotland has received in the IPCC report. However, I note that the national performance framework indicator for reducing carbon emissions has worsened. Does the minister acknowledge the huge gap between what is needed to meet our climate change and fuel poverty targets and current funding for energy efficiency in the Scottish budget?
I certainly recognise the seriousness with which Claudia Beamish takes these issues. The NPF indicator has indeed worsened, but that is in relation to our global carbon footprint; our domestic emissions—in other words, the emissions produced within Scotland—are declining. That said, I certainly recognise the need to control our global carbon footprint as well.
I thank the minister for his detailed answer, but I understand that the situation with regard to consumption-based emissions from housing has worsened. I have heard what the minister has had to say, but is he able to give further reassurance to the Parliament that this year’s budget will fully fund the climate action plan and the second report on proposals and policies? If he is unable to provide that reassurance, will he, even at this late stage, come forward with additional funding for energy efficiency and travel measures to give us confidence that we can meet our future climate change targets?
We recognise the need to follow up with action the ambition that we demonstrated in our climate change legislation, and I certainly appreciate Claudia Beamish’s sentiments on this matter. We are determined to deliver the proposals that we have set out in RPP2 and I note that under homes and communities, which covers the sustainable action fund and the climate challenge fund, we are spending £380.7 million over the three years to 2015-16.
The IPCC’s new report proposes a global carbon budget approach, making it clear that if the world is to have a reasonable chance of avoiding an increase in global warming of 2°C it can afford to emit only between 500 and 800 gigatonnes of CO2. However, the global fossil fuel reserves would emit 3,000 gigatonnes if they were to be used and the fossil fuel industry is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on looking for more.
I accept the point in the IPCC’s analysis that there is a substantial reserve of fossil fuels that, if it were burned, would damage the global effort to tackle climate change. I recognise the point that Mr Harvie has made and agree with it.
Patrick Harvie.
I was not aware that I would get a second bite of the cherry. I would be happy to ask the minister to go further and explain what proportion of Scotland’s fossil fuels he believes needs to remain in the ground unburned.
I do not have a figure to give Mr Harvie for the percentage of fossil fuels that I would like to see remain under the earth, but I accept the point that, if we were to burn all the fossil fuels in the world, we would be doing untold damage to our environment. We have an opportunity to steward our resources and look after that finite resource carefully, not burn it at an unsustainable rate, and to ensure that we make the transition to a low-carbon economy as quickly as we possibly can. I appreciate Mr Harvie’s stance. It is a principled stance that I very much respect. We are doing what we can to make the transition to a low-carbon economy as quickly as we can in the hope that that, in itself, will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and ensure that we have viable alternatives to the use of conventional fuels for our personal transport.
Is the minister aware of the deeply irresponsible comments that were made by the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Owen Paterson, at a Conservative conference fringe event? He spoke of positive aspects to global warming and appeared to suggest that, rather than act now, we can adapt to its consequences as we go along. Does the minister agree that those remarks betray a complete lack of understanding of the damaging impact that climate change has had both at home—on our farming, our coastal communities and those towns and villages that are already experiencing severe flood events—and elsewhere in the world?
The member is absolutely right. Climate change has the potential to devastate lives around the globe, particularly in developing nations, which have not caused the problem in the first place. Although the impacts of climate change might be less severe in Scotland than they are in many other parts of the world and could present very limited opportunities, potentially it will have very significant negative impacts on individuals, communities and our economy. The reduction of global emissions must be taken seriously and we must prepare effectively for the unavoidable climate change that we face. Mr Paterson’s comments are unhelpful, bearing in mind that he may well be representing the UK at the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Warsaw this year. Any comments that undermine the message that we have had consistently from UK and Scottish ministers about the importance of tackling climate change are pretty dangerous at this stage.
Mr Paterson was taken to task by Guy Newey, head of environment and energy at the Policy Exchange think tank, who said:
Absolutely. I agree fundamentally with Mr Dey’s point. The IPCC’s report summarised the evidence from more than 800 expert climate scientists about the impact that we are having on our environment and the dangers that are posed to our society as we know it. It was ill judged at this stage for Mr Paterson to come out with a comment that undermines our approach at a time when we should all be pulling together. Mr Davey, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the UK Government, is much clearer in his understanding of the report. Perhaps he should represent the UK at the conference.
Does the minister agree that reducing the amount of energy that is wasted in Scottish homes through poor insulation is a key aim? What additional efforts are planned by the Scottish Government to tackle that?
Mitigation of climate change is one aspect of our strategy. We have to control the use of energy and improve energy efficiency. The member is absolutely right to highlight the importance of such investment. That is why the investment that is being made across the UK through the green deal and domestically through the warm homes fund should be welcomed by all members. We want to ensure that sufficient resources are put in to improve the energy efficiency of our homes.
Does the minister recall that one of the key contributions to the considerations of the IPCC was the seminal report by Sir Nicholas Stern? That report identified that the costs of not dealing with climate change were some 10 times greater than those of dealing with climate change. Does the minister agree that all Governments should still take notice of that, as climate change is both an environmental and an economic disaster that could engulf the world?
I agree 100 per cent with what Stewart Stevenson has said. Nicholas Stern identified the fact that countries that act quickly will prevent much greater cost to their economies in the longer term. That is why, when we engage on international issues to do with climate change, we stress to other countries what Scotland is doing not just because we want to talk about a positive story in Scotland, but in an effort to get across the fact that there are advantages in moving quickly to implement climate change mitigation measures. As well as saving their economies cost in the long run, the creation of a low-carbon economy or an economy that is circular in its handling of waste will give rise to economic opportunities that will help to generate jobs, investment and prosperity. As the member quite rightly identifies, as a society we would face huge costs if we were not to act now to tackle what is a fundamental problem.
I want to ask the minister about the housing issue that a couple of colleagues have mentioned. Does he agree that particular challenges are faced in the private rented sector, in which it is difficult to obtain investment in houses that have already been built, particularly in light of the potential Sullivan recommendations? Does he see opportunities in that sector to ramp up energy efficiency and social justice at the same time?
Sarah Boyack raises an important point, because much of the effort that is being made to tackle emissions from housing and energy efficiency standards relate to new-build properties. In a country like Scotland that has a fantastic built heritage but of a design that is inherently inefficient, we face a huge challenge, which we must address. The cost per unit rises dramatically when solid-wall insulation and other measures are required to tackle such properties. Therefore, resources are required.
Previous
Time for Reflection